Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland the English and Irish of the Four Obedient Shires Sparky Booker

cambridge studies in medieval life and thought fourth series Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland The English and Irish of the Four Obedient Shires sparky booker

CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND IDENTITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL IRELAND

Irish inhabitants of the ‘four obedient shires’–a term commonly used to describe the region at the heart of the English colony in the later Middle Ages – were significantly anglicized, taking on English names, dress, and even legal status. However, the processes of cultural exchange went both ways. This study examines the nature of interactions between English and Irish neighbours in the four shires, taking into account the complex tensions between assimilation and the preservation of distinct ethnic identities and exploring how the common colonial rhetoric of the Irish as an ‘enemy’ coexisted with the daily reality of alliance, intermarriage, and accommodation. Placing Ireland in a broad context, Sparky Booker addresses the strategies the colonial community used to deal with the difficulties associated with extensive assimilation, and examines significant shifts in what it meant to be ‘English’ or ‘Irish’ in the face of these challenges.

Sparky Booker is a lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast and specializes in medieval Irish social, cultural, and legal history. Her publications have examined the interactions between the English of Ireland and the Irish in the later Middle Ages, and explored intermarriage, sumptuary law, ecclesiastical patronage, and the Irish in urban society. Recent work examines female litigants in medieval Ireland, and analyzes litigant strategies and the influence of wealth, status, ethnicity, and gender on women’s legal activities. Booker is keenly interested in public history, and as a member of the Friends of Medieval Dublin, she was co- founder and co-editor of the Tales of Medieval Dublin lecture series and accom- panying book. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth Series

General Editor: rosamond mckitterick Emeritus Professor of Medieval History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College Advisory Editors: christine carpenter Emeritus Professor of Medieval English History, University of Cambridge magnus ryan University Lecturer in History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Peterhouse

The series Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought was inaugurated by G. G. Coulton in 1921; Professor Rosamond McKitterick now acts as General Editor of the Fourth Series, with Professor Christine Carpenter and Dr Magnus Ryan as Advisory Editors. The series brings together outstanding work by medieval scholars over a wide range of human endeavour extending from political economy to the history of ideas.

This is book 109 in the series, and a full list of titles in the series can be found at: www.cambridge.org/medievallifeandthought CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND IDENTITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL IRELAND The English and Irish of the Four Obedient Shires

SPARKY BOOKER Queen’s University, Belfast University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06-04/06, Singapore 079906

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107128088 doi: 10.1017/9781316422519 © Sparky Booker 2018 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2018 Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. isbn 978-1-107-12808-8 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. For my mother and father

CONTENTS

List of Maps and Tables page viii Acknowledgements ix List of Abbreviations xi

INTRODUCTION: CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND IDENTITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL IRELAND 1

1 DEFINING THE REGION: THE FOUR OBEDIENT SHIRES 24

2 MIGRATION, ASSIMILATION, AND STATUS: THE IRISH OF THE FOUR SHIRES 45

3 MEDIATION AND COOPERATION: THE ‘TWO NATIONS’ IN THE CHURCH 97

4 INTERETHNIC FAMILY TIES: INTERMARRIAGE AND FOSTERAGE 143

5 IRISH CUSTOMS IN THE FOUR SHIRES 178

6 THE IRISH LANGUAGE AND THE ENGLISH COMMUNITY 214

CONCLUSIONS: IDENTITY AND THE LIMITS OF ASSIMILATION 249

Bibliography 259 Index 292

vii MAPS AND TABLES

maps 1: Key settlements of the four shires (with modern county boundaries) page 38 2: Topographical map of the four shires region 39 tables 1: Anglicized Irish names and surnames 53 2: Louth ordination list (Irish names are in italics) 114

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While researching and writing my doctoral thesis and this resulting book I have received support and kindness from so many quarters, but my greatest academic debt is to Professor Seán Duffy, my doctoral supervisor. Seán has been invariably generous, patient, and encouraging, and has given up countless hours to advise me about my work, writing, teaching, and academic life. He and our friend Thurneysen have been on hand many Friday afternoons and often on short notice to talk through the challenges that have arisen during this research. I feel very lucky to have had Seán as my mentor. For myriad kindnesses, sage advice, and reading of drafts over the years, many thanks go to Dr Peter Crooks. I am also grateful to Professor Robin Frame, Randolph Jones, Dr Katherine Simms, Dr David Ditchburn, Dr Len Scales, Professor Deborah Youngs, Dr Matthew Stevens, Professor Ralph Griffiths, and Professor Andy Walsh for their assistance and comments on aspects of this research. Thanks are also due to the archivists and staff at the National Archives of Ireland, National Library of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, and the National Archives in Kew, especially Dr Paul Dryburgh, Aideen Ireland, and Zoe Reid. The Irish Research Council has funded this research at both doctoral and postdoctoral level, and I am very grateful to them for this financial support. I would also like to thank Cambridge University Press, especially Liz Friend-Smith and Rebecca Taylor, and the series editor Professor Christine Carpenter for her thorough and insightful editing of this monograph. Her comments have been invaluable. There are many colleagues from Trinity College Dublin who have provided a great deal of material assistance, from proofreading to GIS guidance, but have been even more valuable as coffee and pub buddies. Very special thanks go to Dr Cherie Peters, Dr Grace O’Keeffe, and ix Acknowledgements Dr Caoimhe Whelan who I have worked with closely on a number of projects over the years, and who have been wonderful workmates and friends. I’dalsoliketothankDrEoinO’Flynn, Dr Aine Foley, Dr Rebecca Wall Forrestal, Dr Emma Clayton, Dr Linda Shine, Dr Brian Coleman, Dr Roman Bleier, Dr Leán Ni Clerigh, Dr Ciarán Wallace, DrVickyMcAlister,DrChristinaWade,DrEileenDiskin,andDrAoife Larkin and all of the past and present Medieval History Research centre gang. Thanks go to all my friends and family outside academia, especially to the Frisbee and Ellis girls. They also go to all the Bookers, Duffs, and Mac Devitts, especially Mac Booker for ensuring that I never take myself too seriously and Jim Steer and Mandy Wright for their warm hospitality. I am grateful to my husband Brian Mac Devitt for unfailing kindness, support and understanding and most of all for his enthusiastic cheerlead- ing whenever I have been discouraged. Finally, love and gratitude go to my parents Dan and Debby Booker, to whom this book is dedicated, for everything.

x ABBREVIATIONS

10th Report 10th Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission, appendix v, ed. J. T. Gilbert (London, 1885). AFM Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. J. O’Donovan, 7 vols (Dublin, 1848–51). AH Archivium Hibernicum AHR American Historical Review Alen’s Reg. Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s Register, ed. C. MacNeill (Dublin, 1919). AU Annála Uladh, Annals of Ulster, eds W. M. Hennessy and B. MacCarthy, 4 vols (Dublin, 1887–1901). Cal. Carew Calendar of Carew MSS, eds J. S. Brewer and W. Bullen, 6 vols (London, 1869–73). Cal. Pat. Rolls Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Ire., Hen VIII–Eliz, Chancery in Ireland in the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, ed. J. Morrin, 2 vols (Dublin, 1861–2). Cal. State Papers Ire. Calendar of State Papers relating to Ireland, 1509–1573, ed. H. C. Hamilton, et al., 23 vols (London, 1860–1903). CARD Calendar of the Ancient Records of Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 18 vols (Dublin, 1889). CCD Christ Church Deeds, eds C. MacNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960). CCR Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, 14 vols (London, 1910).

xi List of Abbreviations CDI Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1171–1307, eds H. S. Sweetman and G. F. Handcock, 5 vols (London, 1875–86). CELT Corpus of Electronic Texts, www.ucc.ie/celt (1997–2015). CIRCLE P. Crooks (ed. and trans.), A Calendar of Irish Chancery Letters c. 1244–1509, https://chancery .tcd.ie. CJR Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls of Ireland, ed. J. Mills et al., 3 vols (Dublin, 1905–56). Colony and Frontier T. B. Barry, R. Frame, and K. Simms (eds), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London, 1995). Conway, Henry A. Conway, Henry VIII’s Relations with VIII’s Relations Scotland and Ireland, 1485–1498 (New York, 1971). CPL Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, eds W. Bliss, J. A. Tremlow, et al., 20 vols (London and Dublin, 1893–2005). CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 16 vols (London, 1893–1916). Crooks, Government, P. Crooks (ed.), Government, War and Society War and Society in Medieval Ireland: Essays by Edmund Curtis, A. J. Otway-Ruthven and James Lydon (Dublin, 2008). Davies, Age of R. R. Davies, The Age of Conquest: Wales, Conquest 1063–1415 (Oxford, 2000). DIB Dictionary of Irish Biography, eds J. McGuire and J. Quinn, http://dib.cambridge.org/ (Cambridge, 2009). Dowdall Deeds Dowdall Deeds, eds C. MacNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960). Dryburgh and P. Dryburgh and B. Smith (eds), Handbook Smith, Handbook and Select Calendar of Sources for Medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the United Kingdom (Dublin, 2005). Dryburgh and Smith, P. Dryburgh and B. Smith (eds), Inquisitions Inquisitions and Extents and Extents of Medieval Ireland (Kew, 2007). Dublin City The Dublin City Franchise Roll, 1468–1512, eds Franchise Roll C. Lennon and J. Murray (Dublin, 1998).

xii List of Abbreviations eDIL Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language (Dublin, 2007), www.dil.ie. EHR English Historical Review Ellis, Ireland in the Age S. G. Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, of the Tudors 1447–1603, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1998). Ellis, Tudor Frontiers S. G. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: The Making of the British State (Oxford, 1995). Frame, English Lordship R. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 1318– 1361 (Oxford, 1982). Gormanston Reg. Calendar of the Gormanston Register, eds J. Mills and M. J. McEnery (Dublin, 1916). Griffith, Calendar of Calendar of Inquisitions Formerly in the Office of Inquisitions the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, ed. M. Griffith (Dublin, 1991). Gwynn and Hadcock, A. Gwynn and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Medieval Religious Religious Houses: Ireland, with an Appendix to Houses Ireland Early Sites (Harlow, 1970). Hand, English Law G. Hand, English Law in Ireland, 1290–1324 in Ireland (Cambridge, 1967). HI History Ireland Hore and Graves, H. Hore and J. Graves (eds), The Social State Southern and Eastern of Southern and Eastern Counties of Ireland in Counties the Sixteenth century (Dublin, 1870). IER The Irish Ecclesiastical Record IHS Irish Historical Studies IG The Irish Genealogist IHTA Irish Historic Towns Atlas, 27 vols (Dublin, 1986–2015). IJ The Irish Jurist JCLAHS Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society JCKAS Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society JMEMS Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies JMH Journal of Medieval History JRSAI Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries Ireland Lydon, The Lordship J. Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle of Ireland Ages, 2nd edn (Dublin, 2003).

xiii List of Abbreviations Lydon, Law and Disorder J. Lydon (ed.) Law and Disorder in Thirteenth- century Ireland: the Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997). MacLysaght, Surnames E. MacLysaght, The Surnames of Ireland, 4th edn (Dublin, 1997). MacLysaght, Irish Families E. MacLysaght, Irish Families, reprint 4th edn (Dublin, 1991). MacNiocaill, Crown Survey Crown Survey of Lands 1540–41 with the Kildare Rental begun in 1518, ed.G.MacNiocaill(Dublin,1994). Maginn and Ellis, C. Maginn and S. G. Ellis (eds), The Tudor The Tudor Discovery Discovery of Ireland (Dublin, 2015). of Ireland Murphy and Potterton, M. Murphy and M. Potterton, The Dublin The Dublin Region Region in the Middle Ages (Dublin, 2010). NAI National Archives of Ireland NLI National Library of Ireland NHI F. X. Martin, F. J. Byrne, et al. (eds), A New History of Ireland, 9 vols (Oxford, 1972–2011). Nicholls, Gaelic and K. W. Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Dublin, 2003). ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition, www.oxfordnb.com (Oxford, January 2008). OED Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, www.oed.com (Oxford, 2016). Ormond Deeds The Calendar of Ormond Deeds, 1172–1603, ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols (Dublin, 1932–43). Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’ D. B. Quinn, ‘The Bills and Statutes of the Irish Parliaments of Henry VII and Henry VIII’, Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 71–169. ‘Reg. Cromer’‘Register of Archbishop Cromer’, eds L. P. Murray and A. Gwynn, JCLAHS, 7:4, 8:1- 4, 9:1-2, 10:2-3 (1932–43). Reg. Fleming The Register of Nicholas Fleming: Archbishop of Armagh 1404–1416, ed. B. Smith (Dublin, 2003). Reg. Mey Registrum Iohannis Mey, eds W. G. H. Quigley and E. F. D. Roberts (Belfast, 1972).

xiv List of Abbreviations Reg. Octavian The Register of Octavian de Palatio, Archbishop of Armagh 1478–1513, ed. M. A. Sughi, 2 vols (Dublin, 1999). Reg. Prene TCD MS 557 (Register of Archbishop Prene, 2 vols, transcribed by Bishop Reeves). Reg. Swayne The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418–1439, ed. D. A. Chart (Belfast, 1935). PP Past and Present PRIA Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Richardson and Sayles, H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, The The Irish Parliament Irish Parliament in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1952). RnM Ríocht na Midhe Rot. Pat. Hib. Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Calendarium, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin, 1828). SA Seanchas Ardmhacha s.a. sub anno SHR Scottish Historical Review Smith, Colonisation B. Smith, Colonisation and Conquest in and Conquest Medieval Ireland: the English in Louth, 1170– 1330 (Cambridge, 1999). Smith, Crisis and Survival B. Smith, Crisis and Survival in Late Medieval Ireland: the English of Louth and Their Neighbours, 1330–1450 (Oxford, 2013). Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V Statutes, Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland: King John to Henry V, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1907). Stat. Ire., 1-12 Edw. IV Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland: King Edward the Fourth, ed. H. F. Berry, vol. i (2 vols, Dublin, 1914). Stat. Ire., 12-22 Edw. IV Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland: King Edward the Fourth, ed. J. Morrissey, vol. ii (2 vols, Dublin, 1939). Stat. Ire., Hen. VI Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland, Reign of King Henry VI, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1910). Stat. Ire., RIII – Hen. VIII Statute Rolls of the Irish Parliament Richard III to Henry VIII, ed. P. Connolly (Dublin, 2002).

xv List of Abbreviations State Papers Henry VIII State Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols (London, 1830–52). Studies Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review TCD Trinity College Dublin THSC Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion Topic Topic: Studies in Irish History TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society White, Extents Extents of Monastic Possessions, 1540–1, ed. N. B. White (Dublin, 1941). WHR Welsh History Review Wills Tregury and Walton Register of Wills and Inventories of the Diocese of Dublin in the Time of Archbishops Tregury and Walton 1457–1483, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1896–97).

xvi INTRODUCTION: CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND IDENTITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL IRELAND

The English colony in Ireland was over two centuries old in 1399 and a complex web of social, economic, and legal relationships had evolved between its two main population groups – the English of Ireland and the 1 Irish. The English of Ireland were descendants of English and Welsh settlers, most of whom came to the colony in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the Irish were descended both from pre-conquest Irish inhabitants of the conquered lands and from later Irish migrants who came to the colony from unconquered areas of the island. These Irish people and colonial interactions with, and reactions to, them shaped society across the colony. This was true even in the ‘four obedient shires’ of Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare. The ‘four shires’ were perceived by contemporaries, and have been treated by historians, as the colony’s most ‘English’ region. Most of the colony’s legal and administrative institutions were based in the four shires and much of the anti-Irish rhetoric and regulation that survives in late medieval sources originated 2 in them, among members of the region’s settler community. Many of these settlers belonged to families that had been resident in the colony for hundreds of years but their links with England were durable and long- lasting and they avowed their loyalty to the crown and stressed their

1 That the English-held areas of the island of Ireland can be termed a colony has been convincingly defended by John Watt, and Robin Rees Davies sees this terminology as particularly appropriate to later Middle Ages: J. A. Watt, ‘Approaches to the history of fourteenth-century Ireland’, NHI, ii, pp. 312–13; R. R. Davies, ‘Lordship or colony’ in J. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), pp. 151–3, 157–60. 2 That the settlers were part of a community has rarely been questioned: the settlers as a group were characterized by many of the aspects often used to deﬁne a community, particularly participation in collective action. Just as importantly, they had a distinct identity and asserted it as such. The settlers of the four shires also comprised a community that existed within the wider settler community, and it could be, and was, invoked and mobilized when the four shires region was threatened and needed to express its regional interests and concerns: C. Carpenter, ‘Gentry and community in medieval England’, Journal of British Studies, 33:4 (1994), 340, 378–9; S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1997), pp. 1–2. 1 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 3 enduring Englishness. In light of this, statements like those made in 1515 by Sir William Darcy, a leading member of the settler community, are initially surprising. Darcy claimed before the king of England’s council at Greenwich that in the four shires [in Ireland] which should obey the King’s laws, called Meath, Louth, Dublin, and Kildare ...all the King’s subjects of the said four shires be near hand Irish, and wear their habits and use their tongue, so as they are clean 4 gone and decayed. Petitions before the council were notoriously hyperbolic and Darcy was motivated in some measure by a wish to discredit Gerald Fitzgerald, the 5 ninth earl of Kildare, who was at that time chief governor of the colony. And yet Darcy’s portrayal of the people of the four shires as deeply influenced by their interactions with the Irish, adopting the Irish language, Irish attire, and Irish customs, is borne out by other contemporary accounts. The four shires were therefore not immune to the cultural exchange that characterized the English colony in Ireland as a whole, even though many of their inhabitants maintained a strong sense of ‘Englishness’.In this region the tensions between assimilation and the preservation of a distinct identity, between the colonial rhetoric of the Irish as ‘enemy’ and the daily reality of alliance, intermarriage, and accommodation, were particularly acute. This was more the case by the fifteenth century than ever before, as ever-growing acculturation, a rising Irish population in the region, and political and military threats to the colony made colonists all the more entrenched in their dualistic world view and animosity towards the Irish. Thus, growing anti-Irish sentiment and vehement assertions of Englishness on the one hand and growing cultural exchange in both directions on the other were directly linked, and both were characteristic

3 The work of Steven Ellis and Robin Frame, particularly, has highlighted the self-consciously English aspect of settler identity: S. G. Ellis, Reform and Revival: English Government in Ireland, 1470– 1534 (London, 1986); S. G. Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography and the English and Gaelic worlds in the late Middle Ages’, IHS, 25:97 (1986–7), 1–18; R. Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’: the English political identity in medieval Ireland’, TRHS, sixth series, 3 (1993), 83–103. See for the later sixteenth century: B. Bradshaw, The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1979); N. Canny, The Formation of the Old English Élite in Ireland: the O’Donnell Lecture (Dublin, 1975); C. Brady, The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland (Cambridge, 1994). 4 William Darcy, ‘Decay of Ireland’ in Cal. Carew, iv, pp. 7–8. For the discussion of the dating and context of this text see C. Maginn and S. G. Ellis (eds), The Tudor Discovery of Ireland (Dublin, 2015), pp. 45–8, 92. 5 S. G. Ellis, ‘An English gentleman and his community: Sir William Darcy of Platten’ in V. Carey and U. Lotz-Heumann (eds), Taking Sides? Colonial and Confessional Mentalités in Early Modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 33–4; D. B. Quinn, ‘The hegemony of the earls of Kildare’, NHI, ii, pp. 658–9. 2 Introduction 6 of four shires society, just as they characterized other frontier societies. Accordingly, it is an ideal place in which to explore the questions that have been at the heart of medieval Irish historiography for centuries: to what extent and in what ways were the English of Ireland ‘English’? How did they maintain and express this Englishness? How did they interact with their Irish neighbours and to what extent did they adopt Irish customs? How far and in what ways did these Irish people assimilate into colonial society? Irish historiography, like medieval historiographies across much of Europe, has been deeply influenced by national and nationalist ideologies, in which ethnic identities play a crucial role in justifying modern nation states. This is one use to which Ireland’s medieval past has often been put, but historical arguments about identity, ethnicity, and the origins of the Irish nation were co-opted by all parties in Irish political and religious conflicts from the sixteenth century to the present day. Contemporary political concerns and agendas, alongside a genuine preoccupation with questions of ethnicity in the medieval source material, have thus ensured that ethnicity and identity have remained at the fore in medieval Irish historiography. A central point of debate in discussions of identity has been the extent to which the settlers became distinct from the English of England by the later Middle Ages, and how much this can be attributed to their interactions with the Irish. The debate can be traced back to the earliest commentators on Irish medieval history and was particularly intense in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when it became a key point of contention in the struggle for power between the established settler community and newer arrivals from England who came to IrelandduringtheTudorandJacobean 7 reconquest and plantations. A number of influential commentaries on the

6 Wales is a particularly apt example, but the mix of animosity and cultural, political, and economic accommodation has been documented in other contemporary frontiers: R. R. Davies, ‘Race relations in post-conquest Wales’, THSC (1974–5), 32–56;H.Summerson,‘Responses to war: Carlisle and the WestMarchinthelaterfourteenthcentury’ in A. Goodman and A. Tuck (eds), War and Border Societies in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), pp. 155–77;A.MacKay,‘Religion, culture and ideology on the late medieval Castilian-Granadan frontier’ in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), pp. 217–243,esp.221–8. Naum highlights the prevalence of official narratives of a hostile, binary relationship between different groups on medieval frontiers and the coexistence of such narratives with cultural hybridity: M. Naum, ‘Difficult middles, hybridity, and ambivalence of a medieval frontier: the cultural landscape of Lolland and Falster (Denmark)’, JMH, 31:1 (2012), 56–8. Postcolonial approaches to medieval frontiers, like Naum’s, have foregrounded the process of ‘othering’, by which exaggerated binary oppositions between ethnic groups were created in the rhetoric of frontier communities like the English ofIreland.Seealso:J.J.Cohen(ed.),The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York, 2000), esp. pp. 1–8. 7 Canny, Formation of the Old English Élite; C. Lennon, ‘Richard Stanihurst (1547–1618) and Old English identity’, IHS, 21:82 (1978), 121–43; J. G. Crawford, Anglicizing the Government of Ireland: the Irish Privy Council and the Expansion of Tudor Rule, 1556–1578 (Blackrock, co. Dublin, 1993), pp. 90–111. 3 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland EnglishofIrelandwerewritteninthecontext of this battle for influence in the colony between the ‘Old English’ settlers and the ‘New English’ arrivals, and further reference will be made to these early modern disputes when 8 these commentaries are discussed in the following chapters. Debates about the ‘Englishness’ of the English of Ireland remained active in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but again intensified in the early twentieth century, as medieval history was called upon to justify and provide precedents for both unionist and nationalist movements. G. H. Orpen is the best-known proponent of a historiography, associated with unionism, that sympathized with the colonists and bemoaned the supposed contraction of the colony in the later Middle Ages. Orpen accepted that the settlers adopted some Irish cultural attributes, though 9 one gets the sense that he may not have entirely approved. Orpen’s work provoked angry responses from nationalist historians like Eoin MacNeill, founder of the Irish Volunteers. For MacNeill, the celebration of medieval Irish culture, especially language, and the assertion of the antiquity of Irish national sentiment were, in part at least, political tools in modern 10 debates about the legitimacy of an independent Irish state. Even Edmund Curtis, a friend of Orpen’s, rejected the glorification of the Norman inheritance in his work: motivated in part by his nationalist politics, Curtis argued that not only had the settlers adopted a great many Irish cultural attributes, but that some of these gaelicized ‘Anglo-Irish’ 11 constituted a ‘Home rule’ party in the later Middle Ages. Curtis has been criticized for his nationalist lines of argument and anachronistic terminology, but more recent commentaries on his scholarship have 12 asserted its enduring value. Increasing efforts were made from the 1930s onwards to steer a non-sectarian course in Irish history writing and the foundation of

8 The term ‘Old English’ was applied in the late sixteenth century to the long-standing settler community, while ‘New English’ referred persons who came to Ireland from England during the Tudor reconquest. 9 G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, 4 vols (Oxford, 1911–20), iv, pp. 304, 302–3. 10 The cultural and political were closely linked in MacNeill’s thought and in that of other 19th and 20th century Irish nationalists, most of whom did not use history with as much erudition and insight as did MacNeill, whose scholarly contributions should not be discounted because of his political agendas: E. MacNeill, Phases of Irish History, 2nd edn (Dublin, 1968 [ﬁrst published 1919]), pp. 300–22; F.J. Byrne, ‘MacNeill the historian’ in F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds), The Scholar Revolutionary: Eoin MacNeill, 1867–1945 and the Making of the New Ireland (Shannon, 1973), pp. 17–36. 11 E. Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1927); E. Curtis, ‘The spoken languages of medieval Ireland’, Studies, 8:30 (June, 1919), 234–54. 12 Ellis has been one of Curtis’ critics, while Lydon and Crooks have defended his scholarship: Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, 1–18; J. Lydon, ‘Historical revisit, Edmund Curtis, “A history of medieval Ireland”’ (1923, 1938), IHS, 31:124 (1999), 535–48; P. Crooks, ‘Introduction’ in Crooks, Government, War, and Society, pp. 25–36. 4 Introduction 13 Irish Historical Studies wasamajorstepinthisdirection. By the 1970s, historians of medieval and early modern Ireland increasingly challenged the framing of Irish history in a primarily national context. They did this in two main ways. The first was expansive, and positioned Ireland in the wider world, particularly in the context of 14 its place in the ‘British Isles’ or the ‘Atlantic World’. The second was local, and focused on regional studies and regional variation 15 within Ireland. In line with these historiographical developments of the mid-to-late twentieth century, the historiography of ethnic identity in medieval Ireland increasingly divorced itself from overtly nationalist or unionist politics but,despitethesuccessofthisrevi- sionist movement, two main strands within arguments about ethnicity persisted. The first contended that the settlers became gaelicized and in increasing sympathy with the Irish and, consequently, grew increasingly distant from England, and the other asserted that the settlers remained fundamentally English in allegiance and identity throughout the Middle Ages. Kenneth Nicholls was foremost in the argument for a gaelicized settler community with his Gaelic 16 and Gaelicized Ireland,publishedin1972, and more recently Katharine Simms and Seán Duffy, who, like Nicholls, have written extensively on the Gaelic polity as well as on the colony, have 17 highlighted the cultural links between the English and Irish. James Lydon and Art Cosgrove favoured a third argument: that the English of Ireland were, in Lydon’s(andperhapsthefourteenth- century Irish leader Domhnall Ó Néill’s) words, ‘a middle nation’, 18 distinct from both the Irish and the English. Robin Frame responded to Lydon with an article emphasizing the Englishness of the settlers, expressed through their adherence to English law, shared

13 Karl S. Bottigheimer, ‘The new new Irish history’, Journal of British Studies, 27:1 (1988), 72–9. 14 R. Frame, The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990); Ellis, Tudor Frontiers; R. R. Davies, ‘In praise of British history’ in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles, 1100– 1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 9–26; N. Canny, ‘Identity formation in Ireland: The emergence of the Anglo-Irish’ in Canny and A. Pagden (eds), Colonial identity in the Atlantic world (Princeton, 1989), pp. 159–212. 15 16 Bottigheimer, ‘New new Irish history’, 78–9. Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland. 17 K. Simms, ‘Bards and barons’ in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), pp. 177–97; K. Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church-regional and cultural’ in Colony and Frontier, pp. 177–200;S.Duﬀy, ‘The problem of degeneracy’ in Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder, pp. 103–6. 18 J. Lydon, ‘The middle nation’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland, pp. 1–26 [reprinted in Crooks, Government, War and Society,pp332–52]; A. Cosgrove, ‘Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis’ in A. Cosgrove and D. McCarthy (eds), Studies in Irish History presented to R. Dudley Edwards (Dublin, 1979), pp. 1–14. 5 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland history and engagement in political life, despite their adoption of 19 Irish cultural practices. Steven Ellis’ research has also highlighted the English aspects of settler identity. Ellis maintains that modern Irish nationalism remains influential in the historiography of the colony, and argued that the level of assimilation among the colonists has been overstated in order to integrate the English of Ireland into the Irish community and provide a medieval 20 precedent for the Irish state. Frame, Ellis and, more recently, Brendan Smith, position the colony in that wider context of the British Isles. Frame, like Rees Davies in Wales, was a pioneer of this ‘New British History’ in Ireland and Ellis has employed this approach to find striking 21 similarities between Ireland and other ‘borderlands’ in the Tudor period. This broader ‘British Isles’ outlook has significantly influenced the approach employed here, which draws on Welsh and northern English parallels, and prefers ‘English of Ireland’ to ‘Anglo-Irish’ as a term to describe the settler community. However, the work of Nicholls, Simms, and Duffy on the prevalence of cultural exchange has also influenced this study, which argues that the assimilative processes that these scholars identify elsewhere were very evident within the four shires, and that amicable and cooperative relationships between English and Irish people were commonplace. Reconciling the currents of assimilation and division that are so apparent in the historiography, just as they are in the medieval sources, and understanding how the English of Ireland reconciled them, are recurring concerns in what follows. Although most historians of the colony have commented in one way or another on the identity of the English of Ireland, the majority have focused their attention either on the twelfth to fourteenth centuries or on the sixteenth century, particularly after the reformation, while the fifteenth century, an essential link between the medieval and early modern 22 periods, remains, relatively, terra incognita. This volume sets out to

19 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 83–103, esp. 83, 90. Frame had previously stressed the Englishness of the settlers but developed his argument more fully in ‘Les Engleys’, R. Frame, ‘Power and society in the lordship of Ireland 1272–1377’, PP, 76 (1977), 26. 20 Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, 1–18. 21 J. G. A. Pocock’s call for a new focus on ‘British’ rather than national history inspired both medievalists and modernists: J. G. A. Pocock, ‘British history: A plea for a new subject’, Journal of Modern History, 47 (1975), 601–24; Frame, Political Development; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers; Davies, ‘In praise of British history’; Smith, Crisis and Survival. Many thanks to Brendan Smith for generously allowing me to read Conquest before its publication. 22 Groundbreaking work has been done by Steven Ellis, but his focus has been on the early Tudors and later, and the early ﬁfteenth century is especially neglected, although recent work has gone some way to rectifying this: R. Frame, ‘Munster in the later Middle Ages’ in R. Stalley (ed.), Limerick and South-West Ireland: Medieval Art and Architecture (Leeds, 2011), pp. 5–18; Smith, Crisis and Survival. 6 Introduction address this chronological imbalance in the historiography and also seeks to provide balance of another kind by representing the experiences of a wide and diverse range of people, English and Irish, who lived in the colony. Existing discussions of ethnicity and identity in medieval Ireland have tended, for the most part, to focus on social and political elites, 23 largely of English extraction. This is understandable given the nature of the extant sources from the period, and elites are over-represented in these pages as well, but there is nevertheless more than can be said about the lives of more humble individuals, including many of the Irish people who lived in the colony. This study draws on a range of under-utilized sources and approaches to provide a more rounded picture of life in the four obedient shires. To invoke the ethnic and increasingly ‘racial’ categories of English and Irish is not to deny that the lines between the two were indistinct and 24 contested. Indeed the growing cultural proximity of the two communities, and the difficulties this presented to those attempting to maintain the distinction between them, will be among the overarching themes explored here. And yet, concerted efforts were made within the colonial community to preserve ethnic distinctions, and surviving documentation attests to the colonialists’ desire to maintain a privileged position vis à vis 25 the Irish. Despite the reality of assimilation, ethnicity remained meaningful to contemporaries and indeed came to dictate a great deal about a person’s legal rights when legal understandings of ‘Englishness’ and sub- jecthood became increasingly well-defined across the English polity in 26 the later Middle Ages. As Ellis has argued, ‘frontiers exist in the mind’, 27 even when they were not always clear on the ground. The importance of ethnic identifiers does not mean that other classifications and bonds

23 Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’; Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’; Lydon, ‘The middle nation’. 24 The rationale behind the use of the term racial, despite the serious problems associated with it, is discussed further in the conclusion. A number of medievalists have argued that, despite the evident fallacy of racial divisions in biological terms, and the unspeakable uses to which racial ideologies have been put, the emphasis on descent in medieval imaginings of ethnicity means that it is appropriate to use ‘race’ and ‘racial’ when discussing medieval conceptions of identity: Davies, ‘Race relations’, 32–56; R. Bartlett, ‘Medieval and modern concepts of race and ethnicity’, JMEMS, 31:1 (2001), 39–56; A. Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 2013), p. 133. For the problems with using ‘race’ in a medieval context, see W. Jordan, ‘Why ‘Race’, JMEMS, 31:1 (2001), 165–73. 25 Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, 286–7; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The request of the Irish for English law, 1277–80’, IHS, 6:24 (1949), 261–69; A. Gwynn, ‘Edward I and the proposed purchase of English law for the Irish, c. 1276–80’, TRHS, 5:10 (1960), 111–27. 26 A. Ruddick, ‘Ethnic identity and political language in the king of England’s dominions: A fourteenth century perspective’ in L. Clark (ed.), Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 23–4; Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture. 27 S. G. Ellis, ‘Frontiers and identities in the historiography of the British Isles’ in L. Kluzáková and S. G. Ellis (eds), Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area (Pisa, 2006), p. 74. 7 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland within both colonial and Irish society were not significant. Familial ties and ties of lordship were particularly strong but people might also identify with their locality, their trade, their religious order, their socio-economic class, and so on; each of these groupings could, and at times did, transcend ethnic boundaries. Thus, ethnic identity was only one of many identities expressed and maintained by members of the colonial community and it might come to the fore or recede as particular circumstances dictated. This complexity and flexibility of identities has been recognized in many 28 medieval contexts. Nonetheless, ethnic identity was among the most meaningful and frequently expressed identities for many people in the colony, and categorizations of persons and practices as ‘English’ or ‘Irish’ abound in contemporary documents. In Ireland, as R. R. Davies has argued for Wales, the ‘racial distinction was an elementary and elemental 29 one’. Before going any further, a note on the terms employed here is necessary. Irish, when applied to persons, is used here to mean of Irish descent. This is the definition closest to prevailing understandings of the term in the later medieval colony, which prioritized ancestry as a marker 30 of ethnicity. Thus many persons called ‘Irish’ in what follows were 31 significantly anglicized. ‘Gaelicized’ and ‘anglicized’ are used in a primarily cultural sense, and refer to the adoption of cultural attributes like language, dress, and customs. ‘Gaelicized’ is a particularly controversial term, but it is the most straightforward way to describe that segment of the English population which, influenced by their extensive interaction with the Irish and by the practical economic and political benefits that 32 could accrue from this interaction, adopted Irish customs. It is not used to imply that all settlers who adopted Irish customs did so in the same way or to the same extent, or to doubt that they remained ‘English’ by their

28 Bartlett, ‘Medieval and modern concepts of race and ethnicity’, 42, 53; M. H. Hammond, ‘Ethnicity and the writing of medieval Scottish history’, SHR, 85:219 (2006), 19. 29 Davies, ‘Race relations’, 43. 30 See the conclusion for discussion of the growing primary of descent for conceptions of Irishness, pp. 254–8. 31 For anglicization in an earlier period see F. Verstaten Veach, ‘Anglicization in medieval Ireland: Was there a Gaelic Irish “middle nation”’ in S. Duﬀy and S. Foran (eds), The English Isles, Cultural Transmission and Political Conﬂict in Britain and Ireland, 1100–1500 (Dublin, 2013), pp. 118–36;F. Verstraten [Veach], ‘Naming practices among the Irish secular nobility in the high Middle Ages’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 43–53. 32 For debate about ‘gaelicized’ see S. G. Ellis, ‘More Irish than the Irish themselves’: The ‘Anglo- Irish’ in Tudor Ireland’, HI, 7:1 (1999), 22–6; K. W. Nicholls, ‘Worlds apart? The Ellis two-nation theory on late medieval Ireland’, HI, 7:2 (1999), 22–6. The term anglicized has rarely been challenged, and Cymricized and Wallicized have been coined for similar processes of cultural exchange in Wales: S. Dimmock, ‘Haverfordwest: An exemplar for the study of southern Welsh towns in the later Middle Ages’, WHR, 22:1 (2004), 13; M. Lieberman, ‘Anglicization in high medieval Wales: The case of Glamorgan’, WHR, 23:1 (2006), 16. 8 Introduction own reckoning and that of their community (though not always by the reckoning of the English of England). A desire to acknowledge the reality of cultural exchange, as well as the need to differentiate between the English of England and the English of Ireland, has prompted some historians to use the term ‘Anglo-Irish’ to describe the settler community. Although the term is appealing as a shorthand that expresses the cultural hybridity of settler society and distinguishes the English of Ireland from those of England, the settlers generally termed themselves ‘English’ or ‘the English of Ireland’ in this period and not ‘Irish’ or ‘Anglo-Irish’.33 This work adopts their preferred appellation, as well as those of ‘settler’ and ‘colonist’ which also emphasize ties with England and reflect contemporary ways in which the English community of Ireland envisioned 34 itself. Although the colonial community was shaped by its long tenure in Ireland, some English aspects of its identity were remarkably resilient and never eroded by cultural exchange with the Irish. The settlers maintained their belief in their own Englishness and their separateness from 35 (and superiority to) the Irish into the early modern period. This sense of difference from the Irish was based on many factors; among the most significant were the legal distinction between English and Irish, colonists’ participation in local government and in the Dublin administration, allegiance to the English crown, pride in the shared history of the settler community in founding and defending the colony, and, above all, a burgeoning sense of inherent difference between English and Irish 36 based on descent. It should be noted, however, that, by the fifteenth century and despite a growing emphasis on ancestry, ‘Englishness’ in the colony encompassed many settlers who were of Welsh descent, as well as Flemish, Norse, and

33 The earl of Kildare used the term ‘Englishe Irysshe’ in 1496, but his terminology may have been shaped by his audience in this instance, the king’s council, as the English of England were quicker to call settlers ‘Irish’: J. Lydon, ‘Nation and race in medieval Ireland’ in S. Forde, L. Johnson, and A. V. Murray (eds), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds, 1995), p. 117. Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus Hiberniis Gestis (Antwerp, 1584), contained the Latin term ‘Anglo-Hiberni’ for the English of Ireland. The use of this term may not have been as meaningful for Stanihurst as has been argued. Stanihurst’s terminology varied and depended on context: he called the English of Ireland ‘English’ when opposing them to the Irish, and Irish when speaking of them in opposition to the English of England: C. Lennon, Richard Stanihurst the Dubliner, 1547–1618 (Blackrock, co. Dublin, 1981), p. 82; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 129–30. 34 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 83; Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’,p.3. Frame has more recently queried whether ‘English’ is applicable to some men of settler descent in Munster, but there is little doubt that contemporaries in the colony still perceived them as such: Frame, ‘Munster’,p.13. 35 Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’; Canny, Formation of Old English elite. 36 Susan Reynolds has highlighted ‘regnal solidarity’ as a building block of identity in the Middle Ages and this sense of loyalty and connection to the crown was very important to the English of Ireland: Kingdoms and Communities,p.261. 9 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 37 Scottish. People of Scottish ancestry had been integrated into both the English and the Irish communities. From the limited evidence available, it appears that lowland Scots, who probably came to the colony via England, were usually integrated into the English community. The descendants of Scottish galloglasses (gallóglaigh), who came from Gaelic- speaking areas in the west of Scotland and the Isles, seem to have been integrated largely into the Irish community, though they were sometimes 38 still termed ‘Scots’ in Irish and English sources. Men and women with the surnames Welsh/Walsh and Fleming, bespeaking their non-English backgrounds, were routinely treated as part of the settler community, while many of the Hiberno-Norse were given access to English law and seem to have been largely integrated into the English community, though some, perhaps particularly those who were not based in the towns, may 39 have been considered Irish. Much of this integration occurred in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in the early decades of the colony’s existence. The last recorded attempts of Hiberno-Norse families to use their ancestry to distinguish themselves from the native Irish date from the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries and mentions of any ethnic 40 distinction other than English or Irish are rare by the fifteenth century. In the increasingly dichotomous world view of the late medieval colonists, finer distinctions within the Irish and colonial communities were 41 rarely preserved.

37 R. Frame, ‘Ireland after 1169: Barriers to acculturation on an “English” edge’ in K. Stringer and A. Jotischky (eds.), Norman Expansion: Connections, Continuities, and Contrasts (Farnham, 2013), pp. 120–1. The Welsh population of the colony was sizeable: S. Duffy, ‘The Welsh conquest of Ireland’ in E. Purcell, P. MacCotter, J. Nyhan, and J. Sheehan (eds), Clerics, Kings and Vikings: Essays on Medieval Ireland in honour of Donnchadh Ó Corráin (Dublin, 2015), pp. 103–14. 38 CJR,i,p.158; D. Ditchburn, ‘Who are the Scots? Some problems of identification and misidentification in later medieval Europe’ in P. Dukes (ed.), Frontiers of European Culture (Lewiston, New York, 1996), pp. 89–100; K. W. Nicholls, ‘Scottish mercenary kindreds in Ireland 1250–1600’ in S. Duffy (ed.), The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords, and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600 (Dublin, 2007), pp. 86–105; AFM, iv, s.a. 1418; Calendar of State Papers Ireland, 1509–1573, ed. H. C. Hamilton (London, 1860), pp. 118–19. 39 Walsh was initially used as a surname by many different, unrelated Welshmen, and not all Walshes were part of the same family: MacLysaght, Irish Families, pp. 155–6. ‘Fleming’ originally referred to people from Flanders, many of these lowlanders had settled in Wales in the early twelfth century and had come to Ireland in the company of Strongbow and his allies: Gerald of Wales, Itinerary through Wales: and a Description of Wales, ed. W. Llewelyn Williams (London, 1908), p. 77; E. MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.88. 40 Curtis, ‘Spoken languages’, 234–5; C. Parker, ‘Ostmen in post-Norman Waterford’, Decies, 49 (1994), 33–4. 41 Persual of chancery and parliamentary materials reveals that ethnic categories other than English and Irish are rarely mentioned in the fifteenth century, and persons of other ethnic backgrounds had been integrated, legally at least, into one of those categories. A Scottish inhabitant of the colony was judged to be anglicus by virtue of his Scottish ancestry (!) in 1297: CIRCLE, passim; Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, passim; CJR, 1295–1303,p.158. 10 Introduction These questions about definitions of Englishness, Irishness, and identity were acute in the four obedient shires, the region at the heart of this monograph. Regional studies have become increasingly popular in recent decades, and lordships, counties, and manors have proved fruitful spheres of 42 study in Ireland as elsewhere. These units, for the most part, have the great benefit of being well-defined geographically. The bounds of the four shires region, in comparison, are frustratingly nebulous and shifting, and defining the extent of the region will be a major concern of Chapter 1. Despite difficulties in knowing precisely where the four shires region began and ended, it is ideal as a study area for issues of cultural exchange and identity. It was of great contemporary relevance and contained a self-aware community that acknowledged itself as such. The four shires were often treated as a unit administratively, and, even more importantly, they were perceived as a region – the most English region of English Ireland – in the mental reckoning of the colonists. Although historians have commented in brief on the development of the four shires region, the area has been curiously lacking in sustained regional study, which has concentrated 43 instead on the individual counties of Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare. Study of the four shires region can help to counterbalance the tendency in the historiography to ring-fence the areas around Dublin and other, more secure parts of the colony and contrast them to outlying areas,

42 Á. Foley, The Royal Manors of Medieval Co. Dublin: Crown and Community (Dublin, 2013); D. Edwards, The Ormond Lordship in County Kilkenny, 1515–1642: The Rise and Fall of the Butler Family (Dublin, 2003); Smith, Crisis and Survival; Smith, Colonisation and Conquest. For over a century, Victoria County History Society has been instrumental in fostering the study of English counties and other particularly fruitful regional studies in England and Wales, both monographs and articles in edited collections, have looked at manors, counties, and lordships. See, for example, J. Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender and Household in Brigstock before the Plague (Oxford, 1987); M. F. Stevens, Urban Assimilation in Post-Conquest Wales: Ethnicity, Gender and Economy in Ruthin, 1282–1348 (Cardiﬀ, 2010); J. C. Ward, The Essex Gentry and the County Community in the Fourteenth Century (Essex, 1991); M. Bailey, Medieval Suﬀolk: An Economic and Social History, 1200–1500 (Woodbridge, 2007); C. Dyer, ‘Landscape, farming and society in an English region: The Inquisitions Post Mortem for the West Midlands, 1250–1509’ in M. Hicks (ed.), The Later Medieval Inquisitions Post Mortem: Mapping the Medieval Countryside and Rural Society (Woodbridge, 2016), pp. 59–83; Z. Razi and R. Smith (eds), Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford, 1996). 43 Frame, ‘Munster’,p.7; Lydon, ‘Problem of the frontier’,p.326; Ellis, ‘Frontiers and identities’, p. 69; Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region; Smith, Crisis and Survival; Smith, Colonisation and Conquest; B. Smith, ‘A county community in early fourteenth-century Ireland: The case of Louth’, EHR, 108:428 (1993), 561–88; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval county of Kildare’, IHS, 11:43 (1959), 181–99; M. A. Lyons, Church and Society in County Kildare, c. 1470– 1547 (Dublin, 2000); K. Abraham, ‘Patterns of landholding and architectural patronage in late medieval Meath’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Queens University Belfast (1991); M. O’Neill, ‘The medieval parish churches in county Meath’, JRSAI, 132 (2002), 1–56; C. Lennon, ‘The parish fraternities of county Meath in the late Middle Ages’, RnM, 19 (2008), 85–101; L. Clare, On the Edge of the Pale: The Rise and Decline of an Anglo-Irish Community in County Meath, 1170–1530 (Dublin, 2006). 11 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland arguing that the ‘degeneracy’–the departures from English norms – bemoaned by the colonial administration was a problem of the unsettled borderlands or marches, and not of the core of the colony. In this way, the abundant evidence we have for cultural exchange and gaelicization can be reconciled with the staunch Englishness expressed in so much of the surviving documentation. Thus, the inhabitants of the unstable edges of the colony are blamed for degeneracy and the colonists of the core credited with maintaining their loyalty and cultural affinity to England. J. A. Watt summarized this view in his commentary on the historiography of fourteenth-century Ireland with his remarks about the ‘hibernicised “English by blood” of the march areas, straggling precariously across both cultures. These were the men whom the Irish parliament had in mind when in 1297 44 it referred to persons who were in a condition “as if degenerate’”. This identification of marchers as the ‘degenerate’ settlers is too easy a resolution of a situation that was vastly more complex. This study of the four shires shows that gaelicization was a fact of life there just as it was elsewhere. We cannot, therefore, explain away the seemingly paradoxical coexistence of cultural exchange and enduring Englishness by splitting the colonial community into ‘gaelicized’ and ‘non-gaelicized’ poles, and must find different ways of understanding how the colonial community envisioned its interactions with the Irish and Irish culture. The developments in the four shires discussed in the following will be framed when appropriate with reference to other areas, particularly other parts of the colony to the south and west. These were shaped by many of the same forces as the four shires, though with important regional differences, which will be noted where relevant. The situation in the four shires will also be contextualized with evidence from elsewhere in the English polity, particularly Wales and its marches and the north of England. Like these regions, the Irish colony has been fruitfully examined in the context of frontier studies, especially in terms of the influence of 45 warfare and militarization on colonial society. These comparative frontier and British Isles approaches are widely accepted and yet it is worth 46 touching on the rationale behind these comparisons. The colony shared

44 Watt, ‘Approaches to fourteenth-century Ireland’,p.310. 45 J. Lydon, ‘The problem of the frontier in medieval Ireland’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 317–31 [originally published in Topic, xxiii (1967), 5–22]; P. J. Duﬀy, ‘The nature of the medieval frontier in Ireland’, Studia Hibernica, 22–3 (1982–3), 21–38; B. Smith, ‘The concept of the march in medieval Ireland: The case of Uriel’, PRIA, 88c(1988), 257–69. For deﬁnitions and discussion of frontiers as militarized regions, see E. Lourie, ‘A society organised for war: Medieval Spain’, PP, 35:1 (1966), 54–76; R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989). 46 P. Crooks, ‘Medieval Ireland and the wider world (review article)’, Studia Hibernica, 35 (2008–9), 167–86. 12 Introduction with Wales and the northern borders the same monarch, similar legal systems and bureaucracies and often administrative and military personnel, as well as social and familial ties between their elites. These regions − the borders of northern England, the English colony in Ireland, and English settlements in Wales − were all marked by dualistic perceptions of the world and some measure of fear and distrust about the neighbouring peoples. They were also marked by accommodation, in Wales and 47 Ireland to a remarkable degree. The English crown and its officials in these areas employed some of the same strategies for dealing with frontier situations, legally and socially, and the similarities and differences in pro- 48 cedures in each area illuminate the Irish situation. Events in the colony and Wales were shaped by the sometimes conflicting aims of the ‘central administration, the colonists, and the indigenous community’, which were 49 ‘the three essential elements of the classic colonial situation’. Tensions among these groups could be manifested in similar ways in Wales and Ireland: for example, colonial opposition in both areas frustrated crown 50 efforts to integrate the native populations. The interplay between these three groups is at the heart of any discussion of identity, and the historiography of anglicization, ‘Wallicization’ and ‘Cymricization’ in Wales, as a parallel to gaelicization and anglicization in Ireland, reveals how much that 51 historiography has engaged with similar themes. Northern England, though not a colony as Ireland and Wales were, was a frontier and locus for intensive interaction between English and non-English societies that were militarized and often in conflict. Ellis indeed has argued that the northern borders are the more appropriate comparison for Ireland after the Edwardian conquest of Wales, since they 52 remained militarized in a way that Ireland was and Wales was not. Scots in northern England faced many of the same disabilities as the Irish in the colony, particularly during times of war between Scotland and England, 53 and similar legal procedures arose for dealing with them. Extensive magnate power in the colony and on the northern borders is another key 54 similarity. Comparisons with English-held territories in France will also

47 Stevens, Urban Assimilation,p.6. 48 Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’,pp80–1; Nicholls, ‘Celtic contrasts’, 22–6; C. Neville, ‘Scottish inﬂuences on the medieval laws of the Anglo-Scottish marches’, SHR, 81:212 (2002), 164. 49 J. Beverly Smith, ‘Crown and community in the principality of north Wales in the reign of Henry Tudor’, WHR, 3:2 (1966), 156. 50 Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, 286–7; Smith, ‘Crown and community in Wales’, 156, 170. 51 Lieberman, ‘Anglicization in Wales’, 1–26; Dimmock, ‘Haverfordwest’, 1–28, esp. 13. 52 Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’,p.75. 53 J. A. F. Thompson, ‘Scots in England in the ﬁfteenth century’, SHR, 79:207 (2000), 3–6. 54 Frame, Political Development of the British Isles, pp. 200–6. 13 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland be ventured from time to time in the body of the study. As a much newer borderland, whose boundaries changed dramatically (and much of which was gained and lost) in the period studied here, on the European main- land, and on the borders of a major European monarchy, it was significantly different from the other three and has less often been compared to 55 them. Interestingly, although it had a smaller and much newer settler population, concentrated in the garrison towns, studies of those English people who did settle in France have found that, just as in other borderlands, accommodation, intermarriage, and cultural exchange were 56 common. All four of these locales shared something else, in that their inhabitants all experienced, in different ways and to very different extents, 57 discrimination from the English of southern/lowland England. This is apparent in Henry VIII’s adjuration to his army in 1513 that ‘no man give no reproach to none other by cause of the country that he is of; that is to 58 say, be he French, English, Northern, Welsh or Irish’. Contemporary documents survive that group some or all of these areas together; these 59 originated both in English circles and outside them. And yet comparisons are necessarily inexact because of the differing political, social, and geographic conditions of each area. Discussion of developments in Wales, the northern borders, and, to a lesser extent, English France, can nevertheless help to position the Irish evidence in its proper context and determine which aspects of cultural exchange and identity formation were typical of frontier situations in the English world, and which were unusual or even unique to the four shires.

55 Andrea Ruddick and David Green have recently placed Gascony and, in the later fourteenth century, the principality of Acquitaine of which it became part, in their ‘British Isles’ context, and Green has compared political events of the 1360s in Aquitaine and the colony, but, as they note, these French possessions did not have signiﬁcant English settler populations, and this makes them particularly unsuitable to examine questions about interaction between ethnic/national communities: A. Ruddick, ‘Gascony and the limits of medieval British Isles history’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages (Houndmills, 2009), p. 77; D. Green, ‘Lordship and principality: Colonial policy in Ireland and Aquitaine in the 1360s’, Journal of British Studies, 47:1 (2008), pp. 6–7. 56 G. L. Thompson, Paris and its People under English Rule: the Anglo-Burgundian Regime, 1420–1436 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 216–17; C. Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy 1415–1450 (Oxford, 1983), esp. ‘An English town’; R. Massey, ‘Lancastrian Rouen: Military service and property holding 1419–49’ in D. Bates and A. Curry (eds), England and Normandy in the Middle Ages (London, 1994), pp. 269–86. 57 The opposition of lowland versus highland, rather than comparing along national boundaries has been an inﬂuential element of Ellis’ work: S. G. Ellis, ‘“Not mere English” the British perspective 1400–1650’, History Today, 38:12 (1988), 41–8. 58 Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’,p.87. 59 A Scottish attack on English ‘tyranny’ in 1442 claimed that English cruelty was ‘notorious’, ‘as is plain to see from their usurpations against France, Scotland, Wales and Ireland’ (ut pateat manifeste de eorum usurpatio contra Franciam, Scociam, Walliam, hiberniam): R. B. Dobson, ‘The last English monks on Scottish soil: The severance of Coldingham priory from the monastery of Durham, 1461–78’ in Dobson, Church and Society, pp. 114–5. 14 Introduction There is little doubt that the colonial community within the four shires region was politically English. It was obedient to the kings of England, inasmuch as it accepted that an English king had the right to rule the colony in Ireland. It is true that there were several rebellions in the period covered here, two Yorkist pretenders to the English throne were launched from Ireland, and the Irish parliament convened by the exiled 60 Duke of York in 1460 declared that Ireland was ‘corporate of itself’. These events are, however, best interpreted in the context of the Wars of the Roses and were not motivated by serious or sustained separatist 61 aspirations. The question was not whether an English king should be lord of Ireland, but rather which person was rightfully king of England. Ireland was a possession of the English monarch as lord of Ireland (in theory this applied to the whole island, but crown control never extended 62 so far) until 1541 when Henry VIII was declared king of Ireland. English kings exercised control of the colony primarily through the appointment and instruction of officials in the colonial administration. The legislative, administrative, and judicial institutions that these appointees oversaw were, on both a municipal and a governmental level, modelled closely 63 on those of England, though they displayed some unique characteristics. The colony’s administration was headed by the king’s representative, the 64 justiciar or king’s lieutenant. He presided over the Irish parliament, a body whose procedures paralleled, but were not identical to, those in England. It was an itinerant body (travelling much more frequently than the English parliament), and may have continued to have a single chamber

60 Stat. Ire., Hen.VI, pp. 645–7. For these events see A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn (New York, 1980), esp. chapters 11–12; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, pp. 60–3, 84–5, 87–8. 61 James Lydon, Art Cosgrove, and others have argued that the events of 1460 did indicate separatist sentiment among the English of Ireland. While it is true that the colonists resented interference on the part of officials sent from England, Ellis’ argument that this never represented a genuine wish to break ties with the English crown is convincing: Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, pp. 15–18; Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland, pp. 203–7; A. Cosgrove, ‘Parliament and the Anglo-Irish community: The declaration of 1460’ in A. Cosgrove and J. I. McGuire (eds), Parliament and Community: Historical Studies XIV (Belfast, 1983), pp. 37–8. 62 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 3,p.304; J. Lydon, ‘Ireland and English crown’, 281–94. 63 For the Irish parliament in this period see: Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament. Work on other government bodies generally has not addressed the fifteenth century, but can still be of use in discussing those institutions in this period: Hand, English Law in Ireland; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval Irish chancery’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 106–20; A. J. Otway- Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 121–40. 64 The term justiciar was used more often until the late fourteenth century, while lieutenant became more common in the fifteenth century. The latter title conveyed a higher position, but, as Otway- Ruthven notes, there seems to have been little practical difference in the powers exercised by justiciars and lieutenants: J. A. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The chief governors of medieval Ireland’ in Crooks, Government, War, and Society [first published JRSAI, 95:1/2 (1965), 227–36], p. 81. 15 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 65 later than the English parliament. It drafted its own legislation, as well as proclaiming – and by the fifteenth century perhaps approving – English 66 statutes. Records of this parliament survive from throughout the later 67 Middle Ages. Other branches of the colonial administration were modelled on English exemplars, although they differed from these in some particulars, 68 especially size, organizational complexity, and record-keeping practice. The late medieval colony had its own chancery which conducted the secretarial work of the administration and issued letters patent and close (many of which survive only in later calendars), and its own exchequer, 69 whose records tracked payments made to, and by, the administration. The chancery was itinerant, though it was most often in Dublin in the fifteenth century and the exchequer was based in Dublin before 1361 and after 1394: it was at Carlow in the intervening years in an effort to be more accessible to the south of the colony, but was moved when Carlow came 70 under increasing pressure from Irish attacks. The colony developed central law courts which were rough corollaries of English courts, including the justiciar’s court (which has been compared to king’s bench), the Dublin bench (which was similar to the court of common pleas), and the eyre; as in England the general eyre did not survive in the colony after the early fourteenth century and only the Dublin bench provides any

65 F. M. Powicke and E. B. Fryde (eds), Handbook of British Chronology, 2nd edn (London, 1961), pp. 528–34. 66 The only sustained study of this body is Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament. For the relationship of the Irish parliament to English statutes see Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, 281–94; Cosgrove, ‘Parliament and the Anglo-Irish community’, 25–41; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, pp. 61–2, 93, 144, 188. 67 Stat. Ire, John-Hen. V; Stat. Ire., Hen IV; Stat. Ire., Edw. IV, 1–12; Stat. Ire., Edw. IV, 12–22; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII. 68 The chancery, and probably the exchequer, were smaller and less hierarchically complex than that in England. Many of the administrative records from the colony, both secular and ecclesiastical, were more miscellaneous in nature than English ones, and were usually not ordered according to the distinct specialized categories that arose in English record-keeping: CIRCLE, https://chan cery.tcd.ie/content/irish-chancery-rolls; G. O. Sayles, ‘Review of Calendar of justiciary rolls’, EHR, 73:286 (1958), 105; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval Irish chancery’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society,p.110 [ﬁrst published Album Helen Maud Cam, 2 vols (Louvain- Paris, 1960–1), ii, 119–38]; Register Mey, xli–xlii. 69 The chancery was established in 1232, while, although the ﬁrst treasurer of Ireland was not formally recognized until 1215, some kind of exchequer was in operation even before the reign of King John: Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval Irish chancery’,p.106; F. X. Martin, ‘John, lord of Ireland, 1185–1216’ in NHI, ii, pp. 143–4. For these bodies see introductory material in CIRCLE; Irish Exchequer Payments 1270–1447, ed. P. Connolly (Dublin, 1998), ix–xv; J. Lydon, ‘The Irish exchequer in the thirteenth century’, Bulletin of the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, 81:99 (1958), 1–2. 70 J. A. Watt, ‘The Anglo-Irish colony under strain, 1327–99’ in NHI, ii, p. 369; Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval Irish chancery’, pp. 112–4. 16 Introduction 71 court rolls for the period examined here. The law used in these courts was English common law and many of the justices and lawyers who practised in them were trained in England, although they nevertheless permitted some (relatively minor) departures from common law practice in English 72 courts. Local government was also administered largely on English models, though, as in England and Wales, there were local differences in 73 procedure and terminology. Sheriffs and their deputies enforced law in the colony’s counties, many of which were shired in the thirteenth century, and keepers of the peace, serving both judicial and military 74 roles, assisted them. There were town councils, with mayors and bailiffs and hundred courts in the colony’s towns, and manorial courts that used customary law on the colony’s manors. The liberties were overseen administratively by seneschals and had their own liberty courts which seem to have used common law procedures. By 1399 the only major liberty in the four shires was the liberty of Trim or Meath; the liberty of Kildare was reinstated c. 1514 but did not survive the fall of the house of Kildare in 1534.75

71 Hand, English Law in Ireland, esp. chapters 3–5; NAI CB 1/5–10; C. Burt, ‘The demise of the general eyre in the reign of Edward I’, EHR, 120:485 (2005), 1–14. 72 P. Brand, ‘Irish law students and lawyers in late medieval England’, IHS, 32:126 (2000), 164–6, 173. As Brand argued, justices were appointed to hear pleas ‘according to the law and custom of our land of Ireland’, implying that a distinction between common law in England and Ireland was largely accepted by the crown administration: P. Brand, ‘The birth and early development of a colonial judiciary: The judges of the lordship of Ireland, 1210–1377’, in W. N. Osborough (ed.), Explorations in Law and History: Irish Legal History Society Discourses, 1988–1994 (Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 1995), pp. 21, 33–4. Law also varied locally in manorial courts, as it did in England and Wales, but common law courts in Ireland certainly accepted some local variants in inheritance customs. This was particularly clear in the case of dower entitlements, which were greater in Ireland for women without children (at one-half rather than one-third of their husband’s property). A greater provision of one-half, rather than a third, of a man’s chattels to his widow, if childless, was in place in London’s city courts, so the general principle in place in the colony was not unknown in England itself: L. Bonﬁeld, ‘The nature of customary law in the manor courts of medieval England’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31:3 (1989), 531–2; B. Hanawalt, ‘The widow’s mite: Provision for medieval London widows’ in L. Mirrer (ed.), Upon my husband’s death: Widows in the literature and histories of medieval Europe (Ann Arbor, 1992), p. 24; CJR,i,p.363; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 195–203. 73 Steven Ellis has lambasted Irish historiography for its tendency to treat England as homogeneous, and represented by lowland areas: Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, 4–6. 74 Keepers of the peace in Ireland maintained a more military character than in England, but did adopt some of those judicial duties that English keepers increasingly assumed: R. Frame, ‘The judicial powers of the medieval Irish keepers of the peace’ in R. Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170– 1450 (London, 1998), pp. 301–3 [ﬁrst published in IJ, 2:2 (1967), 308–26]. 75 The liberty of Meath devolved to crown when the Duke of York died in 1460 and was suppressed until its restoration in 1472 (though still in crown hands), when it quickly dissolved and reinstated again in 1478, before being absorbed into county Meath in 1479: M. Potterton, Medieval Trim: History and Archaeology (Dublin, 2005), pp. 113–15; S. Ellis, ‘The destruction of the liberties: Some further evidence’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 54 (1981), 155–8; B. Hartland, ‘The liberties of Ireland in the reign of Edward I’ in M. Prestwich (ed.), Liberties and Identities in the Medieval British Isles (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 200–16. 17 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland These myriad local and central administrative bodies in the colony generated a wealth of documentation, but the bulk of it does not survive. The paucity of surviving records from medieval Ireland is due in a large part to the attrition of documents through neglect or mishap in the medieval and early modern periods as well as one spectacularly devastat- ing incident when the archives were shelled during the Irish Civil War in 76 1922. In comparison to medieval England in particular, the surviving primary source material is patchy and incomplete. This is especially the case for the fifteenth century, which accounts, in part, for the fact that few scholars of medieval Ireland have focused on this period. It is not only that the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries lie in a something of a no man’s land between the medieval and early modern periods, but they also lack valuable sources like, for example, the records of the itinerant justiciar’s court, annalistic sources from the colony, and cartularies that survive from preceding centuries, and, until the last few decades of the period discussed here, the huge volume of material contained in the state 77 papers of Henry VIII and his successors. Despite this, there are numerous sources that can shed light on ethnic relations in the four shires in the later Middle Ages. Some of these were preserved in England, as a result of correspondence between crown and colonial administrations or as an outgrowth of the many personal, familial, and legal links between England and the colony. For example, elite families with lands in both England and Ireland preserved materials relating to their Irish estates in their family papers and the king’s subjects in Ireland could, in theory, appeal to him for justice by petitioning him directly and using his courts in England, the records for which contain a small cache of Irish 78 material. However, although repositories of legal and administrative records in England have preserved important documents relating to the 79 colony in this period, the day-to-day governing and record keeping for thecolonywasinthehandsofthecolonialadministration.

76 P. Crooks, ‘Reconstructing the past: The case of the medieval Irish chancery rolls’ in F. M. Larkin and N. M. Dawson (eds.), Lawyers, the Law and History: Irish Legal History Society Discourses and other Papers, 2006–2011 (Dublin, 2013), pp. 281–309. 77 CJR; Friar John Clyn, The Annals of Ireland, ed. B. Williams (Dublin, 2007); Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, Dublin with the Register of its House at Dunbrody and Annals of Ireland, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols (London, 1884). 78 For family papers of Irish interest in English archives, see B. C. Donovan and D. Edwards (eds), British Sources for Irish History (Dublin, 1997). The courts of exchequer, chancery, and King’s Bench were all appealed to by litigants from the colony, but their right to do so was sometimes contested and such appeals were relatively uncommon: Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 125–6. 79 Smith and Dryburgh, Handbook; Donovan and Edwards, British Sources for Irish History; State Papers Henry VIII. 18 Introduction The source collections that survive from these administrative bodies vary in form and purpose, but they were all generated by the English community in Ireland and its English-style institutions. The parliament rolls, for example, reflect the preoccupations of the settler elite who served in the colonial administration. The desire to maintain legal superiority over, and distinction from, the Irish and a willingness to bend the rules and make the accommodations necessitated by colonial life are equally apparent. The Irish rarely served in administrative roles in the administration, and never at the highest levels, so the picture we get from these sources is almost entirely from the perspective of the settlers. Additionally, the parliament in Ireland was dominated by various leading magnates – the Talbots and Ormonds, alternately, for much of the first half of the fifteenth century, and the earls of Kildare from the 1460supto the 1530s – and it is clear that parliamentary decisions were influenced by a wide variety of personal conflicts and aims and peculiar circumstances. Civic records, like the franchise rolls and municipal enactments of the Dublin city council, were produced by a slightly different social milieu of well-to-do merchants and townspeople who were largely English by descent. Municipal enactments, like those of the Dublin administration, were public documents drafted by consensus by groups of individuals. Thus, they can only reveal glimpses of what the individual and personal 80 views of the English of Ireland may have been. Collections of deeds, extents of land and related documents, like those of the Dowdall, Preston, Butler, and Fitzgerald families, contain little direct commentary on ethnic interaction or identity but reveal the ways in which the English and Irish interacted economically and socially, as they show who granted to land to whom, who acted as witnesses for land transactions, who the tenants were 81 on a given piece of land and often who was married to whom. The extents of monastic possession, which were generated in 1540–1 during a survey of monastic lands conducted in the wake of Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, post-date this study but provide information about Irish jurors and tenants that can be extrapolated back into the early sixteenth and perhaps even fifteenth centuries.82

80 Frame hints at this inability to access private perceptions with his reference to the ‘unbuttoned moments’ of English of Ireland: Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 94, 97. 81 The Butler family of earls of Ormond was not resident in four shires but they held signiﬁcant lands in there in the later Middle Ages. 82 Christopher Brooks has highlighted the fact that juries in England were composed of older, established local elites, so jurors were usually long-resident in an area while Max Lieberman has argued that extents in Wales can tell be ‘read back’ into earlier periods to study the process of anglicization: C. W. Brooks, Law, Politics and Society in Early Modern England (New York, 2008), p. 254; Lieberman, ‘Anglicization in Wales’, 3, 8–13. 19 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Ecclesiastical records provide a useful counterpoint to the records of the colonial administration and offer a different perspective on late medieval society in the colony, one that was not dominated by the English/Irish divide or concern with maintaining that dichotomy. The diocesan structure of the church in Ireland predated the conquest and so did not respect the division on the island between areas controlled by the English and those under the sway of Irish lords. Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, who presided over the two Irish sees that lay along the eastern seaboard and encompassed the four shires, were almost exclusively English, from England or from the settler community, but they presided over mixed dioceses under both English and Irish control. The extensive registers of the archbishop of Armagh and, to a lesser extent, the surviving materials from the archbishop of Dublin demonstrate the influence that these mixed ecclesiastical units had on interethnic relationships and reveal the attitudes of these churchmen towards the Irish. Papal records relating to Ireland also shed light on the ways in which the Irish and English interacted in the ecclesiastical sphere. Treatises addressing the ‘problem of Ireland’ and histories of the colony written by English authors both from Ireland and England in the sixteenth century are polemical and, in many ways, more problematic than record sources created by secular and ecclesiastical institutions, which for the most part were internal memoranda, not created to sway an audience. These treatises and histories were often intended for the royal ear or at least for royal councillors and advisers and were shaped by factional divisions within the colonial community and by the contest between that community and newer arrivals from England for control in 83 the colony. They often, therefore, were designed to convince their audience that their author’s faction or community should lead the 84 ‘reform’ of Ireland and they must be assessed in that light. Nevertheless these treatises and histories contain a wealth of information about ethnic interaction and identity, and the pitfalls and peculiarities inherent to each of these works will be addressed individually in the following as the material in them is discussed. However, there is one key methodological element in my approach to these rich and varied sources

83 For the forms and aims of these treatises (which diﬀered according to author), see the introduc- tions by Canny, Quinn, and Bradshaw: Rowland White, ‘Discors Touching Ireland (1569)’, ed. N. Canny, IHS, 20 (1977), 439–445; Anonymous, ‘A Treatise for the Reformation of Ireland’, ed. B. Bradshaw, IJ, 16 (1981), 299–303; Edward Walshe, ‘Conjectures concerning the State of Ireland’, ed. D.B. Quinn, IHS, 5 (1946–7), 303–314. 84 For the way in which these conﬂicts manifested in reform treatises and histories generally see Canny, ‘Identity Formation in Ireland’; Canny, Formation of the Old English Élite; V. McGowan- Doyle, The Book of Howth: Elizabethan Conquest and the Old English (Cork, 2011), chapters 1 and 6. 20 Introduction which needs to be explained at this juncture, and that is the use of names as an ethnic identifier. It can be difficult to determine whether particular men and women who appear in these sources would have been considered English or Irish, and their ethnicity is rarely stated explicitly. However, given the primacy of descent in contemporary ideas of ethnicity, names are valuable evidence, since they offer clues as to who a person’s ancestors were; they are also often the only clue we have about a person’s ethnicity. Surnames are more useful in this sense than first names, because, though they were not immutable, the practice of passing a name from father to child, retaining the same basic form, was widespread by the fifteenth century, and thus, by this point, surnames usually indicated that a given person was related to a 85 particular family. There are a great many caveats to this, since Irish people resident in the colony sometimes adopted English occupational and descriptive surnames in an effort to assimilate. Moreover, inconsistent and sometimes bizarre renderings of names can make them difficult to identify. People used aliases, employing different names for different situations, although, usefully, many administrative sources record each 86 of the aliases or alternative name forms in order to avoid confusion. Some surnames have both an Irish and an English origin, and it can be impossible in some cases to ascribe one ethnicity or the other to people 87 bearing those names. Furthermore, surnames preserve only paternal lines of descent, not maternal ones. This greatly obscures the complexity of life on the ground. And yet surnames remain valuable evidence of ethnicity and they were clearly considered key ethnic markers in the colony in the later Middle Ages, as the discussion of inquisitions into 88 ethnicity in Chapter 3 demonstrates. First names can be of some assistance in determining ethnicity, particularly as English people in the four shires rarely adopted Irish first names, and thus people with Irish first names were more often than not of Irish parentage. English first names, however, are more problematic, since a high proportion of the Irish population of the colony used English first names, or, at least, names that were rendered in English forms in the record sources. Nicknames,

85 Woulfe has argued that ﬁxed surnames developed as early as the tenth century in Ireland, but modern historians have argued for a later date. Even if this tenth century date is too early, surnames were common in Ireland and in much of western Europe by the ﬁfteenth century: P. Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedeal is Gall/ Irish Names and Surnames (Dublin, 1922), p. 1; S. Wilson, The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in Western Europe (London, 1998), p. 117. 86 J. C. Holt, What’s in a Name? Family Nomenclature and the Norman Conquest (Reading, 1981), p. 6. See below, pp. 88–9 . 87 Nolan and Logan, for example, were used by families of both Norman and Irish origin: MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 197, 237; Wills Tregury and Walton,p.102. 88 See below, pp. 91–4. 21 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland usually taken from the Irish language, are also only suggestive, since they were used by both the Irish and the English, though they were more common among the former. Yet careful examination of each name on a case-by-case basis, incor- porating any other available information, can provide us with reasonably secure ethnic identifications for most names, at least in the paternal line. I have noted those people for whom identification is impossible or very uncertain. Analysing a large body of evidence will, it is hoped, ensure that the few inevitable misidentifications of names will not invalidate the overall conclusions. When possible, anglicized Irish surnames appear in the form in which they are recorded in a given source, which is usually a phonetic, English rendering, followed by their Irish form in italics.89 Often, surnames that appear in colonial sources are clearly of Irish provenance but it is not clear what particular Irish name they signify. In such cases, they are treated as Irish, but are followed with a question mark, or with a probable/possible Irish form and a question mark to signify that the Irish form suggested is not certain. In the interest of reducing repetition, some of the Irish names most often found in anglicized forms in the four shires appear with only their English forms in the text and are listed in 90 table 1 (Chapter 2) with their most likely Irish form(s). The anglicized names cannot be silently interchanged in the text with the Gaelic forms for two reasons: many of the people using the names were significantly anglicized, and it is not accurate to impose the Irish form upon them; and some of the attributions are tentative. Including the spellings as they appear in the sources allows readers to make up their own minds about the attributions ventured here. Those Irish people discussed who lived outside the colony and were unlikely to have been anglicized appear with Irish versions of their names (if known). English surnames appear with the spelling given in the source material unless they are unambiguous and have a widely accepted standard version – for example, Taaf and Taff are given as Taaffe, Cusak as Cusack, fitsgerrot and similar forms as Fitzgerald. Politically prominent and wealthy families appear much more often in the sources and the most detailed genealogical information invariably survives for them. This means that each name and family cannot be discussed at the same length and some, less prominent, families remain almost entirely obscure. This is, unfortunately, unavoidable, but every effort has been made to represent the experiences of non-elites. The use of names as the primary mark

89 The Irish surnames expert Edward MacLysaght is the source of these Irish forms unless otherwise noted: MacLysaght, Surnames; MacLysaght, Irish Families. 90 Table 1 appears on pp. 53–4. 22 Introduction of ethnicity means, that this study can take into account people about whom we know little else. Using the sources, terminology, and methodological approaches outlined above, Chapter 1 will trace the emergence of the four shires as distinct region and define its boundaries and characteristics before moving on to thematic chapters. The first of these, Chapter 2, will examine the large and growing Irish population of the region and assess how well integrated it was into colonial society, discussing the ways in which Irish people adapted and, often, became anglicized. The church played a vital role in facilitating the process of migration and integration of the Irish into the four shires, and the myriad ways in which the church not only reflected but encouraged interethnic interaction and cooperation in the region will be considered in Chapter 3. Cultural exchange, in both directions, was encouraged by intermarriage and other forms of familial association. These associations, though commonplace, proved problematic for colonial society, and the ways in which the community negotiated issues like the legal status of the offspring of mixed marriages will be explored in Chapter 4. Interaction between English and Irish led to the adoption of Irish customs and the Irish language and Chapters 5 and 6 will investigate the extent to which, and in what specific ways, colonists became ‘gaelicized’. Finally, I will assess in the conclusion the ways in which this very close and multifaceted relationship between the English of Ireland and the Irish, and the cultural exchange that their interactions engendered, challenged constructions of English identity in Ireland, attempting to discover how the colonists adapted their conceptions of Englishness in the face of these challenges.

23 Chapter 1

DEFINING THE REGION: THE FOUR OBEDIENT SHIRES

The four obedient shires have been chosen here as the core region in which to explore cultural exchange and identity because of their position as the home of the colonial administration and as a supposed bastion of Englishness in Ireland. However, the boundaries of the four obedient shires are difficult to delineate with any certainty; the region was more extensive than the late fifteenth-century Pale and not coterminous with either the medieval or the modern county boundaries. An attempt is made here, nevertheless, to demarcate its bounds insofar as possible and trace its emergence as a distinct region, discussing the terminology that has been used to describe it, and the different areas within it. The four shires region was by no means homogeneous: each county within it, and indeed different regions within each county, were shaped by their own geographical, political, ecclesiastical, and economic circumstances. Louth and Meath, for example, were part of the ecclesiastical province of Armagh while Dublin and Kildare fell under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Dublin. This had important consequences for the manner in which the Irish and English inhabitants of these counties interacted with one another in the ecclesiastical sphere, as will be examined in Chapter 3. Louth was densely settled and had a number of large port towns along the eastern seaboard, above all Drogheda, as well as many smaller urban settlements. Drogheda was technically its own county from 1412 onwards, while the county of Meath contained the liberty of Trim/ 1 Meath until it was finally abolished in 1479. The county of Drogheda was contained within Louth and Meath, and it still fell within the four shires region, which continued to be termed the four shires, rather than the five shires, despite Drogheda’s new administrative status. The liberty

1 C. Buldorini, ‘Drogheda as a case study of Anglo-Norman town foundation in Ireland, 1194–1412’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2010); Potterton, Medieval Trim,pp.108–16. 24 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires of Trim, likewise, was treated as part of the larger four shires region, notwithstanding its distinct administrative/jurisdictional status. County Dublin was home to the colony’s first city, prosperous and outward- looking, and, in some ways, very different from the more rural counties of Meath and Kildare. Louth, Meath, and Dublin had substantial gentry 2 communities, while Kildare was dominated politically by the earls of Kildare, who, for the chronological span considered here, were among 3 the most powerful men in the colony. Acknowledging local differences within the four shires is essential if we are to understand developments in each county and these local conditions will be referred to again. However, the peculiarities of each constituent county do not lessen the validity of the region as such: both medieval commentators and later historians have judged it as a distinct region possessing a distinct identity. The regional coherence of the four shires was furthered by similarities in topography and economy; most of the area was fertile lowlands, relatively densely settled, and marked by arable agriculture, as well as pastoral (unlike the extensive uplands and marginal land elsewhere on the island that were largely 4 pastoral). The economy of the region was also supported by trade with Gaelic areas to the west and north and through the ports of the eastern 5 seaboard that looked east to Britain and the continent. But where did this four shires region begin and end? Although the formula of ‘Dublin, Meath, Louth [or Uriell], and Kildare’ was generally not qualified, it referred not to the medieval boundaries of those counties but only to those parts that were, for the most part at least, governed by English common law and under the control of the Irish parliament and the English crown. A letter from c. 1428, most likely written by the archbishop of Armagh, John Swayne, or his suffragan bishop, Edward Dauntsey, claimed that ‘in good faith the Englissch grounde that ys obeying to the Kyngis laue [King’s law] in this londe as I suppos is not 6 so moche of quantite as is on schir [one shire] in Englonde’. A few years later the Irish council complained to Henry VI that there is not left in the nether parts of the counties of Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare, that join together, out of the subjection of the said enemies and rebels scarcely thirty miles in length and twenty miles in breadth, thereas a man may

2 Smith, ‘A county community’, pp. 561–88; K. Abraham, ‘Upward mobility in later medieval Meath’, HI, 5:4 (1997), 15–20; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 121–43. 3 Quinn, ‘Hegemony of the earls of Kildare’, pp. 638–61; S. G. Ellis, ‘Tudor policy and the Kildare Ascendancy in the lordship of Ireland 1496–1534’, IHS, 20:79 (1977), 235–71. 4 Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region, pp. 287–303. 5 T. O’Neill, Merchants and Mariners in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1987); W. Childs, ‘Ireland’s trade with England in the later Middle Ages’, Irish Economic and Social History, 19 (1982), 5–33. 6 Reg. Swayne,p.108. 25 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland surely ride or go in the said counties to answer to the king’s writs and to his 7 commandments. Given that alarmist sentiments were commonplace in such letters, which were usually designed to prompt crown intervention, these estimates of how little land was subject to English law were almost certainly exaggerated. Still, they do reveal an important aspect of colonial representations of the four shires region; it was depicted as a bastion of English rule in Ireland, beset by enemies on all sides. Similar gloomy reports about the state of the colony date from the end of the fifteenth century and in 1515 an anonymous treatise entitled the ‘State of Ireland and plans for its reformation’ held that only half of each of these four counties was ‘subjett unto the Kinges lawes’ and that, even in that area, ‘all the comyn peoplle of the said half countryes that obeyeth the Kinges lawes, for the more parte ben of 8 Iryshe byrthe, Iryshe habyte, and of langage’. Half is a rough estimate, and this treatise probably exaggerated, just as the letters of c. 1428 and 1435 did. Nevertheless, it is clear that parts of these four counties, as defined by their medieval boundaries, were not under the effective control of the crown in the later Middle Ages. Imprecise descriptions of the four ‘obedient’ shires ensure that the bounds of the ‘loyal’ parts of counties Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare are difficult to sketch; additionally, they changed over the century and a half or so covered here and they were, apparently even to contemporaries, 9 ‘ill-defined and mobile’. To the north and south, the Mourne and Dublin/Wicklow mountain ranges provided something of a natural boundary but this was not the case on the western edges of Meath, Louth, and Kildare, where the borderlands may have been particularly 10 extensive. In contemporary terminology, the borderlands were called 11 ‘marches’, and their inhabitants, ‘marchers’. The term frontier was employed in the fifteenth century but it was usually paired with the term march – hence references in both Irish and northern English contexts to ‘the frontiers of the marches (la fronture del Marche)’–and often, though not 12 always, signified the outlying edges of the march. The French marche and

7 Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament,p.180, n. 40; W. Betham, The Origin and History of the Constitution of England: And of the Early Parliaments of Ireland (Dublin, 1834), pp. 361–2. 8 S. P., Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.8; ‘The power of Irishmen (c. 1494?)’ in Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 40, 80. 9 Frame, English Lordship,p.329. 10 Ellis, ‘Frontiers and identities’,p.76; Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’,p.56. 11 Smith, ‘Concept of the march’, 257–69. 12 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 144–5, 214–15, 286–7, 404–5, 456–7, 554–5; Stat. Ire., Edw. IV, 1–12, pp. 33, 65; R. B. Dobson, ‘Cathedral chapters and cathedral cities: York, Durham and Carlisle in the ﬁfteenth century’ in R. B. Dobson, Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London, 1996), p. 15. 26 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires the English borrowing ‘march’ were used in many parts of the English polity, but carried different meanings in different places: in Scotland it referred to the lands adjacent to a clear, relatively fixed border, while in 13 Wales, it implied a less clearly defined and less stable area. The march in Ireland was of the second variety and has been fruitfully compared with its 14 Welsh counterpart. Thus Ireland’smarcheswere‘whole regions, where different peoples lived in close proximity, rather than clearly delineated 15 boundaries’. Maghery was the contemporary term used for the sheltered inner parts of the four shires that were not as prone to the raiding and low-level warfare 16 endemic on the march. This term was taken from an Irish word, machaire, 17 meaning ‘aplain’. The area comprising the maghery was codified in 1477 and in 1488, when the parliament ordered that coyne and livery, a much vilified form of billeting common in the colony, could not be imposed on the maghery but only on the marches, where marcher lords needed to maintain personal forces to combat incursions by the ‘wild Irish’ and 18 ‘English rebels’. The distinction between march and maghery was thus in part an administrative one but both march and maghery lay within the 19 four shires. The ‘Boundes of the Magherie’ were defined in detail in 1488: In the Magherie; Ballybotir [Booterstown, co. Dublin], Myrriyong [Merrion?], Tauelaght [Tallaght, co. Dublin], Belgard [co. Dublin], Tassagard [Saggart, co. Dublin], the Lordshipp of the Nevcastell [Newcastle Lyons, co. Dublin], and soe to Castell warnyng [Castlewarden, cos Dublin and Kildare], and so by the montayne to Ballymore [Ballymore Eustace, co. Kildare], and ther joynes Avenlyfye [the river Liffey], and so as the Avenlyfy Ronneth to Clane [co. Kildare] in the Magherie, and also Maynan [Mainham, co. Kildare], and so to the waters of Rye by Kylcocke [Kilcock, co. Kildare], also Ballyfeghane [Balfeaghan, co. Meath], and so to the paroch of Laracorr [Laracor, co. Meath],

13 Smith, ‘Concept of the march’, 257–8; J. Armstrong, ‘Centre, periphery, locality, province: England and its far north’ in P. Crooks, D. Green, and W. M. Ormrod (eds), The Plantagenet Empire, 1259–1453 (Donington, 2016), p. 254. The meaning of ‘march’ also shifted over time: M. Lieberman, The March of Wales, 1067–1312: A Borderland of Medieval Britain (Cardiﬀ, 2008), pp. 5–19. Kevin Mann has argued that ‘marchia’ evolved to mean a wider borderland, while ‘Marchia Walliae’ implied a clearer border: ‘The march of Wales: A question of terminology’, WHR, 18:1 (1996), 13. 14 R. Frame, ‘Lordship and liberties in Ireland and Wales, c. 1170–1360’ in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), pp. 125–38. 15 S. G. Ellis, ‘The English state and its frontiers’ in D. Power and N. Standen (eds), Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700 (Basingstoke, 1999), p. 154. 16 This term was used as early as 1430: Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.35. 17 Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.22. 18 Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.71; Alen’s Reg., pp. 250–1. See below pp. 176–9. 19 Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.23. 27 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland and so to Bedloweston [Bellewstown, co. Meath] by Boyne, and so as the Blacke water Ronneth from Athboy [co. Meath], and so to Blakcavsey [?] by Rathmore [co. Meath] to the hill of Lyde [Lloyd, co. Meath], and then to Muldagheheghe [Mullaghy, co. Meath?] and to the paroche of Daltyn [Teltown, co. Meath] and Donapatricke [Donaghpatrick, co. Meath], Clongell [Clongill, co. Meath] and so to Siddan [co. Meath], and so downe to Maudowestowne [Mandistown, co. Meath] bie west of Athirdee [Ardee, co. Louth], and so to the water of 20 Dondowgyen [Dundalk, co. Louth], and so as that water goeth to the see. The well-known term ‘Pale’, like maghery, described a smaller inner portion of the four shires, but the two terms are not synonymous. Pale 21 was first used in an Irish context in a parliamentary enactment of 1494–5. The act was concerned with protecting the core of the colony and called ‘for ditches to be made about the English Pale’. The wording of the enactment that describes the location of the Pale is general but it demonstrates that the Pale, as envisioned by the parliament at this point, included parts of the 22 marches as well the maghery. The act claimed that the Marches of the four shires are open and not fencible, whereby Irishmen make great preys in the English land. Therefore it is enacted that every earth- tiller and occupier in the said Marches – that is to say, in the Counties of Dublin, from the water of Annaliffey to the mountain in Kildare, in Kildare from the water of Annaliffey to Trim and so into Meath and Uriell – shall build and make a double ditch of six foot of earth above the ground at that end of the said land that 23 he occupies which joins next unto Irishmen before next Lammas. The use of the term Pale signalled the emergence of an increasingly militarized and defined border, since it implied a fortified ditch, probably 24 topped with a wooden palisade. This design was intended to stop cattle 25 rustling, an integral part of Irish warfare. The idea of building ditches was

20 Alen’s Reg.,p.250. A sixteenth-century gloss on this entry in Alen’s register reads ‘thenglische pale’, but this terminology was not in use in 1488: Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.23. For a map of the areas described in 1488 and 1495: NHI, ix, p. 44; Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region, p. 266. 21 A misleading note mentioning the Pale on a document from 1446–7 in the Carew Manuscripts is a later addition: A. Cosgrove, ‘The emergence of the Pale, 1399–1447’, NHI, ii, pp. 533–56; Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region, pp. 265–6,n.9. 22 This wording cannot be entirely accurate since if the Pale followed the Liffey along its entire length as the southern boundary, it would leave out swathes of south county Dublin (and indeed the city itself!). It probably means that the boundary of the Pale followed the line of the Liffey for some distance near its source close to Ballymore Eustace, which is mentioned in the 1488 maghery description. 23 Conway, Henry VIII’s Relations,p.127; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.93; Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’, pp. 22–5. 24 Ellis, ‘The English Pale: A failed entity?’, HI, 19:2 (2011), 14–17; Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region,p.265. 25 K. W. Nicholls, ‘Gaelic society and economy in the high Middle Ages’, NHI, ii, pp. 413–15. 28 Defining the Region: The Four Obedient Shires not new, for there were orders for ditches to be built around all four shires in 1453–4 and in specific areas of Meath and Dublin and Louth in the second half of the fifteenth century, but the 1495 act may indicate a more concerted 26 effort to make a continuous, defended boundary. The term Pale was probably introduced to Ireland by Sir Edward Poynings, deputy to Prince Henry, lieutenant of Ireland. Shortly before he arrived in Ireland he acted as 27 deputy lieutenant in Calais, where there was also a fortified ‘Pale’. A more geographically specific definition of the Pale in 1515 stated that alsoo, the Englyshe Pale, dothe streche and extend from the towne of Doundalke [Dundalk] to the towne of Derver [Darver], to the town of Ardye [Ardee], allwaye on the lyfte syde, leving the marche on the right syde, and so the towne of Sydan [Siddan], to the towne of Kenlys [Kells], to the town of Dengle [Dangan], to Kylcoke [Kilcock], to the towne of Clanne [Clane], to the towne of Nasse [Naas], to the Bryge of Cucullyn [Kilcullen], to the town of Ballymore, and soo bakwarde to the town of Ramore [Rathmore], and to the towne of Rathcoule [Rathcool], to the towne of Talaght, and of the towne of Dalky, leveing all waye the marche on the right hand from the sayd Doundalke, 28 folowing the said course to the said towne of Dalkye. This description shows that by 1515 thePalehadasimilarboundarytothe 29 maghery as defined in 1488. It extended somewhat further south in co. Dublin than the maghery, down to Dalkey rather than Booterstown, but the settlements of Tallaght, Kilcock, Siddan, Ardee, and Dundalk marked the borders of both the maghery and the Pale. Although the wording of the 1495 enactment suggests that the Pale was envisioned as a defence established on the marches to protect the entire 30 region, it excluded many marcher areas. Most significantly, it did not extend into the marches of western Meath or those of Kildare, since it ended near Trim in 1495 and at nearby Dangan in 1515 and encompassed only a small corner of north-eastern Kildare. That such a small section of Kildare lay within the Pale may be part and parcel of a policy to extend the boundary over only the most secure areas of the four shires but it may also reflect an expectation that the earl of Kildare would defend much of the county in his own way, using his own resources. Neither the Pale nor the maghery had static borders and not all commentators had precisely the same

26 27 Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region,p.271. Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.24. 28 S. P., Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.22. This means right and left if travelling roughly from north to south, with the west on the right. 29 If Ellis is correct that this description was written at least in part by John Kite, it might still reﬂect colonial understandings of where the Pale boundary lay, as Kite had been resident, on and oﬀ, for two years in the colony when it was written: D. G. Newcombe, ‘John Kite (d. 1537)’, ODNB. See for Kite’s visit to the English court in 1515: Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 141–2. 30 Surviving traces of the defensive ditch and the distribution of tower houses may mark a defensive ring around the Pale: Murphy and Potterton, The Dublin Region, pp. 267–8. 29 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland area in mind when using these terms but it is clear that the four shires region was much larger than either, and that these extensive western marcher holdings in Meath and in southern and western Kildare remained part of the four shires well into the sixteenth century. This discongruity between the areas described by the terms maghery or Pale and the four shires is one crucial reason that the latter term is preferred here. It may be geographically imprecise, but it is, in my opinion, the most accurate way to describe the central region of the English colony in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The terms I use for the region, the ‘the four obedient shires’,or,forshort,fourshiresorfour counties, were all used by the English of Ireland to describe the region in 31 the fifteenth century. All parts of the four medieval counties of Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare that had a significant English population and were governed in the main by common law and the Irish parliament were part of the four shires region. The region’s community encompassed both the English of the march and those of the maghery, and the division between the 32 two was not, certainly before 1477 or even after, clearly defined. Though contemporaries sometimes noted distinctions between the two parts of the region and the English people who lived in both, their sense of being part of one community outweighed their differences; this was clear in bodies like the brotherhood of St George, a military fraternity founded in 1474 bymenfrombothmarchand 33 maghery. Living on the marches may have encouraged marchers to assimilate more extensively with their Irish neighbours, just as it did in similar situations in Wales, but it did not erode either their conviction that they were English or their attachment to their shared colonial heritage and to the legal advantages afforded to them as part of the 34 settler community. Moreover, gaelicization was also very much a feature of the maghery and even of the towns and cities of the eastern seaboard, so the cultural distance between marchers and other inhabitants of the four shires should not be exaggerated. The Irish language and Irish customs and dress could be found in Dublin and Dundalk just as they were in Carbury or Delvin. Additionally, the threat of the Irish that made such an impact on the marches was also present in the maghery. Although the marches were more vulnerable, Irish armies or raiding parties reached as far as Duleek, south-west of Drogheda, in

31 32 Alen’s Reg.,p.250; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.225. Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 178, 202–3. 33 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 189–95. 34 A. D. M. Barrell and M. H. Brown, ‘A settler community in post-conquest rural Wales: The English of Dyﬀryn Clwyd, 1294–1399’, WHR, 17:3 (1994), 332; Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 99–101. 30 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires 1429 and sacked Dundalk in 1430,whileO’Connor’sforcespenetrated 35 as far as Tara, a few miles east of Trim, in 1466. Indeed, shared anxiety about Irish attacks and some measure of hostility towards the Irish, or at least the Irish outside the king’s allegiance, was one of the great unifying 36 forces of four shires society. Marchers were also very much part of the four shires political community. Men from the march, for instance, appeared frequently on lists of ‘malefactors’ published by the Irish parliament which ordered the men named to 37 appear at Dublin Castle to account for their crimes and misdeeds. The frequency with which men from marcher families were named as ‘malefactors’ might, at first glance, suggest that many of these marchers were alienated from English law and the colonial administration. What is most relevant, however, is not that they occasionally fell foul of the Dublin government but that, when they did so, they were treated as members of the colonial community and were called upon to rectify their wrongs. Henry Walsh of Carrickmines, a marcher lord of south county Dublin, is an example of the ways in which gaelicization and a turbulent relationship with the colonial authorities could coexist with enduring ties and allegiance 38 to the colony. The parliament routinely commended marcher lords for their staunch defence of the region and marchers were entrusted with the office of ‘keeper of the peace’. These keepers helped to extend the reach of the Dublin government by deputizing local families to maintain order on the march. Marchers, including members of the Tyrell, Cruise, Walsh, and Bermingham families, many of whom were significantly culturally gaelicized, served as keepers of the peace for county Dublin in the first decades of the fifteenth century, while the barons of Delvin and the Darcys served, among others, for Meath, and the Wellesleys and FitzEustaces for the 39 marchesofKildare. Increasing participation in administration and the holding of local office has been linked in England to the growth of the state in this period; the centralization that marked the later Middle Ages has thus been seen increasingly as a devolved movement that drew upon 40 growing engagement from local elites. In the colony office-holding served

35 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.125; Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’,p.58. 36 Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 117, 123. 37 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.441; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 287–9, 443–7, 721–3; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 261–5; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.55. 38 C. Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages in south Dublin in the late Middle Ages’, IHS, 34:134 (2004), 128–9;E.O’Byrne, ‘On the frontier: Carrickmines Castle and Gaelic Leinster’, Archaeology Ireland¸ 16:3 (2002), 13–15; B. McCabe, ‘Carrickmines: A note from the past’, Dublin Historical Record, 56:1 (2003), 71–2. 39 R. Frame, ‘Commissions of the peace in Ireland, 1302–1461’, Analecta Hibernica, 35 (1992), 12–13, 16–17, 27–8, 40–3. 40 W. M. Ormrod, Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (Basingstoke, 1995), esp. chapter 3. 31 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland a similar purpose of drawing the inhabitants of the colony closer to the colonial administration, while also linking members of the office-holding class to one another, and fostering a sense of community and shared 41 interest. When the Irish parliament created councils for each of the four shires to organize men-at-arms to protect the counties in 1465, they were composed of marcher lords from Meath and Kildare and men from the 42 more settled interior of the region. Some marcher lords attained the highest office in the colony – the first and third barons of Delvin served 43 stints as chief governor of the colony, as did the first baron of Portlester. The earls of Kildare were among the most powerful of marcher lords and they dominated the colonial government from the 1460suptotheir 44 rebellion and the fall of their house in 1534. Marriage ties among the English of the entire region also reflected connections between the marches and more settled areas and strengthened the links of the English community throughout the region; they also could encourage landholding in both 45 areas, and many marchers also held lands in the maghery. Marchers were, then, an integral part of the English community of the four shires. The marches must therefore be included in the four shires, but where they began and ended is uncertain: they did not have a clear linear border and, in any case, their position shifted over the later Middle Ages. The idea that the colony, and the four shires specifically, contracted in this period was expressed in contemporary accounts and was for many years 46 dominant in the historiography. It must be said, however, that the notion of contraction has been convincingly challenged by Steven Ellis, who has highlighted the reclamation of some colonial settlements and the economic recovery of the area in the second half of the fifteenth 47 century. Smith largely agreed, arguing that there were few significant territorial gains by the Irish, since they did not usually seize and hold land,

41 42 Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 122–3. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw., pp. 345–7. 43 NHI, ix, pp. 477–80. 44 Quinn, ‘Hegemony of the earls of Kildare’, pp. 638–61; Ellis, ‘Tudor policy and Kildare Ascendancy’, 235–71. 45 There was a complex web of intermarriage among the families of the four shires that included marchers like the Darcys and Dillons, as shown in genealogies like those contained TCD MS 594, Christopher Cusack’s commonplace book, which recounts Cusack marriages, and a Geraldine genealogy in TCD MS 1212. See also S. B. Barnewall, ‘The Family of Barnewall (De Berneval) during the Middle Ages’, IG, 3:4 (1959), 124–35; H. Gallwey, ‘The Cusack family of cos Meath and Dublin’, IG, 5:3 (1976), 298–313, 5:4 (1977), 464–70, 5:5 (1978), 591–600, 5:6 (1979), 673–84, 6:2 (1981), 130–53, 6:3 (1982), 285–98; Abraham, ‘Upward mobility’, 15–20; S. B. Barnewall, ‘Darcy of Platten, co. Meath’, IG, 6:4 (1983), 403–22; L. Cox, ‘The Dillon lords of Kilkenny west: part one’, RnM, 11 (2000), 71–4; L. Cox, ‘Dillon lords of Kilkenny west, part two’, RnM, 12 (2001), 87; G. Dillon, ‘Cnoc Diolún’, IG, 2:12 (1955), 364–5. 46 The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye: A Poem on the Use of Sea Power, 1436, ed. G. Warner (Oxford, 1926), p. 37; Lydon, ‘Problem of the frontier’, 322–7; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the Pale’, pp. 533–56. 47 Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’, pp. 63–4; Ellis, ‘The English Pale’, 14–17. 32 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires but rather just extracted black rent from lands in the colony under their 48 sway. Even Lydon notes that contraction did not necessarily entail decline in an economic sense and that colonial settlements were 49 resilient. However, economic recovery in some areas and expansion or increased stability for some settlements (like Ellis’ examples of Kells, co.Meath,Kilcullen,co.Kildare,andLaracor,co.Kildare)wenthand 50 in hand with the loss of control in other areas. Particular local circumstances dictated a great deal about whether a specific marcher area was under Irish or colonial control at any given time. Given the nebulous and shifting nature of the marches, it is necessary to settle on some metric to determine how far they, and therefore the four shire region, extended. The reckoning used here is based primarily on the engagement of the administration with the local population, particularly with the English elites of the area. Settlements or areas usually under the control of an Irish lord, even one whose tenure was accepted or promoted by the colonial or crown administrations (which negotiated with and granted lands to Irishmen), are not included for two reasons. One is that such arrangements were usually not enduring and the other is that these Irishmen were not seen as part of the colonial community despite their tenure by English grant. They remained ‘Irish’ in the language of the sources and in the minds of the colonists; their ethnic distinction was not easily forgotten. A rebellious English subject was fundamentally different. These men of English descent could, and did, disobey crown dictates and those of the Dublin administration and sometimes suffered the consequences but, once they were pardoned, they were able to reintegrate fully into the community once again. For this reason, marchers like Henry Walsh of Carrickmines or James White of northern Louth are included in the four shires community and the lands that they held are judged as within the four shires but the Mhic Mhathghamhna and their lands of Stonetown and Farney, bordering north-western Louth, are not. The crown’s hold on Farney was tenuous, at best, so this grant was largely just 51 in recognition of the status quo. Using the criterion of sustained local engagement with the colonial administration, the four shires region encompasses almost all of medieval county Dublin, apart from the mountainous south-west that falls into modern co. Wicklow, and all of medieval (and modern) county Louth, 52 apart from a few settlements in the north-west of the county. For the southern extent of the four shires in medieval county Dublin, the modern

48 Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 212–13. 49 J. Lydon, ‘The city of Waterford in the later Middle Ages’, Decies, 12 (1979), 12–13. 50 Ellis, ‘The English Pale’, 14–17; Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.211. 51 52 Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 95, 97, 108, 121, 203. Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.211. 33 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland county boundary (shown on Maps 1 and 2), is largely indicative; Dublin’s southern border was the part of the county under the most pressure from 53 Irish incursions that came from the Wicklow Mountains. The four shires region extended into Meath far to the west, significantly beyond the Pale or the maghery boundaries and on to the extensive Meath marches. The marches extended somewhat further west in the southern half of Meath than the northern. They included all lands east of Delvin, an important marcher holding of the Nugent family, which was described as adjoining 54 ‘the Irish land’ in 1475–6, and east of Dysart in modern Westmeath. It stretched to Rathwire, also in modern Westmeath, further south. Rathwire was held by the Darcy family of Platten, another staunchly English marcher 55 family. ThetownsofMullingar,Oldcastle,andForelayattheoutermost edges of the western marches of Meath but they appear to have been within the orbit of the administration for much, if not all, of the fifteenth century. Fore and Mullingar were listed alongside Delvin in 1403 as important marcher baronies and men from the area were appointed to be keepers of the peace and justices of the peace who could assemble the population for 56 ‘thesafetyanddefenceofthecounty’. Aletterfrom1439 suggests that a council or parliament may have been held in Mullingar c. 1437;ifso,itmust 57 have been considered relatively secure at that point. Complaints about Irish incursions in Fore survive from 1423, 1426,and1432 and in Mullingar in 1427, as they do for many marcher areas, but we should not interpret these complaints as evidence that the area was or would be sundered from the colony. Many settlements weathered these frequent attacks, and conflict 58 with the Irish could serve to sharpen settler identity. Fore was described as ‘on the frontiers of the march’ (but importantly still within it) in 1455 and was included alongside Mullingar and Oldcastle in a list of ‘ancient English market towns’ in 1479–80, when the Irish parliament attempted to protect the economies of these towns by banning English traders from trading in nearby Irish settlements. Mullingar was subject to further parliamentary 59 legislation as late as 1493.

53 E. O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 1156–1606 (Dublin, 2003). For the loss of territory by the colony, see, for example, Thornecastell, south county Dublin: D. B. Quinn, ‘Guide to English financial records for Irish history, 1461–1558’, Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 24; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry IV, no. 48. 54 55 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 279–81. Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.29. 56 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 4 Henry IV, nos 296, 359. 57 CIRCLE, Close Roll 20 Henry VI, no. 29. 58 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 99, Patent Roll 5 Henry VI, no. 13, Close Roll 6 Henry IV, no. 32, Patent Roll 10 Henry VI, no. 72. Postcolonial theories have stressed the oppositional nature of identity formation, via the process of ‘othering’, and have been influential in studies of medieval frontiers: above, p. 3,n.6 (Naum). 59 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 301–5, 405–7; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 120; Stat. Ire., RIII- Hen. VIII, pp. 111–13. 34 Defining the Region: The Four Obedient Shires Mentions in the parliamentary or chancery records may have been wishful thinking in some cases and we cannot assume that the administration successfully exerted control over all of the areas that it attempted to govern. Still, repeated attempts to legislate for a settlement suggest that it was not entirely out of the reach of the administration. Areas that were clearly outside the colony were not subject to these attempted mandates. The area west and to the south of Mullingar seems to have been largely outside English control. Many parts of modern cos. Westmeath, Longford, and Offaly that fell into medieval county Meath were under the control of Irish septs and would almost certainly not have been considered ‘obedient’ to the Irish parliament and the English crown in 60 this period. Athlone, the next major castle and settlement to the west, at the furthest edge of medieval county Meath, cannot be included in the four shires. It was geographically separated from the region by areas under Irish political control and is rarely mentioned in parliamentary legislation or chancery documents in this period. Though it was in English hands in 1495, it was possessed by the Irish for several sustained periods in the later Middle Ages and, according to Murtagh, the administration had only 61 ‘nominal tenure’ over it from the late fourteenth century onwards. Westmeath was described as ‘wholly Irish’ by 1537–8 and the significant division within medieval county Meath between eastern and western 62 areas was formally recognized by the shiring of Westmeath in 1542. However, the idea of ‘Westmeath’, and indeed the actual term, existed long before it was officially made a county, and it appears in the memor- 63 anda rolls as early as 1364. In Kildare, which like Meath contained much march land, the north- eastern corner around Naas was certainly part of the ‘obedient shires’ and within the maghery and later the Pale. Many areas outside the maghery with significant English populations which were subject, to a significant extent, to the Dublin administration – such as Kildare town, Norragh and Castledermot to the south, and Carbury to the west – also fell into the four shires. Although it was well outside the maghery, and deep in the south of Kildare, Castledermot was a regional centre for meetings of

60 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland, pp. 206–9; C. Ó Clérigh, ‘The O’Connor Faly lordship of Oﬀaly, 1395–1513’, PRIA, 96:4c(1996), 87–102. 61 Quinn, ‘Hegemony of the earls of Kildare’, pp. 640–1; H. Murtagh, ‘Athlone’, IHTA, 6 (Dublin, 1994), p. 2. 62 The partition suggested by John Alen in 1537 and subsequently adopted was roughly from Athboy westward: State Papers Henry VIII,p.499; Potterton, Medieval Trim,p.116; Ellis, ‘Region and frontier’, pp. 65–7; Cal. Carew,i,p.4; Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 27–34. 63 CIRCLE, Close Roll 38 Edward III, no. 4. The term appeared with some regularity thereafter: CIRCLE, Close Roll 47 Edward III, no. 23, Patent Roll 9 Richard II, no. 21, Patent Roll 10 Richard II, no. 150, Close Roll 17 Richard II, no. 16. 35 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland parliament and great councils in the fifteenth century; it was an important 64 encastellated marcher outpost in the hands of the Kildare earls. This was despite the recurring threat from neighbouring Irish lords, particularly Art MacMurchadha Caomhánach. MacMurchadha extracted black rent, which was a form of protection money, from the town in 1393 and 65 attacked and burnt it in 1405. Although Norragh was held briefly by the same Art MacMurchadha through his marriage to the heiress Elizabeth 66 Calf, it was quickly confiscated and granted to an Englishman. Norragh, Athy, and Castledermot were included in a list of places where the sheriff of Kildare, Richard Wellesley, made public announcements in 1418 mandating that the prior of the knights of St John of Jerusalem should appear before parliament to answer for various unspecified ‘high crimes’ that he 67 was accused of in the course of the Talbot/Ormond feud. The towns listed in this document show the reach of the sheriff, and through him the 68 Dublin administration, into the south of Kildare at this stage. In 1465 Norragh was considered an important enough marcher outpost of the four shires that parliament granted a subsidy of £10 to build a castle there to 69 protect it. By this time it was the seat of the Wellesley family, who provided sheriffs and keepers of the peace for the county. This family also held Athy for a period in the earlier fifteenth century, but custody of the town was transferred to William Scryvener in 1423,whenitwas 70 described as ‘one of the keys of the marches of co. Kildare’. Carbury was the seat of the Bermingham family, members of which were keepers of the peace and regularly summoned to parliament, and parliamentary material from the mid-fifteenth century confirms that Carbury remained part of 71 the region. The four shires thus stretched into the west and south of Kildare but not far to the east, since much of medieval county Kildare that now falls into county Wicklow was controlled, for the most part, by Irish septs in this period. Some settlements just west of the Liffey in county Wicklow, such as Blessington, near Ballymore Eustace and the modern

64 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 13 Richard II, no. 236, Patent Roll 20 Richard II, no. 1, Patent Roll 5 Henry IV, no. 84, Patent Roll 15 Henry VII, no. 2. 65 Watt, ‘Colony under strain’,p.391; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the Pale’,p.543; Lydon, ‘The problem of the frontier’,p.326. 66 R. Frame, ‘Two kings in Leinster: The crown and the MicMhurchadha in the fourteenth century’ in Colony and Frontier, pp. 155–75; W. Fitzgerald, ‘Narraghmore and the barons of Norragh’, JCLAHS, 7:4 (1913), 251; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry IV, no. 43. 67 P. Crooks, ‘Factions, feuds and noble power in late medieval Ireland, c. 1356–1496’, IHS, 35:140 (2007), 425–54; M. C. Griffith, ‘The Talbot-Ormond struggle for control of the Anglo-Irish government, 1414–47’, IHS, 2:8 (1941), 376–97. 68 69 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 6 Henry V, no. 14. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.369. 70 CIRCLE, Close Roll 9 Henry V, no. 24, Close Roll 2 Henry VI, no. 33. 71 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 95, 477. For more on the Berminghams, who were significantly gaelicized, see below, pp. 192–3, 228–9, 235–6. 36 Defining the Region: The Four Obedient Shires Kildare border, may have been within the four shires, but they are rarely 72 mentioned in the records of the colonial administration. It may have been the case, particularly by the later fifteenth century, that towns like Mullingar, Fore, and Kildare town provided outposts of Englishness, largely surrounded by Irish areas, but for the most part the four shires region was contiguous. And yet, it was fringed by shifting and broad borderlands and it would be misleading to draw a line on the map to imply a clear, linear, and unchanging border. Map 1 therefore gives the location of the main settlements of the four shires, marking the key places discussed above and in the following, and including those settlements described as ‘on the frontier of the march’ to give an approximate indication of how far to the south, west, and north the region extended. Map 2 shows the topography of the region: the largely lowland landscape of the four shires and the mountainous and upland areas to the south (modern co. Wicklow), and the north (modern cos Down, Armagh, Monaghan, and Cavan). With this understanding of the location and approximate extent of the four shires, we turn to when it first emerged as a distinct region. Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare were occasionally grouped together in 73 records of the colonial administration by the mid-fourteenth century. A series of writs issued in 1387 to men in Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare to investigate the extortions of Philip Courtney, the king’s lieutenant, also signal that these counties were seen, in some contexts at 74 least, as closely associated. Further mentions of the four shires together in the Irish chancery records of the late fourteenth century support this 75 assessment. However historians have tended to position the emergence of the region at the start of the fifteenth century, and the date of c. 1400 put forward by Robin Frame is reasonable, as groupings of the four counties together appear in the sources with much greater frequency 76 after 1400. In the first two decades of the fifteenth century, Carlow, the county adjoining Kildare to the south, was occasionally included with the 77 four other counties, though this grouping fell out of use by the 1420s.

72 Wicklow was not shired until the early seventeenth century. 73 Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament,p.103; S. G. Ellis, ‘Region and frontier in the English state: co. Meath and the English pale, 1460–1542’ in H. Vidar Holm, S. Laegred, and T. Skorgen (eds), The Borders of Europe: Hegemony, Aesthetics and Border Poetics (Aarhus, 2012), pp. 53–4. 74 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 10 Richard II, nos 236–7. 75 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 228. 76 Frame, ‘Munster’,p.7; Lydon, ‘Problem of the frontier’,p.326; Ellis, ‘Frontiers and identities’, p. 69; S. Booker, Gaelicisation and identity in the ‘four obedient shires’ of Ireland, 1399–1534, unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2011), pp. 16–19. 77 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 228, Patent Roll 2 Henry V, no. 196. 37 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland

Map 1 Key settlements of the four shires (with modern county boundaries) With many thanks to Dr Linda Shine and Stephen Kehoe of the Discovery Programme and Dr Rebecca Wall-Forrestal for assistance with Maps 1 and 2. 38 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires

Map 2 Topographical map of the four shires region

39 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland This was most likely due to the increasing difficulty of communication between the four shires and Carlow; the incursions of the Irish of the Dublin mountains and modern county Wicklow, a recurrent threat in the fifteenth century, impeded travel to the south-west from the four 78 counties. This was one reason for Richard II’s decision to move the exchequer and Dublin bench from Carlow, where they had been housed 79 since 1362, back to more secure surroundings in Dublin in 1394. There were growing threats from Irish lineages in Ulster to the north of the four shires and in the midlands to the west, and these also served to isolate the region from other areas of the colony and accelerated its emergence as a 80 discrete area. Travel between the four shires and areas of the colony to the south, west, and north was by no means impossible, and still occurred regularly, but seems to have become less frequent. This affected local officials from across the colony, and those from outside the four shires became much less likely than those from within to travel to participate in the routine governing of the colony, as the records of the Irish exchequer demonstrate. Memoranda rolls of the Irish exchequer from the 1410sand1420srecord which local officials regularly came and rendered money owed to the exchequer in Dublin in the early decades of the four shires’ existence. The rolls indicate which parts of the colony and which local officials were most receptive to the demands of the central administration. Payment took place twice a year, in Michaelmas and Easter terms, and the surviving transcriptions of the rolls record those officials (sheriffs, seneschals, and mayors) who came to the exchequer in Dublin and proffered payments 81 for the preceding term and those who did not. The latter were generally fined for non-attendance. Not all officials were recorded in one category or the other in each term and it may be that some officials were not required to attend in every term. Because of this, I shall remark on absences only when they are specifically recorded in the rolls, not if the officials representing a

78 Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland,p.174; Frame, ‘Commissions of the peace’, 4;E.O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 1156–1606 (Dublin, 2003). 79 Watt, ‘The Anglo-Irish colony under strain’,p.369. As early as 1365, Carlow was described as ‘almost on the frontier of the rebel Irish where there was no safe access for the king’s lieges of Ireland’. The author had reason to exaggerate, but other accounts confirm the growing instability in the area: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: November 1365’, CCR, Edw. III, xii, pp. 148–57. 80 J. Lydon, ‘A land of war’, NHI, ii, pp. 266–8; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the pale’, pp. 353–6. The term midlands, in the Irish context, refers to the central inland regions of the island to the west of the four shires, in the areas of modern cos Westmeath, Laois, Longford, Offaly, and, to the northwest, cos Monaghan and Cavan. 81 J. Lydon, ‘Survey of the memoranda rolls of the Irish exchequer, 1294–1509’, Analecta Hibernica, 23 (1966), 55. 40 Defining the Region: The Four Obedient Shires given town, county, or liberty were not mentioned at all. The officials who came to account were not limited to the four shires but sheriffs, seneschals, and mayors from the region were by far the most faithful attendees. Officials from Wexford and Waterford were the next most frequent, while those from Kerry, Cork, Tipperary, Ulster, and Limerick rarely attended. For example, in the Easter term of 1420, the sheriffs of Dublin, Louth, and Kildare, the seneschal of Meath, and the sheriffs of Carlow and Wexford came to the exchequer. Those who did not attend included the sheriffs of Kilkenny, Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary and the senes- 82 chals of Ulster, Kerry, and the crosslands (church-held lands) of Ulster. In the same year in Michaelmas term, the attendees again included the sheriffs of Dublin, Louth, and Kildare and the seneschal of the liberty of Meath. The bailiffs of Drogheda also attended but those of Dublin were absent; this may have been due to the fact that one man, Walter Tyrell, held the offices of sheriff of County Dublin and mayor of the city in this year, and may have 83 represented both city and county at the exchequer. On those occasions when officials from the four shires were absent, they generally accounted for their absence (unlike their absent contemporaries from outside the 84 region). From outside the four shires, the sheriffs of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Wexford were in attendance in Michaelmas term 1420, but those from Carlow, Limerick, Tipperary, Cork, and Kerry’scrosslands were absent, as were the seneschals of the liberties of Kerry and Ulster and 85 the mayor and bailiffs of Cork. Two years later in 1422, no officials from the four shires were absent in Michaelmas or Easter terms, but the sheriffs of Waterford, Limerick and Cork, the seneschal of Tipperary, the sheriffs of the crosslands of Kerry and Ulster, and the mayor and bailiffs of Cork were 86 fined for non-attendance. Clearly, other cities and counties in the colony retained contact with the colonial administration, Wexford and Waterford particularly, but officials from the four shires were the most communicative and engaged with the administration and were rarely fined for any failure to appear at the exchequer. Other parts of the colony, like the ‘second Pale’ in Wexford and the town of Waterford and other pockets in Munster, also retained direct political and economic links with England but these could be 87 conducted largely without the mediation of the Dublin administration.

82 NAI RC 8/38, pp. 3–6. 83 Á. Foley, ‘The sheriﬀ of Dublin in the fourteenth century’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XII (Dublin, 2012), p. 287. 84 NAI RC 8/40,p.253; CIRCLE, Close Roll 3 Henry VI, no. 56. 85 86 NAI RC 8/38, pp. 11–13. NAI RC 8/39, pp. 211, 214–15. 87 Frame, ‘Munster’, pp. 5–18; B. Smith, ‘Late medieval Ireland and the English connection: Waterford and Bristol, ca. 1360–1460’, Journal of British Studies, 50:3 (2011), 546–65;C.A. 41 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland This closeness between the four shires community and the colonial government sprang in large part from the fact that all the shires were located near Dublin, where the exchequer, chancery, and Dublin bench were housed, and within a safe and easy range for travel. However, this close engagement with the administration became, in time, an important aspect of the distinct regional identity of many 88 English inhabitants of the region. This went hand in hand with myriad other identities, among them a settler identity shared with those of English descent across the island and a broader, self-proclaimed English identity that linked them to the English of England through a 89 shared monarch, traditions, and ancestry. Nevertheless, that this regional identity was one of many did not make it insignificant, and we can see expressions of it in the parliamentary enactments of the fifteenth century. Although the Irish parliament was itinerant, it rarely strayed outside the four shires region. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, it metmostofteninDublinbutalsogatheredinNaasandCastledermot in Kildare, Trim in Meath, and Drogheda. A list of parliaments and councils compiled by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles shows that these bodies met only once in Ross and Limerick, twice in Waterford and Wexford and thrice in Kilkenny between 1399 and 1534;this meansthatonlynine(oftheknown)assemblieswereheldoutsidethe four shires in this period, in which therewerewelloverahundredin total. This was in sharp contrast to the fourteenth century, when parliaments and councils routinely met in Kilkenny and on occasion 90 in Cashel, Cork, Clonmel, and Waterford. The Irish parliament’s presence in the four shires, and the fact that travel and communication were relatively easy throughout the region ensured that it was increasingly the primary target of parliamentary legislation in the fifteenth century. Though the rest of the colony was not ignored, enactments 91 were frequently passed for the four shires only. It was here that the authority of the Irish parliament was most secure, and, though men from throughout the colony were summoned to and attended

Empey, ‘The Butler lordship’, Journal of the Butler Society, 3 (1970), 185. James Lydon termed the region around Waterford in the later Middle Ages a ‘Pale’: ‘The city of Waterford’, 9. 88 This community has been called Palesmen, and this terminology was used in sixteenth century, but the community predates that term. For members of this community and their attachment to oﬃce-holding, see Canny, Formation of the Old English Élite; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 121–43. 89 See above, pp. 14–15 and below, pp. 7–10 and below, pp. 255–8. 90 Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament, pp. 346–65. 91 Stat Ire, Hen VI, pp. 43, 133, 299, 369; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 97–9, 129–37, 189–95, 683, 715–19; Stat. Ire., RIII- Hen. VIII, pp. 69, 75. 42 Deﬁning the Region: The Four Obedient Shires parliaments, it is likely that the men of the four shires were the most 92 regular attendees. That the four shires community was particularly engaged with the Dublin administration is confirmed by a parliamentary enactment of 1431 which dissolved special legal commissions appointed to hear cases in the region. This was in response to a petition from ‘the commons of the counties of Meath, Dublin, Kildare, and Louth’, who argued that such commissions were unnecessary because the Chancery and the Chief Place of our lord the King, for the greater part, and his Common Place and his Exchequer are continually in the said parts [Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare], by which courts all the lieges of the same parts can 93 sufficiently have justice done them by common law. This legislation was promulgated solely for the four shires and reveals that that the inhabitants of the region routinely travelled to Dublin to appeal to the central courts. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the ‘commons’ of these counties sometimes acted corporately. Criminal lists contained in the statute rolls also demonstrate that the colonial administration governed the community of the four shires more closely than it did English 94 communities elsewhere in Ireland. These were lists of malefactors summoned to appear, typically at Dublin Castle, to answer for various crimes. The criminal lists, tellingly, often contained only the names of 95 men from Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare only. The parliament did sometimes summon men from elsewhere in the colony but only for relatively serious transgressions, not the relatively petty offences with which it involved itself in the four shires. The region also had its own military identity. Provision was made to defend the four shires with tower houses, firstly in Louth in 1428 and then 96 in Louth, Meath, Dublin, and Kildare in 1430. Some twenty-three years later, the parliament commissioned ‘scertaine gentlemen’ to commence work on building trenches and defensive fortifications on the edges of the 97 four shires. An act calling for the creation of a company of archers, supported by parliamentary subsidy, was passed in the parliament of

92 Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament, pp. 302–5; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 3,p.304. 93 94 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.43. Booker, Gaelicisation and identity,p.18. 95 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 287–9, 443–7; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 261–5; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII, pp. 55, 121–5. 96 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 17, 33–5. These are called ‘a castle or a tower [Chastell ou un toure]’ in the legislation, but refer to the relatively small defended residences now called tower houses that were ubiquitous in ﬁfteenth-century Ireland: T. B. Barry, ‘The archaeology of the tower house in late medieval Ireland’ in H. Andersson and J. Wienberg (eds), The Study of Medieval Archaeology (Stockholm, 1993), pp. 211–18. 97 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.299. 43 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 1471–2, ‘for the preservation of the counties of Dublin, Meath, Louth and Kildare’. These archers were placed under the command of members of the four shires elite, Roland FitzEustace, first baron of Portlester, and Robert Preston, lord of Gormanston, and were to ‘encounter and resist the Irish 98 enemies purposing to enter any of the same counties’. These enactments indicate that the members of the Irish parliament perceived the shires as a region and demonstrated their desire to shield it from Irish attacks. Members of the settler elite of the four shires expressed their communal feeling through the foundation of the Brotherhood of St George, which pledged to protect the region from the incursions of both ‘Irish enemies’ and ‘English rebels’. This military brotherhood comprised thirteen members, all from the four shires – three from three of the counties and four 99 from the fourth – and was subsidized by a parliamentary tax in 1474. The brotherhood contained men from across the four shires: the mayors of Dublin and Drogheda were members but rural areas near the eastern seaboard also provided founding members, as did the marches. The rules of the fraternity and the subsidy to support it were restated in parliament 100 five years later. The choice of the patron St George is significant, for it 101 signals the brotherhood’s desire to link itself to England. Though they fall outside the remit of this study, material remains also suggest that the four shires possessed a distinct regional identity and it has been argued that both churches and tower houses in the area display common, distinctive 102 characteristics. Thus, by the fifteenth century, the four shires region had emerged as a distinctive entity and the settlers who lived there perceived it as such and acted communally to protect it with ditches, tower houses and a military association. The colonial administration, which was staffed in no small part by men from the four shires, treated the region as distinct and it was increasingly the target of parliamentary legislation and directives issued by the Irish chancery. This region was presented in contemporary complaints and petitions to the English crown as the ‘obedient’ heart of the colony, and yet it was also home to a growing population of Irish men and women. It is to these Irish inhabitants of the four shires that we now turn.

98 99 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 715–17. Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 189–95. 100 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 741–3. 101 By the fifteenth century, the association between St George and England was firmly in place: S. Boardman, ‘The cult of St George in Scotland’ in S. Boardman, J. R. Davies, and E. Williamson (eds), Saints’ Cults in the Celtic World (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 146; D. A. L. Morgan, ‘The banner- bearer of Christ and Our Lady’s knight: how God became an Englishman revisited’ in N. Saul (ed.), St George’s Chapel Windsor, in the Fourteenth Century (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 51–61. 102 T. O’Keeffe, ‘Medieval frontiers and fortifications: The Pale and its evolution’ in F. H. A. Aalen and K. Whelan (eds), Dublin City and County from Prehistory to the Present: Studies in Honour of J. H. Andrews (Dublin, 1992), p. 69; M. Ní Mharcaigh, ‘The medieval parish churches of south-west county Dublin’, PRIA, 47:5c(1997), 257. 44 Chapter 2

MIGRATION, ASSIMILATION, AND STATUS: THEIRISHOFTHEFOURSHIRES

A fundamental characteristic of the four shires region was its considerable and growing Irish population. Understanding the position of these Irish people and how and in what ways they assimilated, as well as the ways in which they remained distinct, is essential to any understanding of four shires society and particularly so to a discussion of cultural exchange and identity. This chapter will therefore examine the Irish of the region, their employment, levels of economic success, social and economic ties to the colonists, legal status and how far, and in what ways, they became anglicized. The Irish were fundamental to the society and economy of the region and migrants were required to replenish the populations of towns and cities and serve as agricultural tenants. Yet their presence was regarded by some settlers as a threat to the survival of the colony. The rising Irish population in the four shires (and rising status for some Irish people) fuelled paranoia and anti-Irish sentiment, as the settler commu- 1 nity struggled to preserve its privileged position. Some Irish residents of the region may have evaded this sentiment by assimilating fully, despite being of Irish or partially Irish descent. This was not the norm, however, and, for those many persons whose Irish ancestry was known, the threat of anti-Irish feeling and restrictive legislation was ever-present, though inconsistently applied. Some of the Irish men and women of the four shires were descended from families who had lived in the region since before the English invasion of 2 Ireland. Eradicating the Irish was never the intention of the colonists, who relied on them for labour, and Frame notes that ‘the Irish rural population remained in the majority even within heavily colonised areas, and ...were

1 Anxieties about social mobility and the maintenance of societal hierarchies were apparent in much of Europe in the wake of the Black Death. In the colony, these anxieties just had a markedly ethnic character: S. Cohn, ‘After the Black Death: Labour legislation and attitudes towards labour in late medieval western Europe’, The Economic History Review, 60:3 (2007), 480–1. 2 Smith, Colonisation and Conquest,p.56. 45 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 3 from the first seen by the newcomers as a precious resource’. Many of the Irish people who remained in the colony were initially treated as unfree 4 labourers, tied to the land, and were termed nativi, hibernici,orbetaghs. Their condition has often been compared to English villeins but the precise 5 duties and entitlements of betaghs, like villeins, varied locally. Some of the people called betaghs in the sources had significant land holdings and some 6 small number may have been of English or Welsh descent. On the whole, however, betaghs were Irish and were among the poorer members of society, appearing infrequently in the sources by name. As in England, unfree status declined in the colony in the later Middle Ages and mentions of betaghs were unusual by the fifteenth century but many descendants of betaghs would have occupied similar roles in the colony as agricultural 7 labourers, albeit under different tenurial terms. There were also long-resident Irish families of higher status in the four 8 shires. These were most likely a mix of freeholders who had been in place at the invasion and migrants to the colony in the first centuries of its existence. These Irish families often bore anglicized names, including English personal and family names and Irish surnames with the usual Irish 9 Ó, Mac, and iníon Uí patronymics omitted. The adoption of English

3 R. Frame, ‘Review of Identity on the Medieval Irish Frontier’, EHR, 69:483 (2004), 1029–30; Alen’s Reg., pp. 170, 175. 4 There is controversy about whether betagh comes from the Irish bothach or biattách but the arguments of MacNiocaill and Price’s arguments in favour of the latter are convincing. Biattách means food provider, and this may have initially been a duty of betaghs: G. MacNiocaill, ‘The origins of the betagh’ IJ, 1 (1966), 293; L. Price, ‘Origin of the word betagius’, Eiru, 20 (1966), 185–90. 5 A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The native Irish and English law in medieval Ireland’, pp. 145–6 and ‘The organisation of Anglo-Irish agriculture in the Middle Ages’, pp. 282–3, 285 in Crooks, War, Government and Society (2008) [originally published in IHS, 7:25 (1950), 1–16 and JRSAI, 81:1 (1952), 1–13]. 6 L. Simpson, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement in Ui Briúin Cualann, 1169–1350’ in K. Hannigan and W. Nolan (eds), Wicklow: History and Society (Dublin, 1994), p. 229; Alen’s Reg,p.176; Otway- Ruthven, ‘The native Irish and English law’, 7; Ormond Deeds, ii, no. 374. Le Waleys and Rys both signal Welsh ancestry: E. Curtis, ‘Rental of the manor of Lisronagh, 1333, and notes on betagh tenure in medieval Ireland’, PRIA, 43c(1935–7), 46–7. 7 The Irish evidence thus ﬁts well into Mark Bailey’s timeline for the disappearance of serfdom in England, as Bailey pushes back the decline into the mid-fourteenth century, and argues that villein tenure and personal servility were both rare after about 1410. Betaghs were still in place in Trim, seemingly, until the 1470s and there may have been pockets where their position survived, which was not as true in England where Bailey argues that serfdom was ‘virtually irrelevant’ by the ﬁfteenth century: The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England: From Bondage to Freedom (Woodbridge, 2014), pp. 287–91, 294–8, 298; Potterton, Medieval Trim, pp. 127–8. 8 A number of these families are discussed in greater detail below, pp. 80–3, 84–5 (Betagh, Mulghan). 9 These mean ‘grandson of’, ‘son of’, and ‘daughter of’, respectively. Most Ó, Mac, and iníon Uí names were fossilized: that is to say the eponymous ancestor from whom an Irish person took their surname was not their actual father or grandfather by the later Middle Ages, but rather a more distant ancestor. 46 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires names was encouraged by the Irish parliament, which enacted in 1465 that every Irish resident of the colony take unto himself an English surname of a town, as Sutton, Chester, Trim, Skreen, Cork, Kinsale; or a colour, as White, Black, Brown; or an art, as Smith 10 or Carpenter; or office, as Cook, Butler; and that he and his issue use that name. This statute encouraged a process that was well underway. Colour names (particularly White) and occupational names such as Smith or Tailor were already popular among the Irish of the colony. In 1465 the parliament also encouraged Irish residents of the four counties to shave their moustaches, 11 speak English, and wear English apparel. Thus, onomastic assimilation went hand-in-hand with other forms of assimilation, and many members of long-established Irish families would have looked and acted very much like their English neighbours. Some may already have assimilated fully in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, although even in the early decades of the colony this could be difficult, but the growing anti-Irish feeling and institutional barriers made full assimilation more and more problematic, and the colonial community was careful to preserve the 12 memory of Irish ethnic (and legal) status. This anglicized Irish population in the four shires was joined by a growing number of more recent immigrants. The Bruce invasion, Black Death, and famines of the fourteenth century depopulated the colony and some of the settlers who survived migrated to England to take advantage of the economic oppor- 13 tunities created by depopulation there. Thus, by the start of the fifteenth century, there were many opportunities for the Irish to become tenants, servants, clergymen, and tradesmen in the colony, filling roles left vacant by the death or emigration of men and women of English ancestry. These newer Irish immigrants usually had less anglicized names and it is reasonable to suspect that they were less anglicized in other ways as well. These different groups within the Irish population of the four shires varied significantly in terms of their economic status and cultural markers but they shared Irish ancestry and, as that metric of ethnicity came increasingly to the fore, could be subject to being judged ‘Irish’ in the colony.

10 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.291. 11 The link between the Irish and moustaches is discussed in detail below, pp. 207–8. 12 Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’, pp. 128–32. See, pp. 89–96 for the anglicization of the Irish and for the preservation of memories of Irish descent within the colonial community. 13 Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, pp. 21–2; M. Kelly, A History of the Black Death in Ireland (Stroud, 2001), p. 91;S.Duﬀy, Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: the Invasions of Ireland, 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), p. 40; V. Davis, ‘Irish clergy in late medieval England’, IHS, 32:126 (2000), 151; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the Pale’,p.553; J. L. Bolton, ‘Irish migration to England in the late Middle Ages: The evidence of 1394 and 1440’, IHS, 32:125 (2000), 2. 47 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Providing reliable estimates of the size of the Irish population in the four shires and how it changed over the period between 1399 and 1534 is not possible but rentals, which list the rents due from each parcel of land in a particular holding, give some clue as to the proportion of Irish tenants in different areas. Ethnic identifications are based solely on names, so the proportions posited are accordingly approximate, but rentals indicate that there was, in general, a rising Irish tenant population in the four shires, 14 although this population was not evenly distributed. A rental from Dysart, well within the maghery on the coast of county Louth, north of 15 Drogheda, survives from 1407. The rental includes three or four tenants withIrishsurnameswiththeirÓ or Mac prefixes intact and a further six 16 men with anglicized Irish surnames. Thus the proportions of Irish tenants were quite low, at nine or ten of eighty tenants (11 per cent) and most had 17 anglicized surnames, while all had English personal names. A list of tenants in north-west county Dublin on the lands in the dower settlement of Margaret Darcy in April 1415 has an even smaller number of Irish names, with perhaps two of seventy-three named (3 per cent), and 18 the six named tenants on Darcy’s lands in Meath were English. In Kildare and south/south-west county Dublin around this same time, proportions of Irish tenants were higher, at around 25 per cent on the 19 dower lands of Anastacia Wogan and Katherine Uryell. Wogan’s Irish tenants had less anglicized names than those in Dysart, county Louth: most preserved their Irish patronymics and some, like Adoke McTegyn (Adhamh Mac Tadhgáin?), Conchour McConcour (Conchobhar Mac Conchobhair), and Molaghlyn More (Maolochlainn Ó Mórdha), retained 20 Irish first names. The majority used, or at least appear in the sources with, English first names and Irish patronymics, suggesting that the adoption of English first names was often a first step in onomastic 21 anglicization. Uryell’s Irish tenants, most from county Dublin, bore

14 For the most common Irish names and surnames in the four shires, which are not followed in the text by their Irish forms in italics, see table 1, pp. 53–4. 15 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 145–51. 16 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 147–9. English and Irish provenances for Gaffney are possible: Gormanston Reg., pp. 51–2; MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 116–17; V. Morley and B. Smith, ‘Letters’, HI, 2:4 (1993), 7. ‘Doygneyng’ is probably the Monaghan Ó Donnagáin family rather than the English Dongan family since the spelling looks like a scribal attempt to represent an Irish name: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.85. 17 A partial rental of Dysart made in 1431 has only ten names, but of these two are Irish: Dowdall Deeds,p.173. 18 Dryburgh and Smith, Inquisitions and Extents, pp. 206–8. 19 20 CIRCLE, Close Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 3. Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.34. 21 Ecclesiastical scribes often anglicized or Latinized Irish first names but that Irishmen with English first names and those with Irish first names both appear shows that the scribe of this rental did not anglicize names as a rule. It is therefore likely that the Irishmen called ‘John’ or ‘Thomas’ actually used those English names. 48 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires anglicized Irish names, as was common in the county. In both parcels of dower land, Irish tenants were more likely to hold small plots of little value but exceptions were not uncommon and some of the tenants with 22 high rents were Irish. This is typical of the Irish rental evidence overall. This corresponds with evidence from Wales that shows that Welsh holdings in towns were usually less valuable than those held by 23 Englishmen. In Rathmore in north-eastern county Kildare in 1449, twenty-three of eighty-three tenants (28 per cent) had anglicized Irish names and these tenants had variable rents and holdings, from very small holdings worth about 4d to high rents, like Richard Mullane’s 24 (Ó Maoláin) 24s 4d for sixty acres. A survey of the lands of the Talbot family in Maynooth in 1452–3 contains four or five tenants with Irish family names out of the twenty- 25 one named (19–24 per cent). The survey, unusually, divides the rent totals by ethnicity, giving one total for English tenants and another for Irish ones. The reason for this division in the record is unclear. It may be that, as in Wales, there were differences in the terms of land tenure or inheritance between English and Irish tenants on these lands which made 26 such an administrative division necessary. The wider Talbot family also had lands in the Welsh marches, so they may have been accustomed to 27 dividing their accounts on Welsh estates in this way. There is evidence to suggest that some Irish tenants, at least, may also have been treated differently for administrative purposes at Trim, where a ‘serjeant of the betaghry’ was employed until the 1470s, perhaps to collect betagh rents separately. This role may have evolved to encompass responsibility for all

22 On Uryell’s lands in Harristown (Kildare), John Mangan (Ó Mongáin), was the largest landholder and William Okenay/Kenay paid a sizeable rent on Wogan’s lands. 23 P. Fleming, ‘The Welsh diaspora in Early Tudor English towns’ in H. Fulton (ed.), Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (Cardiff, 2012), pp. 279, 283; Korngiebel, ‘English colonial ethnic discrimination’, pp. 14–5. 24 Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 271–4. 25 Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 263–5. These tenants were Philip McCormyn (Mac Cormaican?), Isabella Boghrane (Ó Bodhráin?), Simon Otlgagh ([Mac an] Ultaigh?), Schue Moar (?Ó Mórdha), and Schan (Seán) Stanton. Boghrane may be an Irish adjectival name rather than a patronymic: MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.137. 26 Davies, ‘Race relations’, 39, 42; D. H. Owen, ‘The Englishry of Denbigh: An English colony in Medieval Wales’, THSC (1974–5), 70. 27 The leading English Talbots, relatives of the Malahide branch, were earls of Shrewsbury and had long-held family lands in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, near the Welsh borders, as well as some lands within the marches themselves. Members of the English branch had a history of serving in Ireland in the later Middle Ages: S. L. Waugh, ‘Richard Talbot, second Lord Talbot (c. 1306– 1356)’, ODNB (2008); A. J. Pollard, ‘John Talbot, first earl of Shrewsbury and first earl of Waterford (c. 1387–1453)’, ODNB (2008). A direct connection to Wales was perhaps not even necessary to explain Welsh marcher practices on a given manor in the colony, however, given the preponderance of Welsh and marcher involvement in the colony’s settlement: Duffy, ‘The Welsh conquest’, pp. 103–14. 49 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 28 Irish tenants as betagh tenure declined. Some Irish tenants’ names are missing from the Maynooth rental and others who were considered Irish 29 for accounting purposes appear with English or ambiguous names. If the distinction being made on the rental was a tenurial rather than an ethnic one, it may be that settlers could hold land by Irish (perhaps betagh) tenure, just as they could hold by Welsh tenure in some cases 30 in Wales. Even in Wales, however, this was not common. In the earl of Ormond’s holdings in Turvey, Lusk, and Balscadden in north county Dublin in the 1470s roughly a quarter of tenants were Irish, and most of these held smaller, less valuable plots of land than their 31 English counterparts. These county Dublin Irish tenants had relatively few gaelicized name forms compared with other rentals from the four shires in the later fifteenth century. A list from 1480 of the tenants of Lord Portlester in Ballymore Eustace, county Kildare, for example, contains a great many unanglicized Irish names. A conservative estimate is that a little over half of the 110 tenants bore Irish surnames, while a third bore English ones and the remainder of names are not possible to identify 32 securely. The majority of these Irish surnames preserved an Ó, Mac,or 33 less common Giolla prefix and most Irish tenants kept Irish first names. Nine men appear with Irish nicknames, suggesting that they spoke Irish, perhaps alongside English. These tenants seem to have been, however, politically anglicized, as Ellis notes, since they were called ‘les foialx 34 homes & subiects le roy [the faithful men and subjects of the king]’. Cultural and political anglicization, though often linked, were therefore not directly correlated. There were many more Irish tenants and their names were less anglicized in Ballymore Eustace in 1480 than on Wogan’s lands in the same county in 1418. This can be attributed in part to the position of Ballymore Eustace further to the south and in the marches but the chronological element is also relevant. Although the trend of rising Irish tenant numbers and lower levels of anglicization among tenants is evident earliest and

28 Potterton, Medieval Trim, pp. 127–8. 29 The individual rents listed by name account for only £92 16s 41/2d, but the total ‘annual charge’ in rent was recorded as £129, so some names are certainly omitted or lost through manuscript damage. The total of over £43 pounds of rent recorded from the Irish shows that there were many more Irish tenants than are listed by name, and those I have identiﬁed as Irish only account for a rent of 13s ½ d., while those with seemingly English names paid more than £12 over the £80 5s.9½ d. total listed for the English. 30 R. R. Davies, ‘The law of the March’, WHR, 5:1 (1970), 23, 25. 31 Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 221–7; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.33. 32 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 703–11; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 115–6. 33 Giolla means devotee or servant of, as does Maol, and both were used as components of Irish surnames. 34 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 115–6. 50 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires most extensively in the Kildare marches, perhaps because of their location with Irish areas to both the east and west, it is discernible throughout the four shires. Steven Ellis has traced this demographic shift on the Geraldine manor of Maynooth, where the proportion of tenants with Gaelic sur- 35 names rose from 37 per cent in 1451 to 54 per cent in 1518. Although the exact mechanisms of migration are not clear, some of these tenants probably came from the earl of Kildare’s lands in the marches. In similar manner, the earl of Kent employed Welshmen from his Welsh lands on his estates in England, even those estates some distance to the east, far 36 from the Welsh marches. This seigniorial avenue of migration would have provided a foothold in the maghery to incoming Irish tenants; perhaps the support of a settler magnate helped them circumvent anti- Irish prohibitions. The Irish parliament of 1467–8 complained about just such a sponsorship arrangement, whereby English lords protected their Irish tenants, and such arrangements may have been the norm for the Irish tenants of magnates like Kildare who had extensive landholdings in the marches as well as close connections with the Irish outside the colony.37 Many rentals are from rural areas but individual records of land transactions from urban centres like Dublin and Dundalk increasingly mention 38 Irish tenants from the 1460s onwards. By the 1530s, Dublin rentals list the names of many Irish tenants, some with English and some with Irish first names, reflecting the coexistence of more and less anglicized Irish 39 people. A rental of Dowdall lands in and around Dundalk in 1538 reveals many Irish tenants in the town, far more than are recorded in 40 the 1407 rental of nearby Dysart. Of perhaps forty-three tenants, twenty-seven were Irish (63 per cent). The Dundalk rental was made by an Irishman with an unanglicized name, Dunslewe O Corkeran (Donnshléibhe Ó Corcráin), who was presumably in the employ of the Dowdall family. Many of the Irish tenants, including Ó Corcráin, bore the names of Ulster families, and a preponderance of Irish people from 41 Ulster is discernible in much of Louth. This was due in part to the influence of the archbishop of Armagh and his administration’s remit in Ulster and Louth but another contributing factor, posited by Brendan Smith, was the growth of Ó Néill power and the consequent

35 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers,p.130. 36 Thomas ap Bynour and Evan ap Rhys were employed at Yardley Hastings in Northamptonshire: The Grey of Ruthin Valor: The Valor of the English Lands of Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent, Drawn up from Minister’s Accounts of 1467–8, ed. R. I. Jack (Sydney, 1965), p. 74,n.4. 37 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 529–31. 38 39 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 190–1, 205–7; Alen’s Reg.,p.242. CCD, pp. 233, 238–9. 40 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 225–34. A Latin and an English copy of this rental survive. The English version is abridged, but it ﬁlls in some details lost in the Latin manuscript through damage. 41 MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 8, 26, 29, 36, 58, 98, 143, 225. 51 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland displacement of other Irish families from Ulster to Louth from the mid- 42 fifteenth century onwards. Irish tenants in Dundalk had less valuable holdings than English ones on average; their average annual rent was a little over one shilling and eight pence, while that of the English tenants was almost six shillings. The majority had Irish first names and surnames in Irish forms, including, notably, iníon Uí, meaning daughter of. Iníon Uí surnames were rare among Irish women of the colony before the later 43 fifteenth century but became much more common thereafter. By the episcopate of Octavian de Palatio in the 1480s, women with iníon Uí names were living in significant numbers in Louth. These names were often rendered in documents from the colony as ‘ny’ or ‘nyn’, and were 44 generally used by women with Irish first names. Archbishop Cromer’s registers from the 1510s and 1520s recorded an even greater number of 45 iníon Uí names. This increase in iníon Uí names in Louth was not due to changing scribal conventions, since Irish women living outside the colony had been described in the registers as iníon Uí since the start of the 46 fifteenth century. Rather, it reflects a growing linguistically unanglicized Irish population. The increasing prevalence of Irish first names and Ó and Mac prefixes in the colony mirrors the rise of iníon Uí, though they were never as uncommon as the female patronymic. This marked gaelicization of the naming stock is linked to immigration but may also be due in part to the rising status of some local Irishmen and women who had never anglicized their names. Pressure for the Irish to assimilate linguistically may have been weaker lower down the social scale and in rural environments.47 Rising social and economic status for the Irish of the four shires is evident in the records of land transactions of the mid-to-late fifteenth century where men and (less often) women with anglicized Irish surnames began to appear more regularly. These documents recorded only those persons wealthy enough to be involved in the land market and the shift in Irish people who appear in them is particularly striking in Dublin, where Irish people were rare before the 1460s but appeared

42 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.192. 43 The increase in Iníon Uí names is apparent in a wide range of administrative sources from the colony, and particularly clear in the registers of the archbishops of Armagh, in which Iníon Uí names very rarely appear in the colony before the second half of the fifteenth century. 44 Reg. Octavian, i, pp. 5, 39, 64, ii, pp. 123, 278. 45 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 7:4, 520, 521, 523, 8:1, 44, 49, 8:2, 182–4, 186–8. 46 Reg. Swayne, pp. 71, 114; Registrum Mey, p. lxxvii. 47 If many of these upwardly mobile Irish people were descendants of betaghs, rural agricultural labourers, not engaged in trade and unable because of their tenurial status to plead in colonial courts, there would have been less to gain materially from using English and assimilating. 52 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires Table 1: Anglicized Irish names and surnames In the interest of reducing repetition, the Irish surnames and personal names most often found in anglicized forms in the four shires are recorded below with their anglicized versions, as they appear in the sources, followed by the most likely Irish form or forms in italics. The work of Edward McLysaght and Patrick Woulfe has been consulted for these identifications, as well as the Irish annals, to arrive at the most probable Irish forms. The anglicized names that appear in the source material cannot simply be silently interchanged in the text with the Gaelic forms, since 1) many of the people using the names were significantly anglicized, and it inaccurate to impose an Irish form on them and 2) some of the attributions are tentative.The attributions and likely forms of surnames and personal names that are only mentioned once in this study are dealt with in the body of the text.

Irish Personal Names Laghlyn/Leghlyn – Lochlainn Cornelius/Connor – Conchobar Donald/Donal/Donyll – Domhnall Dermot – Diarmait Finola – Finnguala Manus – Maghnus Molaghlyn/Malaghlyn – Maoileachlainn Murdagh/Murtagh – Muircheartach Tege/Teage –Tadhg Irish Surnames/Family Names Bogan – Ó Bogáin Brennan/Brenane/Brenan – Ó Braonáin Brenne/Brene – Ó Broin/ÓBraoin? Byrne/Obern/ Obren/Obruyn/Ybruyn/Berne – Ó Broin Casy/ Casse – Ó Cathasaigh Carane/Carran/Maccarrghamhna – Mac Carrghamhna? Coyne/Ocuynd – Ó Cuinn Colgan/Colgyn/Colgyne – Ó/Mac Colgan Colman – Ó Colmáin Connor/Conghour – Ó Conchobhair Conyll/ Yconnyll – Ó Conaill Crenan/Crenane – Ó Críonáin Donogh/Donagh/Donogher – Ó Donnchadha Dowlyn – Ó Dúnlaing Dowgan – Ó Dubhagáin/Ó Deargáin? Gorman – Mac Gormáin Hedyan/ Ohedyan – Ó hÉidigheáin Kelly/ Kele – Ó Ceallaigh

53 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Table 1: (cont.)

Kenne/Okenay/Kenny – Ó Cionaoith Kennan/Kenane/Kenan –Ó Cianáin/Mag Fhionnáin? Kynnedy/Kennedy/Kynedy – Ó Cinnéide Lenane –Ó Leannáin Leyghlyn – Ó Lochlainn Mangan – Ó Mongáin McKabe – Mac Cába McCann – Mac Cana 48 Mighane/Mychan/Meghyn/Michyn/McMyghan – Mac Miadhacháin/Ó Miadhacháin/ Mag Fhinn? More – Mór or Ó Mórdha Moynagh – Muimhneach Murgh/McMurgh – Mac Murchadha Mulghan/Mulghin – Ó Maologáin? 49 Molghan – Ó Mothlacháin/Ó Maolacháin/Ó Maologáin? Neill/Nelle/Neell/Nele – Ó Néill Olyn – Ó Floinn? Ryan/Ryane – Ó Riain Rayly/Orayly/ Ryely/Orell’–Ó Raghillaigh

50 regularly thereafter. The increasing number of Irish names among litigants in the central, common law courts of the colony in the fifteenth century also suggests that at least some proportion of the Irish population of the four shires was rising in status. After the first decades of the fourteenth century, only scattered records of the central courts survive but the rolls of the Dublin bench in Hilary term of 1414 reveal that there were few, if any, Irish plaintiffs before the bench that term, though there were a handful of 51 Irish defendants. By the mid-fifteenth century, however, Ellis identified

48 MacLysaght, Surnames,pp.126, 212. The name of ‘David McMyghan’ whoappearsinthe will of Richard Goldynge in 1476 reveals the original form of his name, Mac Miadhacháin, but not all individuals with these variants may be from the same family: Wills Tregury and Walton,pp.120–2. 49 This resembles some English names but does seem to have been Irish in many, if not all, cases in the four shires: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 15 Henry VI, no. 10. 50 This shift is evident in many of the extant Dublin sources cited throughout this study, but is particularly clear in two of the major collections of deeds from ﬁfteenth-century Dublin: J. L. Robinson and E. C. R. Armstrong (eds), ‘On the ancient deeds of the parish of St John Dublin’, PRIA, 33c(1916–7), passim, esp. 202–3, 204; CCD, passim, esp. pp. 203, 223. 51 There are no plaintiﬀs with clearly Irish names, though a small number bear occupational or descriptive names that were common among both English and Irishmen. Thomas Onell, John Mcmynyn and Donaldus O[...]kay are among the few Irish defendants: NAI CB 1/5, fols 1–15, esp. fols 3r, 5r, 10r. 54 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 52 10 per cent of plaintiffs from Meath in the central courts as Irish. This suggests, albeit on rather slender evidence, that a shift towards more Irish plaintiffs in the central courts accelerated in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. This may have been possible in part due to the many grants of English law that were issued to Irish people in this period, which allowed them to plead in the colony’s common law courts, but it also suggests that they were willing and able to shoulder the financial burden 53 of such lawsuits. Even in the later fifteenth century, however, Irish litigants remained very much in the minority before the Dublin bench, and pre- 54 sumably before other central courts in the colony. The names of witnesses from property disputes in Meath and Louth across the fifteenth century demonstrate that Irish witnesses were common. This may tell us little, directly, about their status but it is notable that no comment was made in any of these disputes about their ethnicity, so litigants did not, as a rule, use 55 Irish ancestry to challenge the respectability or legitimacy of witnesses. Jury lists from a variety of proceedings, both within and outside courtroom settings, provide additional evidence for the rising status of Irish people in the four shires. Very different jury lists are examined here: some record the names of jurors on trial juries in two of the central common law courts of the colony, the justiciar’s court and the Dublin bench. These jurors were therefore subject to the eligibility requirements of common law, which generally 56 included free status and set income standards. The few Irish jurors in the colony’s higher common law courts almost certainly had access to English law (by grant of English status/law or other

52 NAI EX 1/3, a set of estreat rolls which Ellis consulted to determine numbers of Irish litigants and jurors, is now missing, and thus it is not possible to provide more precise percentages than he suggests: ‘10 percent of plaintiffs in the central courts in Dublin, 8 per cent of defendants, and a much higher proportion of jurors had recognizable Gaelic names’: Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 32–3. 53 See pp. 66–71 for Irish access to English law. Appeals to the central courts were not cheap and most writs from the Irish chancery seem to have cost the not insignificant sum of 6s 8d for much of the later Middle Ages. This did not, of course, include additional payment necessary for legal representation: CIRCLE, Close Roll 14 Edward III, no. 25, Close Roll 19 Edward IV, no. 8. 54 NAI CB 1/9–10 do not have juries listed, but the over 300 litigants’ names in CB 1/10 reveal that roughly 8 per cent of plaintiffs and 12 per cent of defendants before the Dublin bench had Irish names in 1479–80. 55 Gormanston Reg.,p.175; Dowdall Deeds, pp. 185–6. 56 The ideal juror, in the eyes of jurists, was of gentry or noble standing, but the high volume of jury trials made empaneling such juries impossible, and peasants routinely served as jurors: J. Masschaele, Jury, State and Society in Medieval England (New York, 2008), pp. 139–41, 157. Juror status declined by the fifteenth century and efforts were made to introduce a property requirement: Green, Verdict According to Conscience,p.22; R. B. Goheen, ‘Peasant politics? Village community and the crown in fifteenth century England’, AHR, 96:1 (1991), 46; DeWindt, ‘A medieval leet jury’, 628, 635, 637. 55 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 57 means). Thiswasprobablynotthecaseforthemuchmore numerous Irish jurors on later (non-trial) juries that were involved 58 in creating extents and inquiring into land ownership. The composition of juries reflected the different forms and purposes of different legal proceedings: the commission set up to assess monastic lands in 1540–1, for example, seems to have consulted jurors who were well informed about the lands of a particular religious house, regardless of their ethnic or legal status. And yet, despite the difficulty of comparing juries from different types of proceeding, it is likely that the chronological shift towards more Irish jurors does reflect a significant demographic and social change that is also evident in rentals, deeds, and 59 municipal records. Jury lists do not provide direct information about the relative wealth of these Irish people but they do reveal something about their standing in the local community. Jurors, in any of the different types of jury examined here, were expected to be self-informing and were usually local to the places being examined in an extent or discussed in a dispute. To be chosen as jurors, men had to be, to some extent, accepted and considered 60 trustworthy in their local communities. The relative position of Irish jurors on some jury lists also indicates something about their social status in relation to others on the list: in the juries convened to assess monastic possession in 1540–1, the most socially elevated persons were usually named 61 at the start of the jury list, followed by the names of jurors of lower status. The jurors who served in cases before the justiciar’s court were rarely Irish in the early fourteenth century. In Dublin in 1310, for example, of some ninety-seven jurors, two or three may bear Irish surnames, although none have Ó or Mac prefixes, and all have non-Irish personal names. Only three or four of the ninety-six or so jurors named for Kildare and Meath 62 in 1310 had names that may have been Irish. None of the jurors fined for non-appearance in the Dublin bench in 1414 had clearly Irish names but

57 Aliens, whose legal status was in some ways analogous to the Irish, could not sit on juries in common law courts unless they were denizened: B. Murphy, ‘The status of the native Irish after 1331’, IJ, 2 (1967), 117. 58 The sheer number of Irish persons who appear as jurors for the extents of monastic possession suggest that many, if not most, would not have had access to English law. For the proportions of Irish inhabitants of the colony without English law, see below, pp. 70–1. 59 Rental evidence indicates increasing number of Irish tenants, while deeds demonstrate ever greater Irish participation in the land market. Increasing numbers of Irish citizens, discussed in the following, also suggests that some of these Irish people were rising in status. 60 A. R. DeWindt, ‘Local government in a small town: A medieval leet jury and its constituents’, Albion, 23:4 (1991), 641–6; T. Green, Verdict According to Conscience: Perspective on the English Criminal Trial Jury 1200–1600 (Chicago, 1985), pp. 16–18. 61 The names that come ﬁrst in the lists are often those of local lords or members of the dominant local families: White, Extents, pp. 259, 262, 264, 269, 270. 62 CJR, iii, pp. 143–59. 56 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires Ellis argues that by the mid-fifteenth century over 10 per cent of jurors in 63 the central courts had Irish names. On local juries that were not called before the courts of the justiciar or King’s Bench, but rather served locally to provide information for the administration about property boundaries and the like, the increase in Irish jurors seems to have occurred earlier and was more pronounced. For example, an inquisition that was convened in 1407 to determine the boundary between Kilternan and Simmonstown in north-east Kildare, near the Dublin border, shows that Irish jurors, some with unanglicized names, were common on local Kildare juries at this 64 point. Four of the twelve jurors – John Oganan (Ó Canáin?), Enota Omolegenery (Eithne? Ó Maolchonaire?), Gylpatryk Omanghane (Giolla Phádraig Ó Mongáin), and John Oscharry (Ó Searraigh) – were Irish, and their surnames preserved the Ó patronymic. Two bore Irish first names. On local Dublin juries, this shift is not as evident until the sixteenth century and Irish jurors there generally still had anglicized names. For example, an inquisition about two absentee landowners in 1515 was decided by twelve jurors, among them the anglicized Patrick Mangan and Meiler Dowgen (Ó Dubhagáin/Ó Deargáin?) of Loghton 65 (Kilmactalway, co. Dublin). An inquisition post mortem of Catherine Owen of Castleknock, co. Dublin from 1517 named Simon Brennan and 66 two men named John Coyne, all of south county Dublin, as jurors. In the 1520s, jurors of Irish ancestry, though still in the minority, served 67 regularly in inquisitions in Dublin and Meath. By 1540–1, when juries were convened to assess the lands of Irish religious houses, Irish jurors, many with largely unanglicized names, were common in all four counties. The extents that these juries created assessed lands held by the religious houses of Ireland when their possessions were confiscated during Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries. The jurors named in each extent were ‘true and lawful men of the neighbour- 68 hood’, well established within the locality rather than recent arrivals. Accordingly, these jury lists can provide insight into ethnicity and status in the decades preceding their creation. In particularly large jury lists from Dublin, like that of thirty-five jurors who assessed lands in Dublin city and suburbs held by the Cistercian Abbey of St Mary and of twenty- three jurors who assessed lands in Kilmainham, proportions of Irish jurors

63 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 32–3. 64 Calendar of Ancient Deeds and Muniments Preserved in the Pembroke Estate office Dublin (Dublin, 1891), pp. 39–40; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry VI, no. 142, Close Roll 2 Henry VI, no. 69, Close Roll 8 Henry IV, no. 11. 65 66 Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.2. Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.3. 67 Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 6, 9, 15, 18, 25. 68 Brooks, Law, Politics and Society,p.254; Purcell, ‘Medieval Dublin and Oxmantown’, pp. 205–6. 57 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 69 could be large, between a third and a half. In most of the other juries convened to testify about monastic lands in Dublin, two or three of the ten or twelve men called had names that signal Irish descent (16 per cent– 70 30 per cent). Irish jurors in Dublin usually displayed some measure of anglicization in their names and often appear in the latter half of the lists, in comparatively lower-status positions. That is probably why one finds mainly English names in abridged jury lists which contain only one or two names followed by the note ‘and others’, while in more complete lists, Irish names are common.71 Some Meath juries were similar to those in Dublin, with two or three Irish jurors serving in juries of ten to twelve jurors, and no Irish jurors listed in abridged jury lists containing only two or 72 three names. Many juries had significantly higher proportions of Irish jurors, however, between a third and a half, as in Navan, 73 Trim, Bective, Kells, and Girley. In Granard, Mullingar, Fore, Kilmainhambeg and Kilmainhamwood, Tristernagh and Clonard, all on the marches, Irish jurors were in the majority. In general, Irish jurors in Meath juries from the maghery tended to appear in the second half of jury lists, in lower status positions, but on the marches, they often appeared in the first three or four positions. In Kildare,Irishjurorswereevenmoreprevalent,morelikelytoretain their Irish Ó and Mac prefixes, and more likely to appear in high- status positions on the jury list. Irish jurors with Irish first names and unanglicized surnames were in the majority in Grangeclare, just north of Kildare town, at twelve of fifteen jurors and in Connell 74 at fourteen of sixteen. In Tully, Clonshanbowe, Canonrath, and Killybegs Irish jurors were also in the majority, many with their Irish 75 names intact. In Leixlip, well within the maghery, only three of nine jurors were Irish and they had anglicized last names, though 76 two had Irish first names. These slightly lower numbers of Irish jurors within the maghery were typical. As in Meath, Kildare, and Dublin, the proportion of Irish jurors in Louth juries varied considerably. Juries in Drogheda had only one or two, while in one jury from Almondstown, on the east coast of Louth, just north of Termonfeckin, ten of sixteen jurors were Irish, with remarkably

69 70 White, Extents, pp. 1, 80–1. White, Extents, pp. 25–6, 49, 53, 61, 69, 70, 79. 71 For three examples see White, Extents,p.21. 72 For detailed breakdowns of Irish jurors in Meath and Kildare see S. Booker, ‘The Geraldines and the Irish: Intermarriage, ecclesiastical patronage and status’ in P. Crooks and S. Duﬀy (eds), The Geraldines and Medieval Ireland: The Making of a Myth (Dublin, 2016), pp. 292–324. 73 74 White, Extents, pp. 59, 60, 111, 112, 255, 267. White, Extents,p.62. 75 76 White, Extents, pp. 37, 71, 43, 91–2, 95, 96–7, 157. White, Extents,p.22. 58 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 77 unanglicized names, and in Dundalk, eleven of twenty were. In an extent for lands around Termonfeckin, nine of twenty jurors were Irish, 78 most with relatively unanglicized names. The high proportion of Irish jurors with unanglicized names in Termonfeckin and Almondstown, compared to other parts of south-eastern Louth, may relate to the archbishop’s residence in the area and his administration’s employment of Irish clerics, who often served as jurors for the extents. In general, Kildare was the county most heavily and uniformly populated with Irish people, as assessed by the jurors’ lists contained in the extents. Dublin was the least, while Meath and Louth varied considerably, depending on a number of factors including a given settlement’s proximity to the marches. By 1540–1, however, and in each of these counties, there were Irish names on most jury lists. Outside the maghery, they often appeared in high- status positions in the lists and retained Irish names and name forms. The impression given by the jury lists from the extents of monastic possession is borne out by names of tenants on lands assessed in each county, as Irish tenants were common throughout the four shires, but were present in the 79 highest percentages in county Kildare and the lowest in Dublin. The timing of the change in status for many Irish people in the four shires may be further judged by the fact that some colonists felt threatened by a rising Irish population and by their rising status. Numerous complaints about newer Irish arrivals to the region date from the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, though these Irish migrants were almost certainly welcomed by landlords who required their labour. A complaint aired in the Irish parliament in 1476 railed against the disorder caused by the ‘divers’ husbandmen of the Irish nation living in Meath and in 1515 the treatise known as the ‘State of Ireland’ lamented that ‘moste parte of all thEnglyshe tenauntes hadde avoydeyd the lande, and all Englyshe mennis landes, unto lytill or nought in respect, byn occupyed and 80 inhabytyd with Iryshe folke and Iryshe tenauntes’. By 1537 John Alen, chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, felt moved to suggest that a parliamentary enactment was necessary to stem the tide of Irish people into the colony. He wrote that ther is suche scarnes [scarceness] of thEnglyshe blodde in this parties [these parts], that of force we dryven [are driven] not only to take Iryshe men, our naturall

77 78 White, Extents, pp. 63, 106–7, 237. White, Extents,p.107. 79 White, Extents, passim. For example, compare the relatively small number of Irish Dublin tenants at the abbey of St Mary, most with anglicized names, to the preponderance of Irish tenants (with unambiguously Irish name forms) that are named in connection with the lands in Meath of the Hospitallers of Kilmainham: White, Extents, pp. 2–16, 91–7. 80 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.531; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.12. For the authorship of the ‘State of Ireland’, see p. 26,n.8. 59 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland enymyes, to our tenauntes and erthetyllers [earthtillers], but also some to our householde servauntes, some horsemen and kerne; yt is necessary to be enactcid by Parlyament, that none of an Yryshe natyon, oneles [unless] his graundefather, fader, and hymself were borne in thEnglyshe pale, shall byde emonges us, except suche as some gentilman or man of substaunce, Englyshe, wylbe bounde for 81 conserveing the demeanour towardes the King and his subjectes. Alen made the distinction between the Irish whose families had been in the four counties for several generations and newer arrivals – both were classed as Irish, but those of long tenure in the colony could be trusted to live by English rule. He also included the important caveat that newer arrivals could be vouched for by English ‘men of substance’. This allowed leeway for magnates and large landowners to act as patrons for Irishmen working on their lands, acting as servants, and the like. Anxiety about rising numbers of Irish people in the four shires resulted in intermittent attempts by the colonial government to enforce prohibitions against Irish tenants, which may have existed since at least the mid- 82 fourteenth century. In 1402 Janico Dartas and John Teeling procured a grant to allow them to receive Irish tenants in Crowmartin, co. Louth, suggesting that that they would have been punished for doing so without 83 a dispensation. Crowmartin lay in the western Louth marches, which may account in part for its depopulation and the need for Irish tenants at this early date. In the mid-1460s there was a rash of disputes about Irish tenants, suggesting that the Irish parliament renewed enforcement attempts around this time, most likely in response to the mounting Irish tenant population. Edmund Butler was deprived of his lands north of Trim because he stood accused of enfeoffing them to Conghour Omulrony (Conchobhar Ó Maolruanaidh) and John McEghean (Mac- Aodhagáin), Irish chaplains. He claimed that he had not done so and cited his long history of defending his lands on the western edge of Meath against the Irish as proof of his service to the colony. His lands 84 were restored in 1465. Martial service was again taken into account when James Fay, another marcher from Meath, was absolved by the

81 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 481–2. 82 A chancery document hints that a land transfer may have been illegal both because it contravened mortmain regulations as well as some kind of statute against granting to Irishmen, but another document on the same matter makes no mention of the alienation to an Irishman, suggesting that the mortmain issue was the central one: CIRCLE, Close Roll 32 Edward III, nos 111, 112. Elsewhere in the colony, in 1484 the Irish parliament forbade the citizens of New Ross to lease their lands to the Irish, without the express permission of the town council: Stat. Ire., RIII- Hen. VIII,p.41. 83 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.219; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 135. 84 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 307–9. 60 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires parliament for renting land to a man ‘of the Irish nation’ in the same 85 year. Other cases from the 1460s came to similar ends, as Joan Christofore of Meath and Walter Proute of Garristown in Dublin were restored to their 86 lands after they were accused of leasing them to Irishmen. Joan’s poverty and ‘weakness’ were taken into account when parliament looked favourably on her case, demonstrating, as with the marcher cases, that the implementation of the law was flexible, and that there was much more at issue in these disputes than the simple fact of whether or not a given settler 87 had enfeoffed Irish tenants. When William and Elizabeth Davy were cleared of the charge of leasing lands in Trim to Irish chaplains, the accusation against them was described as the product of ‘great ill will and high malice’. This formula, attributing such charges to malice rather than fact, was a useful way for the parliament to explain away charges of 88 this nature against people it did not wish to punish. The case against Richard Begge and Margaret his wife for enfeoffing an Irishman of lands 89 in Swords in 1475 was similarly overturned. When accused of leasing lands to the Irish in the 1460s and 1470s, none of these settlers pleaded that they had a grant of permission to enfeoff Irish tenants, though the 1402 licence to Janico Dartas and John Teeling suggests that such grants were issued. Instead, they denied the charge and pleaded poverty, or reminded the parliament of their military service to the colony. These defences were effective and few confiscations of land were maintained. This suggests that the Irish parliament, while seemingly concerned about the influx of Irish tenants, was not willing or perhaps able to enforce prohibitions on Irish tenants consistently. A dearth of English tenants and the desire to reward marchers who protected the colony’s borders necessitated compromise. Concern about the Irish population was reflected in other enactments that sought to control the movement or activities of Irish people in the colony. Such enactments were not new in the fifteenth century but they 90 became both more frequent and more general. Parliaments in 1428 and 1430 passed acts against trading with the Irish and allowing Irish soldiers and poets in the colony, while 1402 and 1431 acts displayed paranoia about Irish people visiting or residing in the colony’s towns and

85 86 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 419–23, 549. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 511–13. 87 Her poverty was a justification for using the parliament as a court rather than a common law court, but it was also mentioned in connection with the verdict on her case. Thomas Lund has recently emphasized the flexibility of common law and the influence of judicial opinion: The Creation of the Common Law: The Medieval Year Books Deciphered (Clark, NJ, 2015), pp. 49–55, 137–42. 88 89 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 415–23, 543. Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV p. 431. 90 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 445, 481–3. 61 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland discovering the ‘different secrets, power, ways and contrivances’ of the 91 king’s ‘English lieges’. And yet this was only one strand within colonial attitudes towards the Irish. A more inclusive approach, using a strategy of enforced assimilation, was apparent in the acts of 1465 that ordered the Irish of the colony to take an oath of allegiance to the English crown and adopt English names, language, and attire. The parliament also mandated, pragmatically, that, because ‘the great number of Irishmen ... exceed greatly the English people’ in the colony, every Irishman ‘who dwells with Englishmen and speaks English’ must outfit himself with a bow to 92 defend the colony in times of need. This legislation attempted to resolve the uncertain place of the established, peaceful Irish of the colony, who were so numerous, but to whose full assimilation colonial society was resistant. Only a few years later, in February 1468, paranoia about the threat of the Irish again came to dominate parliamentary discussions of Irishmen in the colony, when Richard FitzEustace was admonished for allowing an Irishman, who ‘by nature of blood’ betrayed Englishmen, to 93 be his sub-constable in Ballymore Eustace Castle. What caused the more exclusionary streak within colonial society to come to the fore again is open to speculation but the defeat of a major colonial force by Conn Ó Conchobhair of Offaly and Irish raids deep into Meath in 1466 may have made colonists feel unusually vulnerable and heightened feel- 94 ings of distrust towards the Irish, even those within the colony. A parliamentary enactment from 1476 to 1477 gives more detail on perceived threats to the security of the colony caused by Irishmen living there. It stated that Irish husbandmen in Meath and elsewhere assisted Irish enemies as ‘their brothers and friends’ and secured support from their English lords for these enemies. As a result, the ‘enemies’ felt free to injure ‘loyal subjects’ and then extort money in recompense if one of their number was, in the eyes of the parliament, ‘deservedly slain’. This enactment shows the web of connections that were formed when Irish tenants retained their links and loyalties to their families and fellow Irish associates while forging new ties with their English lords. These ties had political and legal implications and their cultural complexity is signalled by the fact that the Irish allies of tenants in the colony demanded recompense for 95 homicide in accordance with Irish, not English law. Civic enactments likewise sought to control the rising Irish population. In 1454 the Dublin city assembly attempted to expel from the city ‘al maner of men of Iryshe blode and women’ who had not been resident

91 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 25, 35–7, 44–5; Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.191. 92 93 Stat. Ire., Edw 1–12, pp. 291–3. Stat. Ire., Edw 1–12, pp. 583–5. 94 95 Ó Cléirigh, ‘O’Connor Faly lordship’, 96. Stat. Ire., Edw 12–22, pp. 529–31. 62 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires there for twelve years and in the following year, the assembly tried to eject Irish clerics and members of religious orders (particularly mendicants) 96 from the city. The targeting of mendicants was not necessarily motivated by purely ethnic concerns, and some of the colony’s prominent clerics espoused anti-mendicant sentiments for other reasons but this act from Dublin may relate to fears about the Irish laity posing as mendicants to enter the colony. Such fears prompted a statute of the Irish parliament in 1455, the same year as the Dublin anti-mendicant act, whereby captains of ships docking at the colony’s ports were held accountable for carrying Irish men and women, ‘under colour of mendicants’ into the 97 colony. Notably, the Dublin enactments made a distinction between Irish people who were newcomers, from ‘strange parties’, and those who were long-resident in the colony. In 1457 the Dublin city council ruled that ‘fro thensforward they schall non irysh men ...neythyr har horsys, ne hare hors, ne har horsknavys, to 98 be logyt wythyn the wall of the citte of Dyvelyng’. This ordinance may have been directed at personal martial retinues, which were billeted by settler elites on the local population, and could have been motivated by the cost and disruptions associated with having a military force in the city, but it was framed in ethnic terms. In 1489 the earl of Kildare, acting as deputy lieutenant, wrote a letter to the mayor and bailiffs of Dublin, ordering the expulsion of Irish vagrants from the city, along with swine 99 and dung heaps. Anxiety about vagrants prompted English municipal ordinances in this same period and anti-vagrancy laws were ‘adapted to meet local concerns’ in English towns. However, the way that they were adapted in Dublin demonstrates the centrality of ethnic division in the 100 mentalities of the city’s lawmakers. This focus on ethnic classification and exclusion is even apparent in some charitable bequests from the city, like that made in 1505 by John Allyn, dean of St Patrick’s, which excluded Irish beggars and dictated that help be given only to the poor of the 101 ‘English nation’.

96 CARD, i, pp. 280, 286. The mendicant orders were criticized by prominent clerics from the settler community: Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 417–9; C. Ó Clabaigh, The Friars in Ireland, 1224–1540 (Dublin, 2012), pp. 153–65; A. Muller, ‘Conﬂicting loyalties: The Irish Franciscans and the English crown in the high Middles Ages’, PRIA, 107c(2007), 100–2. 97 98 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 416–19. CARD,i,p.298. 99 CARD,i,p.139: T. K. Moylan, ‘Vagabonds and sturdy beggars’, Dublin Historical Record, 1:1 (1938), 11–18. 100 P. R. Cavill, ‘The problem of labour and the parliament of 1495’ in L. Clark (ed.), Of Mice and Men: Image, Belief and Regulation in Late Medieval England. The Fifteenth Century vol. 5 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 151–2. 101 Alen’s Reg., pp. 258–9. 63 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland These exclusionary parliamentary and municipal acts against Irish tenants, soldiers, and vagrants and against new Irish migrants in the four shires were largely ineffective. They were used pragmatically, strategically mobilized by colonists against rivals in economic, social, or political struggles, if they happened to be Irish or if they had enfeoffed Irish people, but they were not uniformly enforced. This was also the case elsewhere in the colony, where colonists sought to control the movement 102 of Irishmen, particularly soldiers in private retinues. Similar enactments were present in Wales from the earliest years of conquest but declined in the later fifteenth century. Most from the later Middle Ages 103 were drafted in reaction to Glyndŵr’s rebellion. These anti-Welsh statutes were clearly reactive and new statutes were not drafted as the anxieties roused by Glyndŵr faded, though the existing statutes were 104 reconfirmed when fighting broke out again in 1446–7. Similarly, anti-Scottish enactments in England spiked in times of acute conflict between England and Scotland and laws expelling aliens were drafted in Calais in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in response to the feelings of insecurity in the settlement after English losses in 105 France. The low-level but constant warfare in Ireland meant that there was no clear cut state of rebellion as there was in Wales, or of war, as between two sovereign kingdoms, like England and Scotland. Anti- Irish enactments therefore generally cannot be securely linked to distinct political events: some were probably drafted in reaction to particular threats, but others were mostlikelyoccasionedbysustained demographic trends and a chronic, albeit often low-level, state of conflict between the colony and the Irish who lived outside it. This ensured that they were promulgated throughout the fifteenth century, though they became more and more frequent in the second half of the century as the Irish population rose. Significantly, anti-Irish enactments were usually applied only to some people of Irish ancestry in the four shires and generally not to those who had access to English law. Just how many of the Irish living in the colony had access to English law, and the extent to which those who did not were disadvantaged, has been a much-vexed question in Irish

102 Liber Primus Kilkenniensis, trans. A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Kilkenny, 1961), p. 51. 103 R. A. Griﬃths, ‘Who were the townsfolk of medieval Wales?’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales,p.12; G. M. Richards, ‘The population of Welsh border’, THSC, 1 (1970), 91; I. Bowen, The Statutes of Wales (London, 1908), p. 33; J. Laughton, Life in a Late Medieval City, Chester 1275–1520 (Oxford, 2008), pp. 17–18. 104 Bowen, Statute Wales, pp. 40, 45. 105 Thompson, ‘Scots in England’, 7, 9; D. Grummitt, ‘One of the moost pryncipall treasours belonging to his realme of Englande’: Calais and the Crown, c. 1450–1558’ in D. Grummitt (ed.), The English Experience in France, c.1450–1558 (London, 2002), pp. 55–7. 64 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires historiography. Institutionally focused historians like H. G. Richardson posited that the legal disabilities of the Irish were, by the early fourteenth century, technicalities that were relatively easy to circumvent but Edmund Curtis and, later, James Lydon asserted that the legal disability of many Irish people in the colony was considerable. The evidence of 106 the fifteenth century supports Curtis’ and Lydon’s assessments. In the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some or all Irish freeholders in the colony may have been given access to English law and some of their descendants were fully assimilated into colonial society. These people are difficult to trace in the sources since many took English names and were treated as full members of the settler community, but the Betaghs 107 of Meath may have been such a family. However, barriers to Irish 108 legal participation solidified as time went on. Although the English parliament extended English law to free Irish people (not betaghs) in 1331, this enactment was only briefly enforced, if at all, and certainly was not in 109 placebythefifteenthcentury. Thiswasdue,inpartatleast,toopposition from within the colonial community, which was not keen to see its privi- 110 leged position vis-á-vis the Irish eroded. In Wales, similar dynamics prevented the extension of certain rights to Welshmen, as the aims of what Beverly Smith called ‘three essential elements of the classic colonial situation’, ‘the central administration, the colonists, and the indigenous commu- 111 nity’ came into conflict. In practice, the numbers of Irish litigants in the central courts in the early fifteenth century were small (less than 10 per cent), and most were anglicized, 112 coming from local established families like Neill, Mulghan, and Donogh. A few litigants had less anglicized names, like Patrick Obolan/O Boylane (Ó Baoighealláin), who was summoned to answer the king for contempt of 113 court in 1414 and still owed the court fines some two years later. Some

106 Richardson, ‘English institutions in Ireland’, 387–90; Curtis, ‘History of Medieval Ireland’,p.136; Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, 286. 107 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 87; K. W. Nicholls, ‘Anglo-French Ireland and after’, Peritia, 1 (1982), p. 374; Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.119. For the Betagh family see pp. 84–5 below. 108 Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.123; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Request of the Irish’, 261–9; Gwynn, ‘Edward I and English law for the Irish’, 111–27; J. R. S. Phillips, ‘David MacCarwell and the proposal to purchase English law, c. 1273–c. 1280’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 256. 109 Stat. Ire., John-Hen., pp. 292, 325; Murphy, ‘The status of the native Irish’, 122–6; R. Frame, ‘The immediate effect and interpretation of the 1331 ordinance una et eadem lex: Some new evidence’, IJ, 7 (1972), 112. 110 Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, 286–7; Phillips, ‘David MacCarwell’, 271. 111 Smith, ‘Crown and community in Wales’, 156–8; R. A. Griffiths, ‘Wales and the marches’ in S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths (eds), Fifteenth-century England, 1399–1509, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1997), p. 149. 112 NAI RC 8/33, pp. 291, 306; NAI RC 8/34, pp. 154, 336; NAI RC 8/35, pp. 65, 83, 165. 113 NAI RC 8/33, pp. 426, 436, 446; NAI RC 8/36, pp. 37–9. 65 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Irish litigants, like William Donogh of Dublin and Robert Kelle of Louth, appeared in court in their capacity as executors of members of the settler community, a fact that shows not just their ability to plead in the courts but also that some members of the settler community trusted them enough to 114 choose them for this role. The legal actions of Irish litigants, just like those of their English neighbours, might require the support of mainpernors and pledges to vouch for them, and these were generally also English, reflecting the close connections they made in the community. The attorneys they employed were also generally English and were often the same attorneys as 115 those chosen by English litigants. Overall, those Irish who appear in the business of the central courts and administrative bodies like the chancery and exchequer were evidently well-integrated into local networks: for example, Irishmen served as pledges for English litigants, like John Dermot, pledge of 116 Robert Hyggeley of Meath in 1416. And yet, many Irish residents of the colony were still excluded and could not plead in the colony’s highest courts or in the royal courts of 117 England which, on occasion, heard the pleas of the English of Ireland. Most, in theory at least, were also disqualified from holding land or office in the colony. The Irish did plead in ecclesiastical courts, which made no disqualifications on ethnic grounds, and this allowed them to prosecute cases of defamation and testamentary and marital matters, but there were 118 also a variety of local secular courts open to them. One was the manorial court, which was available to all tenants of the manorial lord, whether English or Irish. Similarly, the actions villeins in England could pursue in royal courts were restricted, and they were usually required to resort to their lord’s manorial court in the first instance, as least for suits in 119 which the manorial court was competent. While this has often been interpreted as a restriction of villeins’ legal options in the English case, access to a secular court of any kind may have been a boon to Irish 120 tenants. Manorial court rolls from Ireland are rare but a set survive

114 NAI RC 8/33,p.525; NAI RC 8/36, pp. 575, 589–90, 593. 115 NAI RC 8/33,p.306; NAI RC 8/34,p.293. 116 NAI RC 8/36, pp. 225–9, 561, 578–9, 635. 117 Hand, English Law in Ireland, pp. 140–58. This right to plead in English courts was increasingly contested: Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 125–6. 118 Irish litigants are very common in the accounts of cases of the consistory court scattered through the archbishop of Armagh’s registers. See, for example, Reg. Swayne, pp. 65–7; Reg Fleming,p. 180; Reg. Mey, pp. 266–7; Reg. Octavian, i, pp. 39, 55, 57, 64, 68, 123, ii, pp. 173, 278. 119 Briggs has highlighted villeins’ ability to sue in a wide range of courts, including royal ones, by the later Middle Ages but such litigation was generally in matters that could not be addressed by the local manorial court for jurisdictional reasons: C. Briggs, ‘Seignorial control of villagers’ litigation beyond the manor in later medieval England’, Historical Resarch, 81:301 (2008), 399–422. 120 Hyams discusses the theory and practice of villein exclusion in England: P. R. Hyams, ‘What did Edwardian villagers understand by “law”?’ in Razi and Smith, Medieval Society, pp. 70–5. 66 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires from 1442 to 1444 for the manor of Lucan in west county Dublin, a possession of the earls of Kildare, though in Ormond hands in the 121 1440s. The rolls demonstrate that many Irish tenants of the manor 122 pleaded in its court. Court rolls from Maynooth in 1453–4, also in the hands of the Earl of Ormond in this period, provide similar information about the Irish tenants on that manor. Irish men and women took action against (ostensibly) English ones: Dough’ Murell’ (Donnchadh or Dubhghall Ó Murthaile?) proceeded against Richard What and Thomas Nelle against Peter Whyt for affray and battery respectively. They also impleaded fellow Irishmen: for instance, Thomas MacCavan (MacCaomháin?) used the court to recover damages against Donald Roth (Domhnall Ruadh) for trespass. The Irish names in the rolls are mixed, with anglicized and non- anglicized forms, and Irish people appear frequently as plaintiffs, defen- 123 dants, and pledges, participating fully in the legal life of the manor. For those Irish people living in areas served by a manorial court, on the royal manors of county Dublin or the region’s large archiepiscopal manors or other manors dotted across the four shires, this was an important avenue for minor civil pleas like trespass and debts up to 40s, but larger civil claims, as well as criminal cases, were usually heard only by higher courts. Additionally, the decisions reached in manorial courts could be appealed in those higher courts. This could make victories in them by Irish plaintiffs insecure if there were sufficient grounds to justify an appeal to 124 a court where access to English law was necessary. Other local courts, like the liberty court that operated intermittently in the four shires’ largest liberty of Trim until its abolition in 1479, and the hundredcourts that operated in the colony’s towns, could also be appealed in the colony’s 125 central courts. The courts of liberties were closed to Irish litigants in the thirteenth century, but some may have relaxed this requirement, since the number of Irish litigants in the liberty of Tipperary’s court in the later 126 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was considerable. Hundredcourts were open to all citizens and burgesses of a town but, by the fifteenth- century, as the examples below demonstrate, it is likely that Irish citizens

121 The Earl of Ormond claimed Lucan by marriage to Kildare’s daughter: E. Matthew, ‘The governing of the Lancastrian lordship of Ireland in the time of James Butler, fourth earl of Ormond, c. 1420–1452’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Durham (1994), pp. 254–6. 122 John Ogg (óg), William Brene, Johanna Odowyne (Ó Duinn), Margaret Lowragh (Ó Labhradha or Ó Laoghaire?), and Thomas Orayly were plaintiﬀs in these court sessions: Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 230–8. 123 124 Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 238–41. Foley, The Royal Manors, pp. 95–6. 125 In contrast to the meaning of the term ‘hundred court’ in England, ‘hundredcourt’ in the colony in this period only applied to urban courts. 126 Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.119; Ormond Deeds, ii, pp. 35–6, 39, 130–2, 132–6, 136–7, 197–9, 289–93. 67 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland generally had to purchase English law and thus would have been able access all of the colony’s courts. Purchasing a grant of English law and status was the usual way for Irish people in the four shires to access the higher secular courts but there were other possible options. Betaghs did not have full legal rights but they were protected by custom and, if their interests and their lords’ aligned, he 127 could plead on their behalf. Pleading through one’s lord was of limited value however, since he was given any damages awarded by the court and, in any case, the decline in betagh tenure made this option irrelevant to most Irish people by the later Middle Ages. Similarly, accessing English law by virtue of being a citizen of one of the colony’s towns was unusual by the fifteenth century. In the early fourteenth century Irish burgesses and citizens, like villeins who became resident in English towns, gained the right to plead in common law courts, but this automatic entitlement to English law through citizenship of a town was no longer in place by the 128 end of the century. In 1381 Richard McCrewe paid twenty shillings for a grant of English law, even though he was already a citizen of Dublin, and two years later an Irishman named William Taillour, a burgess of 129 Carlow, paid the same amount for his grant. The Waterford town council went even further in 1459–60 when it ordered that Irishmen and women who wished to become citizens had to purchase English law before 130 they could do so. The same principle may have held true in the towns of the four counties, although it was not universal in the colony, since an Irishman who was made burgess of Carrick-on-Suir in 1493 did not receive a grant of English law until nine years later.131 The decline in betagh tenure and increased rigidity about burgess or citizen eligibility probably contributed to the fact that grants of English law from the king or his representative became the usual way that Irish 132 people accessed English law in the fifteenth century. These grants conferred free status on the Irish purchasers, allowed them to hold lands and various clerical and lay positions, and, in theory, afforded them full legal equality with the English. The Irish were not considered aliens but the grants of English law that they received were similar in form to

127 Hand, English Law in Ireland,p.80; CJR, iii, p. 84. There are examples in which Irish people pleaded via the king of England in his capacity as their lord: Richardson, ‘English institutions in medieval Ireland’, 389; Otway-Ruthven, ‘The native Irish’, 7, 10. 128 A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval Irish town’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin X (Dublin, 2010), p. 306; CJR, ii, p. 352; Bailey, Decline of Serfdom,p.76. 129 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 5 Richard II, no. 15, Patent Roll 7 Richard II, no. 3. 130 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report, pp. 299, 308. 131 Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 274–5, 302–3. 132 Frame traces the narrowing of access to English law as far back as the 1250s: ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 88. 68 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires grants of denizenship given to aliens living in England, and a handful of these were given to aliens, many of them lowlanders, living in the 133 colony. In England, denizenships were awarded in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as variable individual grants that protected foreign merchants in times of war against their country of birth (usually France or Flanders), but by the fifteenth century they had become more thoroughgoing and formulaic grants that entailed a ‘formal transfer of 134 allegiance from a foreign power to the Crown of England’. This did not, however, prevent them from being extended to the Welsh, even 135 though they were subjects of the crown. So too, of course, were some of the Irish and this may be one reason why grants of English law in Ireland do not usually contain the professions of allegiance that are found in contemporary English examples, though the lack of a recog- 136 nized Irish king to transfer their allegiance from may also be a factor. These grants were, therefore, adaptable and were used to extend rights of various kinds to different legally disabled groups. In England they addressed the issue of alien taxes and included provisions for pleading in royal courts and holding and selling lands, while in Ireland the same rights to plead and hold land and office were addressed but the stipula- tion that the grant made one and one’sheirs‘free from Irish servitude’ 137 was often added. Mass grants of English law were mooted and perhaps issued in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but, by the fifteenth century, grants of English law extended only to the grantee’s direct heirs, not their extended lineage. Marriage did not automatically confer English law and some Irish 138 women married to English men purchased law for themselves. Overall, access to English law became increasingly restricted in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, since it did not extend through marriage, nor to extended lineages, nor via one’s lord or admission to civic franchises. The colonial administration was therefore able to exert considerable control over who had access to English law. However, grants of law were issued frequently, and their numbers rose in the second half of the fourteenth

133 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 29 Henry VI, no. 15; R. Jones, ‘Janico Markys, Dublin, and the coronation of “Edward VI” in 1487’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XVI (Dublin, 2015), p. 187. Aliens were deﬁned as those who were not born in Wales, England, or Ireland in Waterford in 1469–70: Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.305. 134 B. Lambert and M. Ormrod, ‘Friendly foreigners: international warfare, resident aliens and the early history of denization in England, c. 1250–c. 1400’, EHR, 130:542 (2015), 23. 135 Lambert and Ormrod, ‘Friendly foreigners’,p.21. 136 Some did contain promises of loyalty to crown, but not formal transfer of allegiance: Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 263–5. For English examples and pledges of loyalty: Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry V(1413–1416),p.138; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VI (1436–1441), pp. 298, 302, 312, 360, 473. 137 Lambert and Ormrod, ‘Friendly foreigners’, pp. 22–3; Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 263–5, 302–3. 138 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 22 Edward IV, no.2, Patent Roll 21 Henry VII, no. 12. 69 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland century and seem to have peaked in the final decades of the fifteenth century, although the incomplete records of the Irish chancery make 139 quantification difficult. We can only assume that these grants were common throughout the fifteenth century since they are numerous whenever there is good patent roll documentation. Because of the uneven survival of chancery material, we cannot trace chronological patterns in the distribution of these grants like those that are apparent on the Anglo-Scottish border, where the numbers of Scottish inhabitants of England purchasing similar grants increased sharply at times of conflict between Scotland and England, in Wales where the numbers of Welshmen purchasing similar protections swelled in the wake of Glyndŵr, and even in Calais, where they became much more common for residents without English ancestry after the loss of Normandy in 1450 140 and Gascony in 1453. Such patterns may not be so pronounced in the colony in any case, since, like anti-Irish enactments, grants of English law in Ireland were issued in a constant, low-level of state of interethnic hostility and thus were sought relatively consistently. Although grants of English law were routinely granted, they were expensive and consequently not available to the entire Irish population of the colony. Their cost varied, even within a single year, and could be as 141 high as 100s. In 1407–8 Maurice Omonyll (Ó Maonghaile?) and Patrick Omolmartyn (Ó Maolmháirtín) paid half a mark (6s 8d) for a grant of English law, while Patrick Ocurnan (Ó Curnáin/Ó Cuirnín) paid 10s and 142 John Ohedyan gave a mark (13s 4d). This variation suggests that the costs may have been contingent on personal circumstances but even half a mark was a significant expense. In addition to the cost, the bureaucratic process itself may have deterred some applicants since they had to apply for these grants from the king or his deputy and visit the chancery in 143 Dublin. Additionally, the wording in some grants of English law suggests that they might not be granted to everyone who wished to buy them and that factors other than the fee were taken into account. Some grants specified that they were given on account of service to the crown

139 Murphy, ‘Status of the native Irish’, 128. Apparent spikes in grants of English law can be explained by the source survival, but relatively voluminous patent roll records from the 1300s (especially 1303–4), and 1318–19 produced no such grants, suggesting that they genuinely more uncommon in the ﬁrst half of the century: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 31 Edward I, and Patent Roll 13 Edward II. 140 D. Ditchburn, Scotland and Europe: The Medieval Kingdom and its Contacts with Christendom, 1214– 1560 (East Linton, 2000), pp. 240–2; Davies, Age of Conquest,p.458; J. Beverley Smith, ‘Distinction and diversity: The common lawyers and the law of Wales’ in Pryce and Watts, Power and Identity,p.145; Grummitt, ‘Calais and the Crown’,p.53. 141 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Richard II, no. 56. 142 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Henry IV, nos 41, 48, 55, 88. 143 Otway-Ruthven, ‘The native Irish’,p.14; Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.527. 70 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires or to a member of the colonial administration, while others might state that the recipient was faithful to the king or that he and his ancestors lived 144 among the English. Thus, as Lydon and others have argued, many Irish 145 people remained outside English law in the later Middle Ages. Exclusion from the colony’s highest courts and possible challenges to the right to hold lands or office would have caused, as Otway-Ruthven put it, ‘practical inconveniences’ for some Irish inhabitants of the colony, but, even so, access to English law was not indispensable for life in the four shires and some Irish people lived for many years in the region before 146 they purchased it. Buying English law may have been prompted by specific disputes or accusations, rather than as a first step for moving into the colony. Where court records do survive, it is clear that English members of the colonial community used accusations of Irish blood opportunistically against opponents in legal disputes and those Irish people who were lucky enough to evade such disputes may never have 147 gone to the trouble and expense of purchasing English law. Irish people, both those entitled to English law and those not so entitled, were integral to the economic life of the four shires, which relied on their agricultural labour and their engagement in commerce, service, skilled trades, and other fields. For this reason, city ordinances and the legislation of the Irish parliament that discriminated against the Irish in economic matters were often ignored and some enactments applied only 148 to Irish people living outside the colony. Trade between Irish areas and the colony flowed but was discouraged in times of acute conflict, just as 149 trade with France or Scotland might be suspended in times of war. Military motives prompted bans against selling weaponry and horses, 150 among other goods, to the Irish outside the colony. Other enactments that did apply to the resident Irish of the colony were motivated less by

144 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Richard II, nos 56, 210, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 176, Patent Roll 7 Henry IV, no. 56. 145 Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’,p.286; C. Parker, ‘The internal frontier: The Irish in county Waterford in the Later Middle Ages’ in Colony and Frontier,p.150. 146 Otway-Ruthven, ‘The native Irish’,p.6. For example, two clerics from Louth, Hugh Shyele (Ó Siadhail) and John Kelly: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 12 Henry IV, no. 2; Cal. Pat. Rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz,p.33. The same was true in Scotland: Thompson, ‘Scots in England’, 5. 147 See above and below for the types of dispute that prompted the Irish to purchase English law and for examples of Irish inhabitants of the colony who delayed making this purchase, pp. 68, 85–7, 89–94. 148 Mentions of ‘Irish enemies’, the ‘Irishry’, and areas of Ireland outside the colony being the targets of some prohibitions suggests that the Irish of the colony may have been exempted: Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, 106; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Henry IV, no. 28, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, nos 39, 116, Patent Roll 2 Henry VI, no. 45. 149 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.499; K. Down, ‘Colonial society and economy’, NHI, ii, pp. 482–4. 150 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Henry IV, no. 28, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, nos 39, 116, Patent Roll 2 Henry VI, no. 45. 71 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland military motives or even ethnic animosity than by protectionist economic policies, and were often related specifically to particular goods or indus- tries. The protectionist motive is clear in a Dublin city council ordinance from 1470 that banned the sale of bread to Irish ‘hocksters’, who bought large quantities of bread to forestall the market and then sell at artificially high prices. Bakers were instructed to sell to ‘cytte hokesters’–presumably citizens – instead, so this ordinance protected the economic privi- leges of the citizenry, a concern of much civic legislation. And yet the ‘Irishness’ of the forestallers is emphasized in the ordinance, and in another act of the same year against Irish ‘regrators’, who also sold goods at a mark-up, so the council seems to have felt that ethnicity was 151 relevant. What precisely is meant by Irish in this context is difficult to ascertain and the council’s reason for choosing to ban ‘Irish’ retailers rather than all non-citizens is obscure, since the latter would disqualify an even broader span of forestallers and provide even greater protection 152 for the superior position of Dublin merchants. The Irish were again singled out as responsible for forestalling the market in parliamentary legislation of 1508–9, which sought to prevent price inflation and the transfer of coin to Irishmen (scarcity of currency was a continuing 153 problem for the colony). Although the term ‘Irish enemies’ was not used, the use of the term ‘Irishry’ in this ordinance suggests that this trade embargo was applied to trade with Irish people living outside the colony, 154 not within it. However, the repetition of ‘Irish’ and a tendency not to specify which types of Irishmen were the intended targets of legislation may have left sufficient ambiguity to allow economic discrimination against the Irish of the colony. If so, this discrimination was not sufficient to prevent them from taking an active role in the economy of the region and the fact that these Irish retailers (forestallers and regrators) had access to ready cash needed to buy large quantities of grain, especially in a time of currency shortage, is a testament to their economic success. Wills and testaments provide evidence of the economic success of some Irish inhabitants of the colony and reveal the web of economic relationships that existed between the English and Irish. They also demonstrate social ties and bonds of affection expressed through bequests and the selection of executors. Unfortunately, testamentary material survives in significant

151 CARD, i, pp. 339–40. 10 of 11 forestallers named in an inquisition into the practice in Dundalk in 1535 had Irish names, but this might support either hypothesis – that most forestallers were Irish or that the Irish were most often punished for it: Griﬃth, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 40–1. 152 CARD, pp. 24–5, 34, 134–8, 220–8, 237, 299. 153 CIRCLE, Patent Roll I Henry IV, no. 115; S. G. Ellis, ‘The struggle for control of the Irish mint, 1460–1506’, PRIA, 78c(1978), 17–36. 154 Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, 106. 72 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires volume from Dublin and Louth only, and we must extrapolate our conclusions from these to Meath and Kildare. John Hammond’swillfromlate fourteenth-century Dublin demonstrates the existence of economic ties between the English and Irish by this date, since two men with anglicized 155 Irish surnames, Roger Brenne and Richard Carane, owed him money. Ismaye Perrers’ six or seven Irish debtors (of fifteen total), in contrast, preserved their Irish first names and surname forms. She lived in Dundrum, in the south of county Dublin, and died in c. 1445.Dundrum’slocationata distance from the city and near the Dublin mountains may account for the high proportion of Irish debtors and their unanglicized names at this 156 relatively early date. The largest collection of fifteenth-century Dublin testamentary materials dates from the 1460sand1470s. Records of debts owed to and by testators reveal a dense network of creditor arrangements, and the active participation of the Irish as creditors and debtors evinces their high levels of integration in the local community, as well as demon- 157 strating that many of them had significant disposable income. Colonists like Reginald Weston of west co. Dublin and his wife, Alice Yong, were in debt to two Irishmen – John Ryane and Thomas Ogg (Óg?) – when they 158 made their testament in 1474. Nicholas Ketyng of Clondalkin, also in 159 west co. Dublin, owed money to Manus Keney and Thomas Kelly. The inventories of Michael Trevers, Joan Usberne, Nicholas Haylot, Robert Lanysdall and John Bulbeke with his wife Ellen Kymore, all from the second half of the 1470s, show that these English men and women lent to, or borrowed from, people of Irish ancestry, a number of whom had 160 unanglicized names. The inventory of Patrick Laweless of Tallaght confirms that this outlying suburb had a particularly large and unanglicized Irish population and that Lawless, who was of English descent, made 161 economic agreements with many of them. His inventory names twenty-three men and women to whom he owed money and, of these, nine had Irish surnames with their patronymics intact. Iníon Uí names were rare in county Dublin but were used by two women, Anstace eny Coyng (Iníon Uí Cuinn) and Margaret eny McEygo (Iníon Mhic Eachaidh?), who were creditors of Lawless. Other creditors bear the odd transliterations of

155 CARD,i,p.127. Carran was recorded as an alias for Richard Maccarrghamhna alias Carran (Mac Carrghamhna) in Dublin in 1403: CPL,v,p.595; W. M. Mason, The History and Antiquities of the Collegiate and Cathedral Church of St Patrick near Dublin (Dublin, 1820), p. lxxiv. 156 Ancient Deeds of Pembroke Estate,p.47. 157 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 4, 34–6, 41–5, 49–50, 68–72. 158 159 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 89–90. Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 112–13. 160 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 116–18, 125–7, 127–8, 136–8, 102–3. 161 Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 113–36;E.O’Byrne, ‘Cultures in contact in the Leinster and Dublin marches, 1170–1400’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin V (Dublin, 2004), pp. 111–48. See also p. 238 below. 73 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Irish first names that appear in records of the colony: Dalwagh (Dalbhach) 162 More and Calyagh (Calbhach)Patrike. Bequests signal more personal ties between the English and Irish. The inventory of John Kempe, made in 1471, records his bequest of a measure of rye to Dermot Hartane (Diarmait ÓhArtáin), while Robert FitzRobert of Rathmore left Denis O’Knawyn 163 (ÓCnámhaigh?) 2s in 1471. In 1476 Richard Goldynge of the parish of Balscadden in north county Dublin left a pious bequest for the deceased Thomas Macharny (Mac Cearnaigh), providing 3s 4d ‘for his soul’; that is, 164 presumably, for masses to be said in his name. English women like Alice Cassell of Lusk and Dame Margaret Nugent also included bequests to Irish 165 menandwomenintheirwills. Some settlers left bequests to several members of the same Irish family, signalling a particularly close relationship 166 and, perhaps in some cases, familial ties by intermarriage. The testaments of Irish men and women were also recorded in this Dublin collection. They were among the wealthier members of the Irish population of the colony, since they had sufficient property to make drafting these documents necessary. Irishmen like Thomas Kelly of Skidoo, north co. Dublin, and William Neill of Clondalkin were from prominent anglicized Irish families of Dublin and had Irish and English 167 debtors and creditors. The inventories of some Irish testators, like Patrick Kenane and Dermot Carryk, demonstrate that they were of sub- 168 stantial means. Most of Carryk’s financial transactions were with other anglicized Irish people, like John Kelly, Daniel Brenan, Daniel McMorgh, and Malachy Corryser, but one of his creditors bears an English name, as does Sir Richard Trevers, vicar, to whom he left 12d. Carryk requested that he be buried in St Kevin’s church, in a close southern suburb of the city. An Irish woman named Margaret Obern who made her inventory in 1477 lived in the same area and, like Carryk, left a bequest to Richard Trevers and requested burial at St Kevin’s. She left debts and bequests to English and Irish people and her will paints a similarly integrated picture of society 169 in St Kevin’s parish, just outside the city walls. The smaller corpus of testamentary records from Louth confirms that there were extensive economic and social links between the English and

162 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 144–5; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.205; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.194. 163 164 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 13–15, 22–3. Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 120–2. 165 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 51–3, 78–81. 166 167 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 66–8, 149–51. Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 18–9. 168 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 81–2, 138–9. It was rare for the English to take Irish first names, particularly in Dublin, and many Irish people had these toponymic surnames by the fifteenth century, so Diarmat Carryk is most likely Irish. Malachy Corryser is judged Irish for a similar reason: he has an occupational surname and an Irish first name. 169 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 104–5. 74 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires Irish of that county. The inventory of the goods of Thomas Androwe, vicar of Kilpatrick in Ardee, dates from 1428 and records seven debts to Irish men out of twenty-one creditors. Androwe was also owed money by two Irishmen: Donald Omody (Domhnall Ó Muadaigh?) and Golnowe 170 McGeagh (Goilla na Naomh? Mag Aoidh). Christopher Dowdall’s testa- 171 ment from 1485 contains a similar ethnic mix. Wills and testaments from early sixteenth-century Louth reveal an even greater proportion of Irish people in Louth and a greater prevalence of Irish name forms. The will of an Irishman named John Colgan (Mac Colgan) and his wife Katherine ny Mulcrewe (Iníon Uí Maolchraoibhe), proved in 1509, indicates that the couple owed debts to both English and Irish people and that they left 172 bequests to both. Nicholas Casshel of Dundalk left a monetary bequest to John Dympsy (Ó Diomasaigh) and forgave the debts of Thomas McCan 173 (Mac Cana)and‘Lummyne O FarCowys (??)’. The wills of five colonists from Louth in the early sixteenth century also contain the names of Irish 174 debtors and creditors and bequests to Irish people. Many Irish testators, creditors, and lenders made their living from agriculture, as livestock and tools mentioned in their testaments show, and agricultural labour was one employment that Irish residents of the four counties undertook. Paid labourers (about whom we know little, but many of whom were presumably Irish) may have become increasingly mobile after the Black Death, if demographic changes opened up the labour market as they did in England, and this may have encouraged lower-status Irish people to move into and 175 around the four shires. Another employment was service in elite settler households, and we know that some Irish men and women served in that capacity for many years in the region. An elderly man namedDonaldMcGilbuygh(Domhnall Mac Giolla Bhuidhe)gave evidence in a dispute about John Baggot’s ownership of a parcel of land in Louth in 1471 becausehehadservedJohn Baggot and his

170 171 Reg. Swayne, pp. 112–13. Dowdall Deeds, pp. 205–7. 172 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 747–8. 173 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 750–1. Unusually, both the surname and first name of this last Irish debtor, as rendered in Octavian’s register, are obscure and it is difficult to know what Irish names they may represent. The very oddness of their spelling and the ‘O’ patronymic confirm that it is an Irish name was being represented here. 174 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 754, 755, 759–60, 763–4, 767. 175 Paid seasonal workers were common even before the Black Death: Otway-Ruthven, ‘Organisation of Anglo-Irish agriculture’,p.283. For the increased mobility of labour in light of reduced supply and the ways in which the English government dealt with rising wages and mobility, see C. Given-Wilson, ‘The problem of labour in the context of English government, c. 1350–1450’ in J. Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg, and W. M. Ormrod (eds), The Problem of Labour in Fourteenth-Century England (York, 2000), pp. 85–100, esp. 85–6. 75 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 176 father Richard since his youth. Some of the people described as servants in the sources were domestic household workers, perhaps particularly Irish women: from the few descriptions we have of male 177 ‘servants’, they acted in various roles outside the domestic sphere. Two accounts hint that some Irish ‘servants’ mayhavebeenmem- bers of personal, martial retinues, like Cornelius Odovendi (Conchobhar Ó Duibheannaigh), Peter Dowdall’sservantin1435 and John Omolmyghell (ÓMaolmhichíl), ‘servant’ of Laurence Taaffe in 1472–3, who were involved in wrongful imprisonment and robbery, 178 respectively, at their employers’ side. Being a servant could result in lucrative positions in the colony, if you were lucky enough to serve one of the most influential members of the colonial elite. The eighth earl of Kildare was the king’s deputy in Ireland in 1496 when his servant John Ofali (ÓFáilbhe?) was granted the office of the gauger [of wines] for the colony with all fees and income associated with that post, which entailed inspection of imported wine to 179 determine tax. The term servant covered a range of roles that Irish people performed in the households and extended retinues of colonists, and these roles offered opportunities for Irish people to advance themselves in the four shires. The hereditary learned classes of Gaelic Ireland were also occasionally employed in the four counties, and a leech, or surgeon, named Oon Albanagh (Eoghan Albanach) leased land within the franchise of Dublin in 180 1519 and was presumably employed in the city. Another Irish doctor, Cornelius McCahulle (Conchobhar Mac Cathail), was probably resident in 181 Louth in 1509. Bardic poets and Brehon lawyers were also employed 182 in the four counties but largely, if not exclusively, on the marches. In contrast, there were many Irish tradesmen in the maghery and across cities and towns of the four shires. Patrick Ocorre (Ó Corra), Cornelius Uavehegan (Conchobhar Ó hUallacháin?), and Robert Ballagh (Ballach)

176 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 196–7. 177 The term used is usually servant in English sources, and servus or, more often, a participle form of servio in the Latin. 178 Reg. Swayne,p.159; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 39–41. 179 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 12 Henry VII, no. 3, Patent Roll 2 Henry VI, nos 2, 8, Patent Roll 2 Edward II, no. 153. This unusual surname may be a toponym from Oﬀaly, or the Munster name Ó Fáilbhe: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.103. 180 This man’s surname or nickname, Albanach, means ‘Scottish’ and suggests that he was of Scottish ancestry or associated in some way with Scotland, but in any case he was clearly from an Irish- speaking and culturally Irish milieu: Ancient Deeds of Pembroke Estate,p.62. 181 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 747–8. 182 K. Simms, ‘The brehons of late medieval Ireland’ in D. Hogan and W. N. Osborough (eds), Brehons, Serjeants and Attorneys: Studies in the History of the Irish Legal Profession (Dublin, 1990), pp. 52–76. For bardic poets, see below, pp. 201–3. 76 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 183 were all millers in Carlingford, co. Louth in the early fifteenth century, and the franchise rolls of Dublin from 1468 to 1512 contain many Irish tradesmen, particularly goldsmiths, as well as butchers, glovers, and 184 tailors. That Irish leatherworkers were common in Drogheda by 1518 is suggested by the fact that six of the nine cobblers and glovers from the city that were called to appear before the archdeacon in that year 185 were Irishmen. Moreover, inquisitions into excessive prices from the 1520s and 1530s include the names of Irish shoemakers like Donald oge Omullavyn (Domhnall Óg Ó Maolchaoimhín) of Coolmine in Dublin, Laghlyn Shomaker of Carstown, co. Louth and Cornelius alias Connor Shoemaker of Trim, tanners like Bryan OByrne of Stadalt, co. Meath, and a number of other Irishmen working in the leather trade in Dublin and Meath. These inquisitions concerning prices recorded tradesmen with Irish nicknames (óg), first names like Domhnall, Diarmait, Lochlainn and Conchobhar, and Mac and Ó patronymics, providing further evidence of the increasingly unanglicized names used by the Irish of the four shires, in these cases well within the maghery, by the sixteenth century.186 There is further evidence of Irish involvement in commerce and crafts in the franchise rolls of Dublin which record masters and apprentices in a variety of trades working in the city (and becoming citizens) in the last decades of the fifteenth century. Although the hire of Irish apprentices was forbidden by the city council in 1454, 1469, and 1475 on pain of losing one’s franchise, many Irish people served as apprentices to English 187 masters. The significant cultural anglicization clear from the names of these apprentices may have helped them to evade these prohibitions and some may have had grants of English law. Irish apprentices worked in trade, like John Leyghlyn, a merchant’s apprentice, the cloth and clothing industry like John Kenan, tailor, and Denis Neell, shearman, and victual- 188 ling, like Laghlyn Berne and Patrick Kelly, butcher’s apprentices. Irish women were employed as apprentices by English masters: Alice Haghane (Ó hAgáin?), was the apprentice of William Armester, cordwainer, and 189 Joan Kelly alias Halpenny was the apprentice of James Barby. Some established Irish tradesmen of Dublin had their own Irish apprentices, like 190 William Kynnedy, glover, who employed Joan Brennan. It was rarer, 191 but not unknown, for Irish tradesmen to have English apprentices. Records like the franchise rolls do not survive for other towns and cities in the four counties. Unfortunately this means that, to a large extent, we

183 184 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 177–8. O’Neill, Merchants and Mariners,p.95. 185 186 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:1, 43. Griﬃth, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 7, 34–5, 38–40. 187 188 CARD, i, pp. 281, 331, 352. Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 22–23, 25, 28. 189 190 Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 23, 34. Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 25, 40, 44, 46. 191 Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.27. 77 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland must extrapolate from the relatively numerous Dublin sources to give us some idea of how Irish apprentices may have been received in towns like Drogheda and Dundalk, as well as in the smaller towns in the region. The Dowdall deeds record that John Rathcoull took Nicholas O Molghallyn (Ó Maolochlainn) as his apprentice in Louth in the mid-fourteenth century, which suggests that Louth was much like Dublin, in that Irish 192 apprentices, though officially banned, were accepted. We should note, however, that Smith has argued that O Molghallyn was given a poorer apprenticeship deal than English apprentices, suggesting that 193 sometimes the Irish were offered worse terms of employment. Unofficial discrimination of this type may have contributed to the lower economic position of many Irish people in the four shires that is evidenced in their lower than average rental holdings. Some Irish tradesmen were able to join the craft guilds of the region’s towns. Dublin’s guilds are the best documented and their foundation 194 charters show that Irish tradesmen were among the founding members. Guilds protected the economic interests of their members since they were able to influence prices and practices within each trade, but they were also social institutions, and members interacted with one another at guild festivities. The guild acted as a safety net for widows of guild members 195 and some ran schools for their children. Thus, acceptance in a guild was an important social, as well as financial, step for Irish tradesmen. Some guilds prohibited Irish members but men with Irish surnames appear in 196 their charters nonetheless. We do not know precisely what enabled a person of Irish ancestry to be accepted in a guild but purchase of English law, anglicization, and long residence in the colony are likely prerequisites. The smiths’ guild had an Irish founding member, William Donogher, in 1474 and Philip Leghelyn was a founding member of the guild of barber

192 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 86–7; K. Walsh, A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford, 1981), pp. 341–2. Rathcoole was a toponym of a Louth family that may come from Coolrath in Louth or Rathcoole in Meath: Dowdall Deeds, pp. 52, 62, 141, 215. 193 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.187. 194 For greater detail about Irish guild members and citizens, see S. Booker, ‘An English city? Gaelicization and cultural exchange in late medieval Dublin’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin X (Dublin, 2010), pp. 287–98. 195 M. Clark and R. Refaussé (eds), Directory of Historic Dublin Guilds (Dublin, 1993), p. 11. A recent work on later medieval guilds in England has usefully outlined their many interrelated functions, and emphasized their key social roles, including the building of schools and involvement in religious benefaction: G. Rosser, The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages: Guilds in England, 1250– 1550 (Oxford, 2015), esp. pp. 3–4. 196 J. J. Webb and more recently Elmar Eggerer argued that Irishmen were excluded from Dublin guilds: they may have meant only unanglicized Irishmen: J. J. Webb, The Guilds of Dublin (London, 1929), p. 25; E. Eggerer, ‘The guild merchant of Dublin’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin VI (Dublin, 2005), pp. 144–59. 78 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 197 surgeons in 1446. This guild had a number of Irish members by the later 198 sixteenth century and some even served as guild masters. John Ryely was 199 a founding member of the tailors’ guild, while the guild of carpenters, joiners, masons, myllers, helyers, and coopers had between five and seven 200 Irish members when it was founded in 1508. The carpenters’ guild maintained this high level of Irish membership throughout the early 201 sixteenth century. Guilds each had their own character and leadership and varied in their attitudes towards Irish members: the bakers’ and the 202 weavers’ guilds, for example, seem to have admitted no Irish members. Guild membership and participation in trade often went hand in hand with citizenship and occasionally even civic office for Irish Dubliners. This was in spite of civic ordinances of 1448 and 1463 prohibiting citizens ‘of the Irish nation’. As was so often the case in the colony, and as Emer Purcell noted with reference to Dublin, ‘there was some disparity 203 between theoretical and practical treatment of the Irish’. The term ‘Irish nation’ does have political and cultural connotations, meaning that it may not have been intended to apply to those culturally anglicized Irish inhabitants of Dublin who had access to English law but this is not an entirely satisfactory explanation, since the term ‘Irish nation’ also had 204 strong consanguineal connotations in the colony in this period. Chancery material suggests that Irish citizens were uncommon in the early fifteenth century but the franchise rolls, which survive from 1468 onwards, indicate that their numbers had risen by the second half of the fifteenth century in line with the rising Irish population and (for some) their rising status. In 1468–9 a goldsmith named Patrick Kenne, a hooper named Maurice Mulghan, and a shoemaker named Laghlyn Dowlyn 205 were admitted to the franchise. Like many citizens, these Irishmen were skilled craftsmen and their admission may have been due to a particular need for their crafts in the city. All three were admitted ‘by special grace’ of the mayor rather than by serving an apprenticeship or by family connections; this may indicate that the mayor and council were

197 T. P. Le Fanu, ‘A note on the two charters of the Smiths’ Guild of Dublin’, JRSAI, 10:2 (1930), 154–5. 198 H. F. Berry, ‘The ancient corporation of Barber-Surgeons, or guild of St Mary Magdalene, Dublin’, JRSAI, 33:3 (1903), 218. 199 H. F. Berry, ‘The Merchant Tailors Gild-that of St John the Baptist, Dublin 1418–1841’, JRSAI, 8:1 (1918), 19. 200 H. S. Guinness, ‘Dublin trade guilds’, JRSAI, 12:2 (1922), 149–50. 201 H. F. Berry, ‘The Dublin guild of carpenters, millers, masons, and heliers in the sixteenth century’, JRSAI, 35:4 (1905), 323–4. 202 W. Stubbs, ‘The weavers’ guild; the guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dublin, 1446–1840’, JRSAI, 9:1 (1919), 61. 203 CARD, i, pp. 272, 330; Purcell, ‘Medieval Dublin and Oxmantown’,p.203. 204 205 See below, pp. 191–3, 254–8. CARD, i, pp. 330–2, 338. 79 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland willing to admit Irishmen when they felt it was beneficial for the city’s economic well-being. Stevens has identified similarly pragmatic and 206 adaptable attitudes towards Welsh burgesses. Irish goldsmiths were particularly likely to be admitted as citizens of Dublin which suggests either a particular proficiency in this craft by Irishmen or a dearth of 207 English goldsmiths. Two citizen goldsmiths even bore Irish first names, Diarmait and Malachy, suggesting perhaps that the same level of anglicization was not required for those whose skills were most in demand.208 Individual connections or favouritism from council members or from influential citizens was helpful in gaining the franchise and many Irish citizens were admitted ‘by special grace’ or at the instance of influential 209 advocates. It was also possible to inherit citizenship from parents or via 210 spouses: John Mulghan was admitted ‘in right of wife’ in 1475. Another John Mulghan was admitted in 1479 and two more Mulghans, William and 211 Thomas, were admitted in 1482–3. Mulghan was not the only anglicized Irish surname that appears frequently in the rolls. Several members of the Kenan, Kenny, and Colman families became citizens and the Kelly family 212 boasted at least nine citizens admitted in this period. Other anglicized Irish surnames that appear just once in the rolls, like Neill, Ryan, Logan, and Shynnagh, are attested in other contemporary Dublin records, imply- 213 ing that these families were also prominent in the city. Some English surnames may hide Irish men and women who adopted these names while living in the colony. Alexander FitzJohn, a painter admitted to the franchise in 1469, had a surname in a Norman patronymic form, but was expelled from the citizenry because he was Irish and because of other ‘crimes and offences’. He was readmitted in 1490 and was still a citizen in 1498, when 214 he was the master of an apprentice who became a citizen in that year. FitzJohn’s case reminds us that names can be deceptive, and demonstrates the ways in which Irish status was used against the Irish strategically and pragmatically in individual cases, often as an additional accusation to other charges. Being Irish was something that could be ignored when it suited the

206 M. F. Stevens, ‘Anglo-Welsh towns of the early fourteenth century: A survey of urban origins, property holding, and ethnicity’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales,p.146. 207 All three goldsmiths mentioned in the surviving franchise rolls were of Irish descent: CARD,i, pp. 332,349; Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. xviii, 32–4. 208 CARD,i,p.349; Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 32–4. 209 210 CARD,i,p.356; Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.39. CARD,i,p.353. 211 CARD, i, pp. 356–8. 212 CARD, i, pp. 332–7, 340, 345, 347–9, 357–68; Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 20–2, 32, 34. 213 CARD, i, pp. 334, 337, 345; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 30 Henry VI, no. 10; MacLysaght, Surnames, p. 197; The Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.56. 214 Dublin City Franchise Roll, p. xxvii. 80 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires city council and then deployed to discredit those who, for whatever reason, displeased them. There is evidence for Irish citizens and burgesses in other towns in the four shires, like Philip Ofynan (Ó Fionnáin), burgess of Drogheda in 1404, and the Irish portreeves (and necessarily burgesses) of Trim and Athboy in the 1530s, but the source survival for other towns does not come close to 215 that of Dublin. The scanty records make it impossible to be certain but there seems to have been little discernible difference in the attitude towards Irish citizens between the towns of the four shires, at least by the fifteenth century. Pre-existing Hiberno-Norse settlements like Dublin and newer ones like Trim or Drogheda all had Irish citizens or burgesses; the significant variation that Stevens identified in Welsh towns, in which the origins of a town had a significant impact on how accepting it was of Welsh burgesses, 216 is not evident. Dublin, and perhaps other towns of the four shires, fit into the wider trend in the colony of rising numbers of Irish citizens in this period: Kilkenny’s number of Irish citizens increased dramatically between the late fourteenth and late fifteenth centuries and Waterford had a sig- 217 nificant minority of Irish citizens by the 1540s. Dublin, however, never had such high percentages as Kilkenny, where twelve of twenty-three 218 burgesses admitted between 1499 and 1502 were Irish. Irish citizens and burgesses were eligible to hold positions within the civic government and on occasion they did so. That there were Irish portreeves in Athboy and Trim in the first few decades of the sixteenth century has already been noted, and there may have been more than those whose names we know: these were Peter Kennedy and Thomas Casy in Athboy and John O’Fyaghan and Robert Kelly in Trim. Their elected position was the highest 219 in the administration of these towns. Inquisitions taken in the exchequer in Dublin note that O’Fyaghan was ‘chosen prepositus of Tryme although he is an Irishman’, confirming that in Trim, as elsewhere, regulations excluding 220 the Irish were both enacted and ignored. Few of Drogheda’s known mayors and bailiffs from this period bore clearly Irish names but it is possible that the mayors and burgesses from the city’s prominent Roche/Roth family

215 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.186; CIRCLE, Patent Roll Henry V, no. 125. 216 Stevens, ‘Anglo-Welsh towns’, pp. 144, 146, 150, 154; Stevens, Urban Assimilation,p.38. Welsh and border towns alike had Welsh burgesses, but proportions varied: Laughton, Chester,p.10; Korngiebel, ‘English colonial ethnic discrimination’, 4–5, 18, 20–1; Davies, Age of Conquest, p. 421; L. Beverly Smith, ‘In search of an urban identity: Aspects of urban society in late medieval Wales’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales,p.28. 217 J. C. Walton (ed.), The Royal Charters of Waterford (Waterford, 1992), p. 13; Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus, pp. 42–3. 218 Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus, pp. 81–5, 89, 93–4, 98. 219 Griﬃth, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 19, 69–70; Potterton, Medieval Trim, pp. 131–2. 220 Potterton, Medieval Trim, pp. 133, 151–2; Griﬃth, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 19, 69–70; Murphy, ‘Status of the native Irish’, 126. 81 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 221 were highly assimilated Irishmen and Robert Bragan (Ó Bragáin), bailiff in 1394 and constable of the staple of Drogheda in 1401, was almost certainly of 222 Irish ancestry. Roger Mallon (Ó Mealláin), collector of customs and sheriff 223 of Drogheda in the 1410sand1420s, was likewise probably Irish. In the colonial administration, the vast majority of posts were filled by settlers or officials sent from England but in the lower ranks there were a few anglicized Irishmen, like David Donogh, member of the prominent family of Dublin city, who was employed as a messenger of the exchequer (nuncio scaccarri) 224 from at least 1416 to 1429. Another messenger of the exchequer, Nicholas Roddan (ÓRodáin), bore an anglicized Irish name and was compensated for 225 his work in 1402 and 1407. Brian Coleman’s recent work on subsidy collectors in the four shires has shown that a small number of anglicized Irishmen served in that relatively low-status administrative role, and that they were most likely to do so in crosslands (church-held lands). That the Irish appeared in this role, but only in small numbers, and that they were generally anglicized fits well with the evidence for the Irish in civic positions, and the disparity that Coleman notes between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical lands highlights one facet of the church’s role in employing and integrating 226 the Irish in the colony. Other ways in which the church accomplished this will be explored in detail in Chapter 3. In Dublin, relatively anglicized Irishmen served in a variety of civic positions: John Hegane (Ó hAodhhagáin/Ó hAgáin) was a constable in the city 1469–70 and ‘buyers’ for the city included William Byrne in 1453 and 227 Thomas Miagh (Midheach)in1459. John Dowgan (Ó Dubhagáin/ Ó Deargáin?) and William Tagane (Ó Tadhgáin) were porters in the 228 1460s. Walter Donogh was a bailiff in 1449–50 and acted as a pledge

221 The Roths of Kilkenny are certainly English, but those of Louth may not have been. A number of Roths in the county by the early sixteenth century were actually Ó Ruaircs: Cal. Pat. Rolls Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz., i, p. 32;J.Murray,Enforcing the English Reformation in Ireland: Clerical Resistance and Political Conﬂict in the Diocese of Dublin, 1534–1590 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 85; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 237–41. 222 C. Buldorini, ‘The Mayors, provosts and bailiﬀs of Drogheda in the thirteenth century’, JCLAHS, 27:1 (2009), 37–8; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 60, The Ó Bragáin family was an Ulster clerical family, which provided two bishops of Clogher in the thirteenth century: Rev. J. B. Leslie, Clogher Clergy and Parishes (Enniskillen, 1929), pp. 4–5. 223 NAI MS RC 8/40 2, pp. 45–6, 175; NAI RC 8/36, pp. 26, 195, 439, 639, 645–6, 715; NAI MC RC 8/39, pp. 11, 113, 217, 252, 303. The Mallons were an Ulster family of high-ranking ecclesiasts who may have made ties with the colony via connections with the archbishop of Armagh: Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.184. 224 NAI RC 8/36, pp. 685–6, 691; NAI MS RC 8/40,p.157; Irish Exchequer Payments, pp. 550, 557, 559, 561, 565. 225 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry IV, no. 219, Patent Roll 8 Henry IV, no. 118. 226 With thanks to Brian Coleman for access to this research before publication: B. Coleman, ‘‘Every lord and gentleman of the said land’: The gentry of English Ireland, c. 1399–c. 1513’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2016). 227 CARD, i, pp. 278, 299, 334; MacLysaght, More Irish Families,p.155. 228 CARD, i, pp. 315, 334; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.282. 82 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 229 for the character of several candidates to civic office. While ‘pledge’ was not an office in itself, those who served in this capacity were engaged members of civic society and many also held civic office at some point. Donald Olyng (Domhnall Ó Liatháin/ Ó Laighin?), who served as a pledge in 1458, is the only Irish officer or pledge who kept an Irish patronymic prefix and he may also have had an Irish first name, Domhnall. He was remarkably unanglicized, at least onomastically, for a member of Dublin’s 230 Irish elite. Unsurprisingly, a number of the Irish families represented most often in the franchise rolls provided civic officers of Dublin, including 231 the Kellys and Mulghans. The Mulghan family was particularly active and at least three Mulghans held office in the city. Thomas Mulghan rose up the ranks in the civic administration, serving as constable and bailiff 232 before becoming mayor in 1481–2. This was exceptional, and in per- centage terms, Irish civic officials were a minority. Nevertheless, some Irishmen were heavily involved in the governing of the city and one rose to the highest municipal position, while several held the highest positions in Athboy, Trim, and perhaps Drogheda. We can extrapolate from this evidence in Dublin and elsewhere in the four shires and assume that some proportion of civic positions across the towns and cities of the region, even if a small one perhaps, were held by Irishmen, most of whom were significantly anglicized. Irish civic officials also served in colonial towns outside the four shires, like Waterford and Cashel, and it is possible that the Mulghan and Neill families who held office in Waterford were related to 233 the Dublin families of the same name. The four shires were home to the Mulghans and other highly assimilated, and sometimes office-holding, Irish families like the Kellys, Shynnaghs, Donoghs, Kenans, and Neills but these do not seem to have been quite as influential as elite urban Irish families elsewhere in the colony. The latter include the Maddens and Neals of Waterford, the 234 O’Cullans in Youghal, the Ronan/Ronaynes of Youghal, Kinsale and 235 236 Cork city, the Kirwans of Galway and the Sextons of Limerick. In

229 230 231 CARD, i, pp. 273–4, 279. CARD,i,p.299. CARD, i, pp. 299, 324, 317, 334. 232 CARD, i, pp. 320, 334, 343; E. C. Bairéad, ‘The bailiffs, provosts and sheriffs of the city of Dublin’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XIV (Dublin, 2015), p. 291. 233 TCD MS 655,f.29r; R. Lincoln, ‘A list of the mayors and bailiffs of Waterford from 1365–1649’, JRSAI, 5:2 (1935), 313–19;Gilbert,‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.299;Lydon, ‘The city of Waterford’, 5–6; Walton, Royal Charters of Waterford,p.13; Ormond Deeds, iii, p. 248. 234 R. Caulfield, ‘Early charters relating to Youghal’, The Gentleman’s Magazine (August, 1864), 2, 191–4; Donovan and Edwards, British Sources, pp. 204–6. 235 H. A. Jefferies, ‘Medieval Cork’ in H. A. Jefferies (ed.), Cork: Historical perspectives (Dublin, 2004), pp. 74–5. 236 C. Maginn, ‘Gaelic Ireland’s English frontiers in the late Middle Ages’, PRIA, 110c(2010), 184. 83 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Kilkenny city, highly influential Irish families included the Brennans and 237 238 perhaps the Folyns, and, by the later fifteenth century, the Malloys, 239 and perhaps the Shees. These Irish families appear to have attained levels and continuity of influence in their respective towns that were matched by few, if any, Irish families of the four shires. Nevertheless, the well-established Irish families of Dublin demonstrate just how anglicized and integrated Irish people could become in the region. For many of these families, like the Neills and Kellys, and probably the Mallons and Rogans of Louth, their Irish descent almost certainly remained common 240 knowledge. For this reason, Simon Neyll of Dublin had to defend his right to English law in 1355, which he did by claiming to be descended from one of the ‘five bloods’ supposedly given a mass grant of English law 241 by Henry III. As late as 1496,an‘O’ was used to prefix the Neill surname for members of this family, suggesting that the Irish origin of the 242 name was known. Families may have had particular trouble passing as English if unanglicized Irish people who shared their surname and lived outside the colony remained in the colonial consciousness (few late medieval colonists were unaware of the Uí Néill of Ulster for example). Nevertheless, a small number of Irish families may have been assimilated into colonial society so fully that their Irish origins were largely or entirely forgotten. One family of this type in the four shires may be the aforementioned Betagh family of Meath. The Betaghs illustrate the difficulties associated with identifying anglicized Irish families. ‘Betagh’ looks like the anglicized version of biattách, semi-unfree Irish labourers, and this is one possibility for the origin of their name. A man with an Irish surname, Richard O’Kale, was described as the son of Henry Betagh in 1493. This use of Irish aliases or alternative surnames was common among anglicized Irish people and the fact that a member of the family used the Irish personal name Conchobhar in 1454 suggests either Irish origins or onomastic gaelicization, if the family were

237 Neely does not identify Folan as Irish, but O’Folans (Ó Fualláin?) were living in Kilkenny by the early fourteenth century: W. G. Neely, Kilkenny: An Urban History, 1391–1841 (Antrim, 1989), p. 4; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 35 Edward I, no. 6; Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus, pp. 29, 48, 54–6, 58–9, 62, 64, 65, 67. 238 Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus, pp. 70–5. 239 The Shees received English law in 1381 according to an antiquarian article of 1833, but the record of the original grant doesn’t survive. We cannot discount the antiquarian reference given that antiquarians had access to so much now-lost material: Anon., ‘Sir Richard Shee’s Monument: St Mary’s Kilkenny’, Dublin Penny Journal, 2:69 (1833), 132. 240 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.192. 241 F. E. Ball, A History of the County Dublin, 6 vols (Dublin, 1906), iv, p. 111; Cal. Carew,v,p.452; Otway-Ruthven, ‘The native Irish’,p.6; Frame, ‘Les Engleys nees en Irlande’, 88,n.20; Frame, ‘Una et Eadem Lex’, 109–10. 242 Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.69. 84 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 243 indeed English by descent. The spelling of the name in Alen’s register as ‘Bethaighe’ in a reference to an attack on the archbishop of Dublin in 1462 lends further support to the idea that the name may have come from 244 the Irish biattách, and that the family sprang from betagh roots. If they were of Irish ancestry, their level of anglicization and integration in colonial society was exceptional. There was frequently a Betagh keeper of the peace in Meath from the mid-fourteenth to the early fifteenth century and members of the family were included among the ‘gentry of Meath’ in a list made by Christopher Cusack, the sheriff of Meath, in 245 1511. Patrick Betagh was even called an ‘English marcher’ in 1524. Thus, the families’ origins are uncertain. They may be a somewhat gaelicized English family who used the name Betagh, perhaps as a toponym from Betaghstown (Bettystown) in Meath, but it is equally possible that they were an Irish family who had been assimilated into English society at an early date and that their ethnic origin was not common 246 knowledge by the fifteenth century. Such full assimilation may have been possible but it does not seem to have been common, and Robin Frame has argued that there were barriers to full assimilation even in the thirteenth century, and he notes the persistence of memories of Irish ancestry and the vulnerability of those with Irish ancestry to dispossession 247 even at that early date. Complete assimilation was never easy and we can trace in some detail the fortunes of one man who may have been an anglicized and highly assimilated Irishman who was still bedevilled by his 248 ethnic origins: John Lytill of Dublin. John Lytill attained a prominent economic and social position in the city, in part through his marriage to Eleanor Comyn, heiress of lands in Balgriffin and elsewhere in north co. Dublin. Most of the documents that mention him, which are numerous, call him John Lytill and contain no hint that there were doubts about his ethnicity. He was called to account before the barons of the exchequer to answer for the goods of the deceased William Pylcok in 1407 but was able to produce a pardon he had recently procured from the Irish chancery for all offences, and the 249 case against him was dropped. Frequent litigation was normal for men of substance in the colony, as it was in England, and Lytill also appears in

243 244 Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII,p.121; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.441. Alen’s Reg.,p.242. 245 Italics mine: Potterton, Medieval Trim, pp. 337–80; NAI MC RC 8/39, pp. 25, 60; TCD MS 594; R. Butler, Trim Castle (Tara, co. Meath, 1978), p. 262; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.108. 246 247 CJR, iii, p. 151. Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’, pp. 128–32. 248 All credit and my very sincere thanks go to Randolph Jones for drawing my attention to Lytill and very generously sending on his painstakingly compiled references about him. These references to Lytill were provided ﬁrstly by Randolph. 249 This pardon is dated in the chancery material as 14 February 1407, but in the exchequer material it is said to have been issued on the 14th of May. In any event, it was issued in time to counteract this 85 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland non-litigious circumstances in a number of deeds of between 1409 and 1413, receiving grants of land to build his holdings in the city and being 250 described as a citizen of Dublin. What is more unusual is that this citizen and man of substantial property was accused of being Irish at the height of his career and was as a consequence almost deprived of the lands he held through his wife’s inheritance. In 1403 Lytill paid £10 arrears of rent for Balgriffen which were owed to his mother-in-law, Marian Comyn. This may indicate that he was married to Eleanor by this point 251 or even that this payment was part of their marital contract. In the spring of 1405 a dispute about these lands escalated to the point that Lytill 252 was imprisoned by Robert Burnell. Burnell may have been a relative of Lytill’s mother-in-law, Marian. He certainly had some connection to her 253 property since it was he who received the rent arrears in 1403. The dispute between Lytill and Burnell seemed to have been settled by October of 1405, when Robert officially released John in all actions (in 254 essence promised not to initiate lawsuits against him), but it resurfaced in c. 1419 when Robert’s heir, John Burnell, procured a writ against Lytill. The writ alleged that Lytill’s name was actually ‘Mc Wir alias Litell an Irishman of the McGuires’ and that Eleanor married him ‘contrary to the Statute’ against intermarriage with Irish enemies. Burnell contended that Eleanor was heir to the disputed lands and that she should be deprived of them (and they should be given to Burnell) because of her illegal marriage. Lytill refuted the claims and asserted that he was ‘an Englishman of the nation of the Lytelles’. Presumably Lytill’s defence prevailed or the case was settled out of court since John Burnell dropped 255 all suits against him in 1424. This accusation against Lytill could be dismissed as the cynical ploy of a litigant looking for any angle to press against his opponent and inventing Irish origins. However, a grant from 1403 that Lytill could enjoy all his lands and 256 possessions in Ireland suggests that he may have feared such attacks. Was this fear prompted by Irish ancestry? The grant does not say so explicitly, and it was not a grant of English law, which was the usual way for relatively

case before the exchequer: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 8 Henry IV, no. 42; NAI MS RC 8/33, pp. 83–4. 250 CCD, pp. 184–5, 192; Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 85, 90, 93, 110. 251 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 65. 252 For Burnell family and this Robert see: B. Coleman, ‘Urban elite: The county and civic elite of later medieval Dublin’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XV (Dublin, 2016), pp. 295–9. 253 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 68. 254 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 71. 255 NAI, J. F. Ferguson’s Repertory of Irish Memoranda rolls, iii, pp. 6, 34–5; NAI MS RC 8/38, pp. 186–91; Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 108. 256 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 64. 86 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires prominent Irishmen living in the colony to secure legal rights and protections, but it does suggest that Lytill anticipated challenges to his right to hold land. Irish ethnicitywouldbeanunderstandable 257 reason for his fears. And yet, his Irishness was not proved, and after the challenge to his ethnic status, Lytill and his wife lived in Fishamble Street in the heart of Dublin city and he continued to act 258 as a prominent member of the Dublin community. We cannot know for sure whether Lytill truly had Irish ancestry or not, but his experience gives us some idea of the vulnerability of people who did have Irish ancestry, even those who were anglicized culturally and socially, to accusations of Irishness. A similar case from Dublin, but one in which the man in question was more certainly an anglicized Irishman, was that of Thomas Hert alias Ohertecane (ÓhArtagain). He was married to Margery, daughter of John Hynkeley, citizen of 259 Dublin, by November of 1411. Hert/Ohertecane’s use of an English alias and first name may have been part of an effort to hide his ancestry but, if so, it was unsuccessful and Margery and Thomas’ lands were in 260 the king’s hands by forfeiture in 1416. Other members of the Dublin Ohertecane family may have learned from this confiscation and a few years later, in 1423, Richard Ohertegane, smith, purchased a grant of 261 English law to safeguard his position in the colony. Even for Irish people who were legally on a par with the English of the colony, their Irish ancestry set them apart. English law and loyalty to the crown were important facets of English identity in Ireland but these attributes did not transmute Irish people into English people in the eyes 262 of the colonial community. The existence of ‘faithful subjects’ (fidelium nostrorum) who were nonetheless Irish by parentage caused problems of classification when determining who was subject to anti-Irish legislation. An act of parliament from 1360 held that, while the ‘mere Irish’ must be excluded from both clerical and lay appointments, ‘clerics of the Irish race who dwell among the English in fealty and peace’ should not suffer the same discrimination. Although such people were ‘of the Irish nation’ (de natione Hibernicana), they should be treated as Englishmen were, unless or until they caused trouble. The acceptance of the Irish as clerics in the colony was conditional and could be revoked if these clerics did

257 For grants of English law, see below pp. 68–71. 258 259 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 112. CCD,p.185. 260 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry V, no. 63. Parker suggests that the taking of aliases was a strategy among the Irish of Waterford who could not aﬀord grants of English law: Parker, ‘Internal frontier’, pp. 150–1. 261 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 86. 262 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 87–8; Lydon, ‘Middle nation’, pp. 1–26; Lydon, ‘Nation and race’, pp. 103–24; Ellis, ‘Not mere English’, 41–8. 87 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland not ‘behave themselves well and faithfully towards us [the crown] and 263 ours’. This conditionality was also apparent in some grants of English law and in an enactment of 1447, when the Irish parliament stated that Irishmen who became sworn liegemen of the king would be treated as enemies, with no legal rights, if they acted against other (presumably 264 English) ‘liegemen of the king’. In 1537, the act for marrying with Irishmen made the same point and stressed that, even if an Irishman had pledged loyalty to the king, he could not be treated as a ‘true subject’ 265 unless he acted like one. The acceptance of Irish people as subjects was, at least in the minds of the Irish parliament, not equal to being an English subject by birth: the legal rights of English subjects were more difficult to 266 revoke. The difference between rights conferred by birth and those conferred by grant has been highlighted by Ruddick in relation to denizens and English-born persons in England and a similar distinction 267 seems to have operated in Ireland. It was therefore important to know who was of Irish ancestry and the colonial community made efforts to preserve this knowledge in the face of extensive anglicization and the adoption of English names by the Irish. One way that this information was kept alive institutionally was in the recording of aliases and multiple name forms, as we saw with Thomas 268 Hert alias Ohertecane. Even when the Irish were granted English law and status, their Irish names and anglicized aliases were often noted. For example, when John Berry received English law in 1407, his alias, Gilbert 269 Ocoyng, was recorded. Similarly John Courtyne alias John Ocourtyne 270 (Ó/Mac Cuirtín?) was given English law in 1409 and Patrick Macdoill (Ó/Mac Dubhghaill?) alias Patrick Garre was pardoned by the crown in 271 1414. Ecclesiastical documents in which ethnicity was not at issue display the same care in preserving the aliases of Irishmen who took 272 English names. The widespread adoption of English names by Irish

263 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 420–1; Rymer’s Foedera, eds A. Clarke, A. Caley, et al., 4 vols (London, 1816–30, 1869), iii, pt. 2, pp. 605–6. 264 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 89–91; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 49 Edward III, no. 175; Patent Roll 5 Henry IV, no. 25. 265 Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII, pp. 217–20. 266 Subjects could of course be declared traitorous, but this was a legal process that required justification and set procedure; Irish enemies did not benefit from such legal protections. As John Brady wrote ‘it required something more than a legal fiction to make an Irishman a good Englishman’: J. Brady, ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, RnM, 2:3 (1961), 45. 267 Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture,p.106. 268 See above, p. 87 and the case of John Casse alias White of Waterford, who also failed to hide behind his alias: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 4 Henry IV, no. 156. 269 270 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 8 Henry IV, no. 85. CIRCLE, Patent Roll 10 Henry IV, no. 86. 271 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 2 Henry V, no. 52. 272 Reg. Mey,p.348; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 558, 674–5; J. C. Crosthwaite (ed.), The Book of Obits for Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, commonly called Christ Church, Dublin (Dublin, 1844), p. 36. 88 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires people living in the colony and the use of aliases demonstrates the depth of this contact and, as Davies put it for Wales, ‘bespeaks an anxiety to find 273 an identity which was acceptable in both communities’. It was not only the Irish, however, whose sometimes used aliases, and whose former or alternative names were preserved in the sources. Members of the settler family Nangle or De Angelo took the Irish name ‘MacCostello’, perhaps as early as the first decades of the thirteenth century, but their earlier name was often also used in the sources, presumably in part in an effort to 274 preserve the memory of their English heritage. And yet, some name variations that were preserved had nothing to do with being Irish or English. Thus the patent rolls for the fifteenth century note that Fynwoll Inykacy was also called Fyn Inykacy, that Thomas Obrenane was also Ohegane, and that Shane McTagirt also was known as ‘Shane Okenan’ and ‘Shane McKeteqyrd’, despite the fact that all of these variations were 275 clearly Irish and would not hide the true ancestry of these Irish people. We must assume that it was for reasons of administrative clarity that these 276 aliases were recorded. It was essential for legal and administrative purposes to know who people were and to be able to locate records about them, even if they changed their names or used more than one version. Because of this, Irish people could not just jettison their family names for more English-sounding ones; the original names survived in administrative sources and family origins were not often forgotten or ignored, even when the Irish assimilated to high degree. Names, descent, and ‘nation’ were central to cases that tested a given person’s legal status to determine whether they could hold land or office in the colony or plead in the colony’s courts. Local memory and common knowledge were enlisted in efforts to determine ethnicity and jurors expressed local opinions about a litigant’s ethnic status. The arguments offered and decisions rendered in these cases reveal a great deal about how understandings of Irishness in the colony changed and ancestry came

273 Davies, Age of Conquest, pp. 422–5. 274 Duffy, ‘The problem of degeneracy’,p.95; For the Meath Nangles: C. C. Ellison, ‘Some aspects of Navan history’, RnM, 3:1 (1963), 33–56; CPL, vii, p. 112; CCD,p.260. 275 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 10 Henry VI, no. 118, Patent Roll 13 Henry VI, nos 45, 51. 276 Some of the close attention paid to alternate names may relate to the Statute of Additions. This statute called for greater detail in writs, including names of litigants, their ‘estate’, occupation, and place of residence. It was enacted in England in 1413, but not recorded in extant Irish parliamentary or chancery materials. However, even if the statute was not officially in place in the colony, the greater administrative exactitude it required for persons mentioned in legal contexts may have influenced practice in the colonial administration. Thanks to Professor Christine Carpenter for bringing this possibility to my attention. See M. Keen, English Society in the Later Middle Ages, 1348–1500 (Ann Arbor, 1990), pp. 8–11; Article 10, ‘Henry V: May 1413’ in Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson, et al. (Woodbridge, 2005), British History Online [accessed 31 March 2017]. 89 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland increasingly to the fore. This growth of the racial element in later medieval imaginings of ethnicity, and the predominance of the idea of ‘blood’, has been traced by Davies in Wales (and to a lesser extent Ireland) and by Bartlett in frontier zones across medieval Europe, and the evidence from the four shires fits well with the chronological framework 277 they and others identify. Although descent had always been one factor in discussions about ethnicity and access to English law, other marks of legal status were considered in cases from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. A case from the justiciar’s court in the late thirteenth century reveals a great deal about how ethnic and legal status was framed at this point. Two men, Henry and John le Norreys, claimed that they did not have to answer William le Teynturer in court because he was a hibernicus: 278 in this context, this connotes both Irish and of unfree, betagh status. Henry and John were asked what William’s Irish name was, and they said that he was an Omoleyn, son of Thomas Omolyn (Ó Maoláin?), an 279 Irishman. William countered that he was in fact an Ostman, descen- 280 dant of the Hiberno-Norse, and thus entitled to English law. Furthermore, he claimed that he had pleaded in the colony’s courts 281 before. The jury found in William’s favour and stated that his mother had arranged or purchased Ostman status for him (presumably though her bloodline). This case demonstrates several things: by this date, communal memory ensured that Irish (or half-Irish) people could not easily leave their Irish parentage behind, even if they changed their name. It also shows admitting to Irish, and in this case unfree, ancestry but maintaining one’s access to English law in some other way, in this case by precedent and purchase or award of Ostman status, was an effective way to answer the charges of being a ‘hibernicus’. Around the turn of the fourteenth century, Walter Otothil (Ó Tuathail), Benedict, son of John of Drogheda, and Yvor McGillmorey claimed their right to English law by asserting

277 Davies, Age of Conquest, pp. 425, 458; R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change (London, 1994), pp. 236–42; P. Biller, ‘Proto-racial thought in medieval science’,p.175 and C. de Miramon, ‘Noble dogs, noble blood: The invention of the concept of race in the late Middle Ages’ in M. Eliav-Feldon, B. Isaac, and J. Ziegler (eds), The Origins of Racism in the West (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 200–16. 278 Otway-Ruthven has queried the equation of betagh and hibernicus, arguing that hibernici might only be under the protection of an English lord but not unfree, but in this context, I would argue both are used to signify the same class of individuals and that hibernici who claimed law through their lords were unfree: A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Review of The Irish Jurist’, IHS, 16:61 (1968), 105; Murphy, ‘Status of the native Irish’, 117. 279 CJR, i, pp. 14, 59. 280 Ostmen had an ambiguous position legally in the colony, but they were sometimes able to procure grants conﬁrming that they had the rights of Englishmen: Parker, ‘Ostmen in post- Norman Waterford’, 33–7;O’Byrne, ‘Cultures in contact’,p.115. 281 The precedent of having used English law before was also cited in CJR, ii, p. 158. 90 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires that their ancestors had been granted it, rather than by denying Irish 282 descent. Other Irishmen defended themselves by pleading that their ancestors were burgesses and therefore (in the thirteenth century though 283 not later) automatically entitled to English law. Still others emphasized 284 that they used English customs or habits. Fourteenth-century plaintiffs accused of being Irish might cite their membership of the ‘five bloods’,in 285 essence claiming inherited English legal status. Ethnic and legal identity, in these early inquisitions, was multifaceted and different aspects of it 286 were emphasized to suit the requirements of any given case. This same range of tactics was not employed by litigants in fifteenth- century cases, which had less varied and nuanced legal arguments and usually featured flat denials of Irish ancestry and assertions that they had an English father and name. This may be because the people being examined were, in fact, of English ancestry but it is unlikely that this was true in all cases. It is more likely that some of the people who claimed English descent when accused of being Irish chose to do so because they did not 287 have grants of English law and lacked any other defence. However, it seems probable also that using these grants as a defence fell out of fashion because Irish blood was increasingly stigmatized and admitting to it became a less attractive legal strategy. As we have seen, grants of English law could be conditional, and were not as secure as English status 288 by birth. This may have prompted some people with Irish ancestry to deny it and claim English descent. From the later fourteenth century onwards, therefore, discussions of legal status in the four shires centred more and more on descent and the closely-linked ‘nation’, as proven by surnames and father and grandfather’s names. ‘Nation’, in the context of these inquisitions, has strong genealogical (rather than political) connotations. This is not to say that other established and emerging definitions of the word ‘nation’ were not current in the colony but the wording and arguments used in these inquisitions suggest that ‘nation’, as used in these cases, primarily con- 289 notes descent. The terminology of Irish or English ‘blood’ used in some of these cases and in many other fifteenth-century documents also 290 emphasizes a descent-based conception of ethnicity. For example, the ethnic status of Adam Nores of Drogheda was examined in 1384, perhaps

282 283 284 CJR, i, pp. 82, 271; CJR, iii, pp. 185–6. CJR, ii, p. 352. CJR, i, pp. 121–3. 285 Frame, ‘Una et eadem lex’, pp. 109–10; Ball, History of County Dublin,p.111; Cal. Carew,v,p.452. 286 Robert Bartlett has been particularly inﬂuential in stressing the ﬂuidity and complexity, as well as the situational use of medieval identities: ‘Medieval and modern concepts’, 53–4. 287 These grants were proclaimed or enrolled locally, so people with them were probably less attractive targets for accusations of Irishness: Ormond Deeds, iii, p. 56. 288 289 See above pp. 87–8. See Lydon, ‘Middle nation’, pp. 3–5. 290 Murphy, ‘Status of the native Irish’, 126. 91 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland in response to accusations of that Irishness arose during a dispute over lands in Rathdrumin (co. Louth) that Nores held through his wife. The jury in this case found that ‘time out of mind the said Adam was of descent of the mere English and so held that liberty and at present holds it; and 291 (they never) heard that Adam was of Irish nation’. The jury focused on descent to solve the question of Adam’s ethnicity and, more specifically, on communal memories about his descent and status. The fact that the jurors, who would have been self-informing, local men, many of whom probably knew Adam, had never heard rumours that he was Irish was offered as a justification to find in his favour. This shows the informal but key role of communal memory in preserving family histories and adjud- ging status and suggests that rumours, even if unsubstantiated, could be 292 damaging to anyone accused of being Irish. An inquisition from 1405 into the ethnicity of Thomas Walsh arose during a dispute over the rightful possession of his lands. This inquisition also focused on descent, particularly paternal descent, as judged by his surname and his father’s and grandfather’s names, and found that Walsh was ‘an Englishman of English birth, and that his ancestors had the surname Walsh and were Englishmen, and that he is not Thomas Okelly, an 293 Irishman of the Okelles’. Brother Thomas Obryde was also accused of being Irish and the lands of the priory of Mullingar were confiscated as a punishment for instituting him in contravention of the statutes which forbade Irish religious in the colony. Obryde pleaded in 1405 that he was an Englishman and a jury agreed with him, noting that his surname was 294 Saintbryde rather than Obryde. Surnames, and through them, paternity, were again to the fore. Similarly, when Nicholas McKeon, vicar of Termonfeckin, co. Louth, was accused of being an Irishman in 1453–4, 295 he argued that he was an Englishman ‘of the nation of the Lydys’. Nicholas Lyde/McKeon worked in the archbishop’s curia from 1440 at the latest and had therefore been resident in Louth for at least thirteen years when these accusations arose. This confirms that accusations of Irishness

291 Dowdall Deeds,p.117. This is probably le Norreys or Norreys, a surname which may be a locational English name referring to an individual from Norwich or a name meaning ‘northmen’, referring to those from northern England. Although the Norreys of the colony had land in Carlow, some were in Dublin by the early fourteenth century: Register of the Abbey of St Thomas Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert (London, 1889), pp. 111–13, 117–18, 161, 208, 308–9, 368; CCD,p.138; S. Duﬀy, ‘Henry II and England’s insular neighbours’ in C. Harper-Bill and N. Vincent (eds), Henry II: New Interpretations (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 129–53; P. H. Reaney and R. M. Wilson, Dictionary of English Surnames (Oxford, 2005), p. 324. 292 B. Kane, ‘Custom, memory and knowledge in the medieval church courts’ in R. Hayes and W. Sheils (eds), Clergy, Church and Society in England and Wales, c. 1200–1800 (York, 2013), pp. 72–4. 293 294 Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 187–8. CIRCLE, Close Roll 7 Henry IV, no. 3. 295 With thanks to Dr Peter Crooks for this reference: P. Crooks (trans.), NAI, J. F. Ferguson’s Collection from the Irish Memoranda rolls, iii, p. 204. 92 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires 296 were levelled even at established members of the colonial community. Ruddick has highlighted the similar vulnerability of aliens in England, even 297 when they had been resident for decades. In their appeal of 1459 against an inquisition that found they were Irish, two churchmen, John Ardagh and John Cadegan, claimed that the accusation of Irishness and the first damning, inquisition were to their ‘great ruin’. The power of such accusations was acknowledged by civic and colonial legislation which ruled that false accusations of Irishness were 298 slanderous. In York, similarly, wrongfully accusing a man of being a Scot was slanderous, since it could result in the accused’s imprisonment and confiscation of his goods (at least in times of war between Scotland 299 and England). The charge against Ardagh and Cadegan was attributed by the inquiry to ‘the high and great malice’ of their accusers, since the men and ‘all their ancestors are and were English and of the English nation and not Irish’. Ardagh and Cadegan were never again to be called ‘Irish, 300 contrary to their blood’. A few years later, the ethnic status of a cleric 301 named John Kevernok, vicar of Lusk, was examined. Leo Howth, a fellow cleric and probably rival for the vicarage, had accused him of being a man called Shane O’Kery, an ‘Irish enemy of the king’, and thus not eligible to hold the benefice. Howth was unsuccessful, since the jury found that John Kevernok was English and of the English nation and that ‘his ancestors have been Englishmen born’. A similar inquisition about the ethnicity of Davy Grenan, vicar of Timoole, co. Meath, in 1476–7 came to a similar end and the jury found that he was Davy Grenan not Davy O’Crenane and was ‘an Englishman and of the English nation’.302 Nowhere in these inquisitions from the fifteenth century was there any examination of the habits, customs, or actions of the men in question; they were more or less solely concerned with ancestry. An inquisition from 1516 found that Richard Lynane, rector of Mychelistown and ‘his brother Christopher Lynane, who lives in England in the service of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, are of English nation ... (their father was) William Lynam, and not Lynnane nor Leannane or Leannachan, he was a native of Mandowystown in the

296 Reg. Mey, pp. 23–4, 99–100, 23–4, 138, 148; Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, pp. 115–16. 297 Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture,p.131. 298 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.282; CJR, i, pp. 18, 390; CJR, iii, p. 102; G. Hand, ‘The status of the native Irish in the lordship of Ireland, 1272–1331’, IJ, new series, i (1966), 104. 299 Thompson, ‘Scots in England’, 3; A. Raine, York Civic Records (Wakeﬁeld, 1939), pp. 17, 24, 113–14, 169. 300 301 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.623. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 377–9. 302 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 521–3. This name is similar to the Irish Ó Grianáin. 93 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland barony of Slane and brought up his two children according to the English 303 customs observed in Ireland’. The use of a surname and father’s name to determine ethnicity is again apparent here and this record shows a great deal of knowledge about different Irish surnames but this account also mentions place of birth, name drops the duke of Suffolk and, more unusually, asserts that Richard was raised according to ‘the English 304 customs observed in Ireland’. It may be that this record is an excep- tionally full account of the arguments offered in Lynane’s defence but the mention of English customs remind us that, even as descent came increasingly to the fore, cultural attributes retained ethnic associations. They were not the primary determinant of ethnicity but, rather, corroborating details that helped litigants present a picture of themselves as entirely, unequivocally English. A great many Irish people lived in the four shires in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and they were integrated into society to a high level, as is shown by their regular participation in the social and economic life of the colonial community. The Irish were most numerous in the lower ranks of society and on average paid lower rents and had smaller holdings but some Irish families and individual Irish people became prominent and relatively wealthy. Although few Irish families achieved the same levels of prominence in Dublin and other urban centres in the region as they did in towns and cities outside the four shires, there were Irish citizens and burgesses, and some even held office in civic administration. The Irish population was higher in Meath, Louth, and Kildare than in Dublin although Irish people were resident in significant numbers there as well. Some of these Irish people were members of culturally, legally, and politically anglicized families who had long been resident in the four counties but there was also an influx of Irish migrants from Gaelic areas of the island in the fifteenth century. The rise in relatively unanglicized Irish people (with relatively unanglicized Irish names) is apparent in all parts of the four shires and is particularly striking in reference to the appearance of the iníon Úi surnames among Irish women, though the use of Irish first names and other surname prefixes also rose significantly. This influx of Irish migrants had an impact on the language and culture of the four shires, as will be discussed in the following chapters, though this did not

303 Reg. Octavian, pp. 129–30. Lyneham is a habitation name from Southern England, but Lynane also resembles the Irish names Ó Linneáin, Ó Leannacháin, and Ó Leannáin, as the court record notes: P. Hanks and F. Hodges, A Dictionary of Surnames (Oxford, 1988), p. 337. 304 Given that Richard Lynham had recently served as sheriﬀ of Meath in 1420–1 it is likely that some people bearing this surname were English or unusually well-integrated into colonial society by the ﬁfteenth century: NAI MS RC 8/39,p.63. 94 Migration, Assimilation, and Status: The Irish of the Four Shires significantly erode political links and allegiances to England and many of 305 these newer arrivals also anglicized to some extent. In reaction to this increase in the Irish population, there was much anti-Irish legislation promulgated in this period, both by civic bodies and by the Irish parliament, but the gulf between the rhetoric and the enforcement of these enactments was vast. Legislation always presents an idealized picture of society and enforcement is never perfect but what may also be at play in the ineffectiveness of anti-Irish legislation is instability in meanings of Irishness. There was no firm consensus on which people were good Irishmen and which were Irish enemies, or on which persons were intended when the legislation simply stipulated ‘Irish’. Some of the Irish people who lived in the four counties may have had access to English law and were thus, in theory at least, exempt from these discriminatory laws but the colonial community nevertheless preserved the memory of their Irish ancestry. The recording of aliases, the arguments used in inquisitions into ethnicity, and the terminology of ‘blood’ and ‘nation’ used to talk about Irishness and Englishness demonstrate the growing primacy of ancestry to conceptions of ethni- 306 city in the colony. Atthesametime,assumptionsthatancestrywas fundamental to political allegiance also grew; as Lydon argued, the ‘the concept of “natural enemy” ...developed’ in this period and in 1537 an 307 official record could refer to ‘Iryshe men, our naturall enymyes’. The language of inherent animosity ‘by blood’ is particularly striking in a letter of Henry VI about the minister provincial of the Franciscans, William Ó Raghallaigh. The letter drew on petitions from colonists and presumably incorporated their language and framing and it stated that Ó Raghallaigh was ‘oure enemy borne and of Irrysche blode, name and 308 nacion’. Irishness as described here did not mean acting or looking like an Irishman but rather having Irish parents. Similarly, a statute of the Irish parliament in 1467–8 ordered Robert FitzEustace, constable of ecclesiastical lands in Ballymore, co. Kildare, to replace his sub- constable, who, at the time, was ‘Laurence Obogan (ÓBogáin) ... an Irishman and of the Irish nation, on the side of his father and mother, 309 who by nature of blood betraysthesecretsofEnglishmen’. Because of this increasingly ‘racial’ notion of ethnicity and a growing conviction that the Irish were inherently hostile to the English, Irish people could

305 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.220; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 115–16. 306 Davies, Age of Conquest, pp. 425, 458; Bartlett, The Making of Europe, pp. 236–42; Biller, ‘Proto- racial thought in medieval science’,p.175; Miramon, ‘Noble dogs, noble blood’, pp. 200–16. 307 308 Lydon, ‘Middle nation’,p.20. Ó Clabaigh, Friars in Ireland,p.71. 309 Italics mine: Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.585. 95 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland assimilate to a high degree into the English community, particularly if they were from local, established families, but their change in name, manners or appearance, although sometimes advocated by the Dublin administration, did not change their essential Irishness in the eyes of the colonial community.

96 Chapter 3

MEDIATION AND COOPERATION: THE ‘TWO NATIONS’ IN THE CHURCH

The church reflected and influenced societies across the medieval world and was deeply imbedded in daily life. In matters of ethnic interaction in Ireland, its impact was particularly profound. On a local, an island-wide, and even at a supranational level, it fostered frequent and amicable interaction between the Irish and the English of Ireland. The ecclesiastical sphere, unlike the secular one, was not characterized by the rhetoric of English versus Irish or by the desire, expressed in civic and central legislation, to maintain the distinction between the two. Diocesan and provincial boundaries did not respect political divisions in Ireland and this ensured that there were opportunities for English and Irish clerics to interact and cooperate with one another, while the church served as a vehicle for the migration of unanglicized Irish clerics, particularly from Ulster, into the four shires. It was a complex organization, comprising many different institutions and branches, including the parishes, dioceses, and ecclesiastical provinces which made up the diocesan structure, as well as the religious orders and popular religious movements like confraternities and saints’ cults. Overseeing all of these, in theory if not always in practice, was the papacy. Each of these bodies played a part in mediating 1 interethnic relations. 2 The Irish church had long been an outward-looking institution. Close contact with Europe persisted throughout the Middle Ages, as attested by the constant stream of letters which flowed between the papal curia and Ireland. The church in Ireland nevertheless permitted practices that were

1 For the structure and general history of the Irish church in this period see J. Watt, The Church in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1972); H. Jeﬀeries, The Irish Church and the Tudor Reformations (Dublin, 2010). 2 L. de Paor, Ireland and early Europe (Dublin, 1997), pp. 160–1; D. Ó Riain-Raedel, ‘Irish Benedictine monasteries on the continent’ in M. Browne and C. Ó Clabaigh (eds), The Irish Benedictines: A History (Dublin, 2005), pp. 25–63; A. Gwynn, ‘Ireland and Rome in the eleventh century’, IER, 57 (1941), 213–32; A. Gwynn, The Twelfth-Century Reform (Dublin, 1968). 97 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland out of line with continental norms. The Irish church did not strictly enforce canonical marriage practices, and it preserved both the position of the erenagh, a hereditary lay church official, and a tendency towards 3 clerical lineages up to the early modern period. The failure of the Irish church to eradicate these practices and wholeheartedly embrace reform had been one of the central justifications for the English invasion of 4 Ireland. After the invasion, these practices were largely eliminated within the colony and some Irish churchmen lost their positions but there was not a wholesale replacement of clergy, even in heavily settled 5 areas. John Watt and others have argued that as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries progressed, however, the church came to be increas- 6 ingly divided along ethnic lines. A split in the church was expressed in the contemporary phraseology used for the archdiocese of Armagh. The rural deaneries of Drogheda, Ardee, and Dundalk, ‘virtually co-extensive with the county of Louth’, were termed Armagh inter anglicos (Armagh among the English), while the deaneries of Orior and Tullyhogue, to the north and outside the four 7 shires, were termed Armagh inter hibernicos (Armagh among the Irish). This division within the archdiocese mirrored distinctions evident elsewhere in the church, within the larger ecclesiastical provinces of Armagh and Dublin which jointly encompassed both the four shires region and large areas of Irish control that retained a majority of Irish clergy and Irish ecclesiastical practices. Just how significant this division was, however, is open to debate. The historiography of the mid-twentieth century stressed the idea of an inter anglicos/inter hibernicos divide, making only passing reference to interaction between the English and Irish within the 8 church. More recent historiography has been admirably nuanced and presents the church as a complex supranational organization that was

3 Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’, pp. 177–81, 194. Clerical lineages succeeded because several members of the family would compete for the ecclesiastical office each time it fell vacant and thus generally one would secure it. These lineages were associated with particular offices but also with clerical positions in general, and might hold several positions in one diocese. 4 J. Watt, ‘Laudabiliter in medieval diplomacy and propaganda’, IER, 87 (1957), 420–32; A. Duggan, ‘The making of a myth: Giraldus Cambrensis, Laudabiliter, and Henry II’s lordship of Ireland’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3:4 (2007), 107–69. 5 B. Smith, ‘Church and community on the medieval Irish frontier: County Louth 1170–1346’, AH, 45 (2000), 38–45. 6 J. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 173–97; Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 93; K. Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh and the O’Neills 1347– 1471’, IHS, 19:73 (1974), 38. 7 H. Jefferies, Priests and Prelates of Armagh in the Age of Reformations, 1518–1558 (Dublin, 1997), pp. 17–18. 8 C. Mooney, The Church in Gaelic Ireland: 13th to 15th Centuries (Dublin, 1969); A. Gwynn, Anglo- Irish Church Life in the 14th and 15th Centuries (Dublin, 1968); A. Gywnn, The Medieval Province of Armagh (Dublin, 1946). 98 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church neither completely integrated, nor entirely divided into Irish and English parts. Disagreement between Irish ecclesiastical historians is now largely a matter of emphasis: while neither is entirely accurate, is an integration or division model closer to the truth? John Watt’s influential ‘two-nations’ formulation stressed division, as has the work of Henry Jefferies, though neither present this as the whole picture and both examine instances in 9 which Irish and English cooperated. Katharine Simms has also adhered more closely to the division model but has posited that the division sprang not from ethnic animosity but from differences in ecclesiastical organization between areas that had been reformed in the twelfth century and 10 those that had not. The authors of detailed county studies have agreed with one another in many respects but in the end fallen on different sides of the argument. Mary Anne Lyons has focused on the very last decades of the Middle Ages and the early modern period and this may account in part for the high levels of integration she has identified in Kildare, while Smith’s work on Louth over 100 years earlier identifies more division in 11 the church. Nevertheless, integration was apparent in the church throughout the later Middle Ages, and Katherine Walsh and Anthony Lynch have seen the church as, primarily, a place of interethnic cooperation. Those who argue that the church was a body split on ethnic lines often represent it as reflecting a cultural and political divide, while others see the church reflecting cultural affinities: the church is presented, in 12 effect, as a mirror of secular society. Walsh and Lynch, however, have given the organization a more active role and highlighted the role of churchmen as mediators and peacemakers, seeing the church as an insti- 13 tution that actively fostered interaction. It is this vision of the medieval Irish church which seems most accurate. A division between areas of English and Irish rule did exist in terms of personnel as well as practice but focusing on this divide deprives the church of the credit it deserves for its role in influencing interethnic relations in Ireland. It provided an alternative world to the secular one, one that was not dominated by the dichotomy of English versus Irish but

9 J. Watt, ‘Ecclesia inter anglicos et hibernicos: confrontation and coexistence in the medieval diocese and province of Armagh’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland, pp. 46–64; Watt, The Church and the Two Nations; Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 165, 185, 188;Jeﬀeries, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations, pp. 33–9. 10 Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.177. 11 Smith, ‘Church and community’,p.41; Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 17, 51. 12 E.g. Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 11, 51, 71;H.A.Jeﬀeries, ‘The role of the laity in the parishes of Armagh “Inter Anglicos”, 1518–1553’, AH, 52,(1998), p. 73. 13 K. Walsh, ‘The clerical estate in later medieval Ireland: Alien settlement or element of conciliation’ in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland (Kilkenny, 1988), pp. 361–78;A. Lynch, ‘Religion in late medieval Ireland’, AH, 36 (1981), 5–6, 13. 99 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland rather was split between lay and ecclesiastical, with Irish and English clerics uniting to conduct church business. Moreover, while ethnic hostility was indeed apparent at times in the ecclesiastical sphere, peaceable interaction was far more common. Walsh has argued that the influential writings of Richard FitzRalph, archbishop of Armagh (1347–60), who bemoaned the animosity between the two nations, have led historians to overemphasize conflict in the church but it is likely that widespread perceptions of medieval Ireland as fundamentally split by ethnic hatred have also led historians to focus their attention on discord.14 And yet co-operation between English and Irish and resistance to ethnic strife were apparent at all levels in the church, including the highest level: the papacy. The Western Schism (1378–1417) still divided Latin Christendom in the early fifteenth century and what is meant by ‘the papacy’ here is the Roman papacy, which was supported during the Schism by England and by the colony in Ireland. Although there was some support for the Avignon papacy in Irish areas, it had no authority in the four shires. The Schism was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414–18) and, for the remainder of the period covered here, there was a single pope based in 15 Rome. There was a high volume of correspondence between the papal curia in Rome and clerics in Ireland, both those from the colony and those from outside it, although the volume from outside the colony was 16 greater. Letters of papal collation to benefices provide valuable information about papal policies and attitudes towards Irish clerics and they can also indicate where Irish clerics were serving in the colony. Not all collations were successful: they were subject to the outcome of local judicial reviews, papal choices might conflict with those of local patrons or the crown or colonial administrations, and there were no strong local mechanisms for the enforcement of papal dictates. However, clerics would not have gone to the considerable trouble and expense of securing 17 papal collations if they were not of value. Papal collations must sometimes have been effective and can often be confirmed by reference to sources from the colony; collations are also useful evidence of where Irish clerics served because they often name the cleric who was actually occupying a given benefice when the collation occurred.

14 15 Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’,p.372 Gwynn, Anglo-Irish Church Life, pp. 52–7. 16 The higher numbers of letters originating outside the colony stem from the greater number of Irish clerics who required dispensations for illegitimate birth, and because beneﬁces in Irish areas were frequently contested by several candidates who each sought papal backing for their claim: Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.180; M. A. Sughi, ‘The family of Comedinus Oﬀercheran, the authority of the archbishop of Armagh, and the dispute over the rectory of Tamlaghtlege, 1414–1449’, SA, 17:1 (1996–7), 34. 17 M. Haren, ‘Vatican archives as a historical source to c. 1530’, AH, 39 (1984), 6–8. 100 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church The papal curia was familiar with the political landscape of Ireland, the 18 personnel of the Irish church and even the spelling of Irish names. This was due in part to the fact that Irish and English clerics, like those across Europe, travelled to Rome and sent representatives to secure appointments 19 and dispensations. It also reflects the specialization of papal scribes in correspondence with particular countries; those assigned to Ireland became 20 knowledgeable about it over the course of their career. Papal letters throughout the later Middle Ages display a tacit acceptance of the political and social realities of late medieval Ireland, acknowledging English over- lordship of the colony and the proliferation of clerical lineages in Gaelic 21 areas. Despite this, the curia did not engage with the English/Irish dichotomy that permeates secular records from the colony and its letters rarely mention ethnicity. Even-handed detachment may not have always been papal policy, and Pope Adrian and his bull Laudabilitier had a major role in justifying the twelfth-century invasion of Ireland, but in the later 22 Middle Ages the papacy did not discriminate against the Irish as a rule. If a candidate to a benefice could not speak the vernacular, for example, as occurred when English men sought benefices in Irish-speaking areas, the papacy often replaced him with a more suitable, Irish-speaking cleric. In disputes over benefices, the papacy was just as likely to support an Irish as an 23 English candidate. This even-handedness towards the Irish was in part an outgrowth of the administrative procedures of the curia, which responded to petitions as they received them, rather than gathering information about all candidates for an office before deciding on collation. This left little opportunity for ethnicity to be considered in any systematic manner, and this procedure meant that the volume of Irish petitioners resulted in many 24 collations for Irish clerics. There was little to be gained by discriminating against any ethnic group since the trade in collations and dispensations was 25 lucrative, although fees were occasionally forgiven ‘pro paupere Hibernico’. Papal provisions in 1400 and 1401 even referenced and directly contravened local enactments excluding the Irish from religious houses in the colony. In 1400 the papacy ordered the bishop of Ardagh to ensure that an Irish monk named Maurice Olloran (Ó Luchráin?) be accepted into the

18 CPL, xv, p. xxix. 19 Frequent visits of clerics from Ireland to the curia in Rome are evident, for example, in A. Coleman (ed.), ‘Obligationes pro annatis diocesis Dublinensis, 1421–1520’, AH, 2 (1913), 1–37, 38–72 and in the collections of payments recorded for these papal taxes from other Irish dioceses, published in AH between 1913 and 1970. 20 21 CPL, xv, p. xxxii. Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’,p.366. 22 See p. 98,n.4 for this text and debates about its authenticity and original form. 23 CPL, xv, pp. 106, 113. 24 Walsh argues that some curial oﬃcials sympathized with the Irish: ‘The clerical estate’,p.362. 25 Haren, ‘Vatican archives as a historical source’, pp. 6–8. 101 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Cistercian abbey of St Mary’s, Granard (modern co. Longford), ‘notwithstanding their statutes, especially those which provide that none but an Englishman can be so received’. The abbey had refused to admit Maurice when the papacy assigned him to the house in an earlier letter. The second letter threatened to excommunicate the St Mary’s community if 26 they continued to resist. The following year the papacy ordered that Adam Margatyre (Mac an tSaoir) be transferred to St Mary’s, and again 27 specified that this was in spite of certain exclusionary statutes. The statutes mentioned in these letters may have been a matter of internal regulation of St Mary’s or parliamentary statutes banning Irish religious 28 and clerics in the colony. Whatever the origin of the regulations, the papacy repeatedly defied them. The papal policy of ignoring or even contravening anti-Irish enactments provided, in effect, an advocate for Irish religious and clerics in the colony, even if the papal administration did not necessarily intend it this way. The medieval papacy, as a rule, resisted secular attempts to limit its powers of collation and interfere with its dominance over ecclesiastical matters. In the later Middle Ages, the papacy tightened its hold on collations (particularly of bishops) across Europe, so its refusal to be 29 governed by the restrictions in place in the colony is hardly surprising. The English crown pushed back against the papacy, passing a series of statutes against papal provisions in England from 1351 onwards. These statutes which required that the crown approve papal provisions were extended to the colony but struggles between crown and papacy persisted 30 both in England and in Ireland. The refusal of the papacy and papal delegates to be ruled by colonial policies about Irish clerics could result in friction, as it did in the late fourteenth century when Pope Urban VI denied a request that he appoint only English-speaking bishops in Ireland and in 1411 when an English statute limiting papal powers of provision 31 was enrolled in the Irish statute rolls. Rhetoric about the disruption that

26 CPL,v,p.331. See MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 198–9 for ‘O’Looran’ as Ó Luchráin. 27 CPL,v,p.346. 28 Enactments against Irish clerics were long-standing: ‘Remonstrance of the Irish chiefs to Pope John XXII’, trans. E. Curtis, CELT, pp. 41–2 [originally printed in Irish Historical Documents 1172– 1922 (London, 1943)]; Stat. Ire, John-Hen. V,p.420. 29 K. Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214–1344 (Farnham, 2014), p. 189; Watt, Church and Two Nations,p.213. 30 R. Dudley Edwards, ‘The kings of England and papal provisions in ﬁfteenth century Ireland’ in J. Watt, J. B. Morrall, and F. X. Martin (eds), Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961), pp. 266–9. 31 This was despite Urban’s tenuous position as Roman Pope during the Schism: J. Watt, ‘The papacy and Ireland in the ﬁfteenth century’ in R. B. Dobson (ed.), Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1984), p. 140. Other requests for the papacy to limit its collations of bishops by language, like Glyndŵr’s request to the Avignon pope Benedict XIII for Welsh- 102 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church papal bulls of provision caused was common in disputes over benefices that were adjudged by the Irish parliament, and petitioners to the parliament presented papal bulls as the unjust means by which they were 32 deprived of their lawful possession by rival claimants. A petition to the Irish parliament in 1471–2 complained about the deleterious effects that papal policy had on the English of Ireland, asserting that delegates of the papacy commissioned to enforce papal bulls often appointed as their ‘subdelegates ...Irish prelates, beneficers and clerks not obedient to the commands of the King or his laws, who naturally aim at the injury and 33 trouble of every Englishman’. The parliament therefore mandated that any papal delegate who appointed an Irish ‘subdelegate’ would be deprived of their position. The wording of the statute is notable in its assumption that the Irish ‘naturally (naturalment)’ sought to injure Englishmen. This rhetoric is symptomatic of the growing conviction, touched upon in Chapter 2, that there was inherent animosity between the English and Irish. Despite occasional conflict between the papacy and the colonial administration, the English of Ireland nevertheless respected papal power and influence. They sought papal bulls of provision and dispensation, though not in such great numbers as the Irish. The colonial community justified its presence in Ireland with reference to a papal grant and 34 colonists sought papal backing for new ventures. In 1421 the Irish parliament, under the leadership of James Butler, earl of Ormond, sent a letter to King Henry V in which it entreated him to seek papal permission to undertake a crusade against a number of Irish chiefs. The justification they provided for the crusade was that these chiefs, including Ó Néill, Ó Briain, MacMurchadha, and Ó Conchobhair, had broken the 35 oaths they made to Richard II during his visits to Ireland in the 1390s. It appears that this request did not result in any action by the king or pope. A crusade against Christians who were not heretical (nor argued by the petitioners to be so) and against whom the papacy itself had no political 36 animus was very unlikely to gain papal support. Elizabeth Matthew

speaking bishops in Wales in 1406, came to naught but may have been similarly motivated by the perceived weakness of the rival popes during the Schism: A. Gwynn, ‘Ireland and the English nation at the council of Constance’, PRIA, 45c(1939/40), 202; Stat. Ire, John–Hen. V, pp. 541–5. 32 33 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 98–101, 100–3. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.767. 34 C. M. Rooney, ‘The manuscripts of the works of Gerald of Wales’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Cambridge (2005), pp. 73–5; H. Morgan, ‘Giraldus Cambrensis and the Tudor conquest of Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 22–44; A. McIntosh and M. L. Samuels, ‘Prolegmena to a study of mediaeval Anglo-Irish’, Medium Aevum, 37:1 (1968), 3; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.437. 35 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.567. 36 The papacy had, since the twelfth century, been open to crusades against heterodox Christians, but these crusades usually beneﬁtted papal strategic aims, not those of secular powers (unless 103 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland argues that the request was a purely political move, perhaps in the hope that Martin V might agree to it as a reward for Henry V’s support for his claim to the papacy, and there was little attempt to validate it with doctrinal arguments. In any case, the request demonstrates that the settler community recognized the importance of papal support and suggests that papal refusal to endorse such a crusade may have restrained this particular 37 form of violent action in the colony. Overall, the refusal of the papacy and its administration to take sides in Ireland may have been motivated in part by economic and political self-interest as well as by administrative practice, but it acted as a counterbalance to the anti-Irish rhetoric and periodic anti-Irish actions of the colonial administration and encouraged the interaction of Irish and English monks and clerics by instituting Irishmen in monastic houses and benefices in the colony. Within Ireland, and in the four shires, the highest ecclesiastical authorities were the archbishops and bishops who headed the diocesan church, a body whose very organization and structure necessitated interaction between English and Irish. The dioceses of which the four counties were part had mixed populations and contained areas controlled politically by the Irish, so that bishops of Kildare and Meath, and archbishops of Dublin and Glendalough and Armagh presided over Irish and English clergy and parishioners. The ways in which diocesan structures facilitated interaction are most clear in the voluminous records of the ecclesiastical province of Armagh. County Louth, which was within not just the province but the archdiocese of Armagh, is particularly well represented in the archbishop’s registers and Meath, within the province of Armagh but in its own diocese, somewhat less so; information from these counties will be supplemented with material from the dioceses of Kildare and Dublin, in the province of Dublin, where possible. Armagh differed in significant ways from the province of Dublin. The continuing dispute between Dublin and Armagh over the primacy of the Irish church meant that archbishops of Armagh were reluctant to visit Dublin and this ensured 38 that they were not as heavily involved in the colonial government. Fifteenth-century archbishops of Dublin often served at a high level in

aligned with the papacy), and the ﬁfteenth-century papacy had no strategic interest in consolidat- ing English rule in Ireland: N. Housley, The Later Crusades from Lyons to Alcazar, 1274–1580 (Oxford, 1992), especially chapter 8, pp. 234–49, 264–6. 37 E. Matthew, ‘Henry V and the proposal for an Irish crusade’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages: Essays in honour of Robin Frame (Houndsmills, 2009), pp. 163, 165. 38 Watt, Church and Two Nations, pp. 208–10; J. A. Watt, ‘The disputed primacy of the medieval Irish church’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Vatican City, 1988), pp. 373–83; A. Lynch, ‘The administration of John Bole, Archbishop of Armagh, 1457–71’, SA, 14:2 (1991), 70, 105. 104 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church the colonial administration but only one archbishop of Armagh occupied 39 its highest position and his stint was brief. The usual political role of the archbishops of Armagh was as a negotiator for the colonial government with the Irish of Ulster. These two archbishops, therefore, played different roles and the archbishops of Dublin may have had fewer occasions to be politically conciliatory towards the Irish, although the mixed composition of the province they oversaw necessitated interaction with Irish clerics and laity on a practical level. From 1399 to 1534 all but one archbishop of Armagh, the archbishops of Dublin, the bishops of Meath, and most bishops of Kildare were English by descent and were aligned to some extent with the colony’saimsand 40 aspirations. Archbishops of Armagh prayed for the colony’s forces when they campaigned against the Irish and Archbishop Swayne (1418–39) 41 helped organize the muster of the colony’s troops in 1434. Archbishop Bole (1457–71) acted as a messenger to warn and rally forces in Louth to combat an Irish force led by Seán Ó Raghallaigh in the 1460sandthen 42 blessed the assembled colonial forces before battle. Richard Talbot, archbishop of Dublin (1417–49), and William Sherwood, bishop of Meath (1460–82), were deeply involved in campaigning against the Irish by virtue of the offices they held in the colonial administration, as were 43 other clerics who served in similar roles in the secular government. Nonetheless, for most leading churchmen, instances of military and political partisanship were occasional, though their attitudes varied: Bole and Mey (1443–56) of Armagh have been singled out by historians as particularly conciliatory towards the Irish, while de Palatio (1478–1513)of 44 Armagh may have been less so and Talbot of Dublin was certainly not. However, high-level alignment with the colony’s interests, to whatever extent, did not mean that archbishops customarily discriminated against Irish clerics and laymen on an individual level while conducting their archiepiscopal duties. The ways in which these duties necessitated and encouraged cooperation with the Irish are discernible in the surviving records of the

39 NHI, ix, pp. 475–80; Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.139. 40 There is uncertainty about whether Archbishops Swayne, Prene, and Bole were from the English community of England or that of Ireland: B. Smith, ‘John Swayne’, ODNB; K. Walsh, ‘The Roman career of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh, 1418–1439: plans for an Irish hospice in Rome’, SA, 11:1 (1983/4), 7; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 39–40; Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.2. 41 Reg. Swayne, pp. 145–9; Reg. Mey, 135–6. 42 Ware’s extracts from Drogheda municipal records and parliamentary records place the event in c. 1467–8: D. Mac Iomhair, ‘Two old Drogheda Chronicles’, JCLAHS, 15:1 (1961), 91; Stat. Ire., Ed. IV, i, pp. 587–93. 43 E. Matthew, ‘Richard Talbot’, ODNB; D. Beresford, ‘William Sherwood’, DIB. 44 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 106; Watt, ‘The papacy and Ireland’,p.140; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 227, 520. 105 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland province of Armagh. Armagh contained two parallel administrations, each staffed largely but by no means exclusively by churchmen from the respective communities and ultimately overseen by the archbishop. The Irish branch, headed by the dean of Armagh, was in frequent contact with the primate, as each of the archiepiscopal registers attest, although it 45 did not always follow the primate’s dictates. Many of the archbishops made repeat visits to the cathedral city and conducted visitations of the 46 other Irish areas of their province. Still, these visits were not as frequent as those to largely English dioceses like Meath and the archbishops’ level of hands-on involvement in Armagh inter anglicos exceeded that in Armagh 47 inter hibernicos. They convened councils inter anglicos yearly, while councils for the united province occurred only every few years (although 48 Bole may have made efforts to convene them yearly). From an English or broader European perspective, the divided nature of the archdiocese was its most notable characteristic. In the context of colonial society, where no other major institution spanned and incorporated Irish and English areas into their remit, the connections that the diocesan church forged were most remarkable. The archbishops corresponded with their officials in Armagh and Irish clerics in northern dioceses like Raphoe, Connor, and Derry in much the same way as those in English areas and sought to help and 49 protect them as well as rebuke them when necessary. This extended even to erenaghs, a type of hereditary lay ecclesiastical tenant unique to 50 Ireland, whom archbishops accepted as legitimate church officials. Swayne, Mey, and Bole seem to have been particularly willing to engage with erenaghs and, at various times, ordered local secular leaders to provide restitution if they stole from them and settled disputes about 51 rival claimants to erenachies. Archbishopswerehostedbytheirere- naghs when on visitations of the diocese and may thus have had a vested

45 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 46 R. L. Johnson, ‘How Nicholas Fleming became archbishop of Armagh’, JCLAS, 13:3 (1955), 279–87; J. Watt, ‘John Colton, justiciar of Ireland (1382) and archbishop of Armagh (1383–1404)’ in J. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in honour of Jocelyn Otway- Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), pp. 196–213; Smith, ‘John Swayne’; Reg. Mey, p. lxxxii, 273; Lynch, ‘Religion in late medieval Ireland’, 6. 47 A. Lynch, ‘Some metropolitical visitations of Meath in the ﬁfteenth century’, RnM, 7:2 (1982–3), 8–10. 48 49 Gwynn, Province of Armagh,p.74. Reg. Prene,v,p.399. 50 For a survey of literature on erenaghs to date and background on this position see: C. Ó Scea, ‘Erenachs, erenachships and church landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270–1609’, PRIA, 112c (2012), 272,n.3, 273–4. 51 Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.158; Reg. Mey, pp. 209, 236, 276–7, 387–7; Reg. Swayne, pp. 47, 73, 85, 198; Reg. Prene, vi, pp. 214, 313; ‘A calendar of the reassembled register of John Bole, Archbishop of Armagh, 1457–71’, ed. A. Lynch, SA, 15:1 (1992), 117; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 102. 106 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church 52 interest in assisting them. Nevertheless, their acceptance of this pecu- liarly Irish type of church official demonstrates their flexible attitude towards Irish culture. Archbishops Fleming and Swayne issued safe- conducts to Irish clerics travelling on the continent and Swayne admonished several colonists for stealing from an Irish vicar from Drumgath, 53 co. Down. In this instance the clerical relationship transcended the ethnic one and the secular convention, whereby stealing from an Irish man (or at least, an Irishman without access to English law) would go unpunished, did not prevail in this ecclesiastical setting, in which the archbishop had a responsibility to protect the inviolability of clergy of any ethnicity. Archbishop Bole provided support for an Irish candidate for the bishopric of Down and Connor and, while his support presumably sprang from a range of political, administrative, and other concerns, ethnicity was clearly not paramount. In this instance, Bole actually acted against the royal appointee, Richard Wolsey, and instructed the papal appointee, Tadhg Ó Muirgheasa, to attend the provincial council, take possession of the see and make his provision a fait accompli,incase 54 Wolsey arrived from England and tried to occupy the bishopric. Thescantyevidencewehaveforthedealingsofthearchbishopsof Dublin with Irish clerics in Gaelic parts of their archdiocese show that they also co-operated with Irish clerics, particularly in the later fifteenth century. Archbishops John Walton (1472–1484) and Walter FitzSimons (1484–1511) appointed Irish clerics to positions in the south of the archdiocese (modern co. Wicklow) and this entailed meeting with these clerics in person, corresponding with them and conducting the 55 usual business of the diocese with little reference to ethnicity. The archbishops were very willing to support and protect Irish clerics and erenaghs in their province, but they did prohibit some Irish practices and these prohibitions have sometimes been interpreted as anti-Irish. But, on closer inspection, the Irish customs and styles banned in provincial councils were most likely singled out not because of their ethnic associations but rather because of other considerations. In his council of 1389 or 1390 John Colton, who remained archbishop until 1404, renewed provincial statutes against poets, musicians, and entertainers, as well as against kern (from the Irish ceithearn and meaning Irish foot soldiers), and other 56 ‘importunate and wicked seekers, or rather extorters, of gifts’. Colonial paranoia about poets acting as spies is evident in secular legislation but this is not the most likely motivation for these statutes, which were originally

52 Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 102–3. 53 54 Reg. Fleming, pp. 137–8; Reg. Swayne, pp. 43, 158–9. ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. 55 56 Alen’s Reg., pp. 243–5, 254–5. Reg. Swayne, pp. 12–3. 107 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 57 promulgated by Irish archbishops. Perhaps the archbishops were more concerned about the reputation of poets for encouraging violence in their patrons or their potential to drain the financial resources of elites (financial resources that could instead be directed to the church). Additionally, there were possible theological reasons for discouraging bardic poets, who had a ‘quasi-clerical’ status in Irish society; their satire was consid- 58 ered ‘as terrible a weapon as the Church’s excommunication’. Their relationship with the church in Ireland had declined after the twelfth century and archbishops may have seen their privileged position as a 59 threat to clerical power and prestige. The reference to kerns and ‘seekers of gifts’ may relate to the practice of coyne and livery, by which soldiers were billeted on the local population including, of course, 60 church tenants. The presence of kerns, therefore, threatened the church’s rental income, and complaints about forced billeting survive from monastic houses and from other ecclesiastical figures in this period. Colton’s council also sought to eradicate clerical concubines and a violent sport called ‘galbardy’ which may have been the Irish sport of hurling.61 Bardic poets and kerns were usually Irish, hurling was an Irish sport and clerical concubinage was more common and accepted among Irish clerics (although its prevalence among English clerics in the colony and in 62 England has been underestimated). Despite this, there are no overt ethnic overtones in these injunctions. Colton was aiming to regulate frivolous or violent amusements, enforce clerical celibacy, and discourage those whom he saw as ‘extorters of gifts’ rather than attacking Gaelic society per se. Colton and his predecessors were not making decisions based on ethnic associations but rather accepting those Gaelic customs that suited their ecclesiastical and practical aims and attacking those that did not.

57 Stat. Ire., John-Hen.p.447;T.O’Rahilly, ‘Irish poets, historians and judges in English documents, 1538–1613’, PRIA, 36c(1921–4), 86. 58 Simms, ‘Bards and Barons’, pp. 182, 184; D. Greene, ‘The professional poets’ in B. Ó Cuív (ed.), Seven Centuries of Irish Learning 1000–1700 (Cork, 1961), p. 42. 59 Simms, ‘Brehons of late medieval Ireland’,p.54. 60 See below pp. 179–85 for coyne and livery. 61 Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.122. There is no clear link between ‘galbardy’ and hurling, but the famously violent nature of medieval hurling and a possible connection between Easter and games of hurling may support Chart’s suggestion: Reg. Swayne,p.12. However, galbardy may not be an Irish term and Lydon suggests that it was a form of football: J. Lydon, ‘The medieval city’ in A. Cosgrove (ed.), Dublin through the Ages (Dublin, 1988), p. 38; A. O’Sullivan, ‘Warriors, legends and heroes: The archaeology of hurling’, Archaeology Ireland, 12:3 (1998), pp. 32–4. 62 J. Werner, ‘Promiscuous priests and vicarage children: Clerical sexuality and masculinity in late medieval England’ in J. D. Thibodeaux (ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle Ages (Houndsmills, 2010), pp. 159–84;Jeﬀeries, Irish Church and Tudor reformations,p.29. 108 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church Similarly, apparently anti-Irish clerical regulations regarding hair styles seem, on closer inspection, not to be motivated by ethnic animus. Archbishop Bole prohibited ‘beneficed clergy and cathedral canons’ from wearing two hair styles associated with the Irish – moustaches and 63 long fringes called ‘glibs’–in a provincial council in 1460. The reason for the ban is not stated and, on the surface, it appears to be an ecclesiastical parallel to parliamentary and municipal bans on moustaches and glibs in the colony. This is how I, following Lynch, initially made sense of the 64 statute and a similar one from Cashel in the 1450s. It seems to have been enforced, albeit with regular dispensations, even against clerics who lived 65 outside the colony, inter hibernicos. This differentiates this ecclesiastical ban from secular ones, which were promulgated in efforts to clearly distinguish colonists from Irishmen, and ensure that colonists maintained 66 an ‘English’ outward appearance. As such, the secular bans were only relevant within the colony’s bounds. Something different is happening here, and a look at wider attitudes to clerical hairstyles and overall appearance may reveal what this is. Monks and some priests were ton- sured to show their humility and the Fourth (1213–15) and Fifth (1512– 17) Lateran councils discouraged long hair and long beards among clerics, 67 along with elaborate or brightly coloured clothes, as signs of vanity. John Mirk’s ‘Instructions for Parish Priests’, which was widely circulated in England and perhaps also in Ireland in Bole’s lifetime, expressed orthodox ideas about the attire of clerics, advising that priests must wear ‘honeste clothes’, without ‘baselards ny bawdrkye’ (armour), and 68 that ‘berde and crowne thow moste be schaue [shaven]’. According to Mirk and others, it was unbefitting for a cleric to resemble a military man 69 and associate himself with violence. If glibs and moustaches were masculine, perhaps warrior, styles in Irish society, like the beards and partially shorn hair styles of the earlier period, or associated with vanity, as

63 Lynch, ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. 64 Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 68–9; S. Booker, ‘Irish clergy and the diocesan church in the “four obedient shires” of Ireland, c. 1400–c. 1540’, IHS, 39:154 (2014), 193–4. 65 Lynch, ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. 66 The secular prohibitions on Irish hairstyles and moustaches are discussed in detail below pp. 205–9. 67 L. V. Hicks, Religious Life in Normandy, 1050–1300: Space, Gender and Social Pressure (Woodbridge, 2007), p. 29; www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm and www.ecum12-2.htm;T.M. Izbicki, ‘Forbidden colors in clerical dress’ in R. Netherton and G. Owen-Crocker (eds), Medieval Clothing and Textiles, vol. 1 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 106–7. 68 John Mirk, Instructions for Parish Priests, ed. E. Peacock (London, EETS, 1868, revised 1902). Mirk’s Festial, at least, was circulated in late medieval Ireland: A. J. Fletcher, ‘Unnoticed sermons from John Mirk’s Festial’, Speculum, 55:3 (1980), 517. 69 D. E. Thiery, ‘Plowshares and swords: Clerical involvement in acts of violence and peacemaking in the late medieval England, c. 1400–1536’, Albion, 36:2 (2004), 206. 109 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland long hair for men often was, it is likely that it was their military or secular associations that Archbishop Bole considered unsuitable for clerics, rather 70 than their Irishness. The seemingly anti-Irish promulgations of Armagh’s provincial councils were, therefore, motivated primarily by factors unrelated to ethnicity. Moreover, when any of the archbishops commented directly on the relationship between English and Irish, they expressed a desire for peace. The need for peace between the English and Irish was a pet subject of the influential mid-fourteenth century archbishop, Richard FitzRalph, who chastised settlers for excluding the Irish from guilds in Drogheda and 71 preached that killing or stealing from Irishmen was sinful. Colton addressed the issue of ethnic division explicitly in his council of 1383–9, and ordered each of his suffr[agan] b[isho]ps to labour to reform, hold and preserve peace between the English and the Irish of Arm[agh] prov[ince] according to his power and preach peace between the same and compel all his subjects by all eccl[esiastica]l censures to hold the peace. Any sower of discord between the said English and Irish to be not only suspended from pontificals, but by the very fact 72 excom[municate]d. An undated entry (c. 1426) in the register of Primate Swayne shows that this desire of the archbishops to encourage peace continued into the fifteenth century. It concerned the marriage of Roger Mccmachune (Mac Mathghamhna), of the diocese of Clogher, and Alice White, of Armagh diocese, and detailed the many ties of consanguinity between 73 this Irish man and English woman. Swayne advised the holy father to give them a licence to marry despite their many degrees of relation, partly because they already had children who should be made legitimate and also because ‘therefrom probably peace will be concerted between the English 74 and Irish’. Fostering peace by approving and giving dispensations for strategic intermarriages was again employed as a strategy by a bishop of Ossory in 1486 and Archbishop Mey of Armagh used it to justify the marriage of an Irish couple from different branches of the Mac 75 Mathghamhna family in 1454. Swayne’s desire to create a hospice in Rome where the Irish and English of Ireland could be housed together when on pilgrimage furthers the impression that he was keen for the two 76 nations to be at peace. Not all of Swayne’s actions signal a desire for

70 W. Sayers, ‘Early Irish attitudes towards hair and beards, baldness and tonsure’, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, 44 (1991), 164–6. 71 72 73 Walsh, Richard FitzRalph,p.342. Reg. Swayne, pp. 11–12. Reg. Swayne,p.45. 74 75 Reg. Swayne,p.46. Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 258–9; Reg. Mey, pp. 428–30. 76 Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’,p.371; Walsh, ‘The Roman career of John Swayne’. 110 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church peace, however, and he was one of the representatives of the Irish parliament who took the petition for a proposed crusade against certain Irish lords to Henry V in 1421. Elizabeth Matthew has argued that the proposal may have been an attractive way for him to effect reform in the 77 Irish church. As the archbishop of Armagh, Swayne knew better than anyone how difficult enforcing reform in Irish areas could be and perhaps he felt a crusade was his only effective option. In this sense, his actions were motivated by ecclesiastical concerns and he remained, as most archbishops of Armagh seem to have been, more a churchman than an Englishman. The archbishops of Armagh often involved themselves in political negotiations between the colony and the Irish; this negotiator role has been the most well-studied aspect of their interactions with the Irish and 78 will therefore only be touched on here. Their position demanded respect from both sides and there were few, if any, other figures who 79 were as suited to be high-level negotiators. Simms points out that ‘the cathedral city itself was situated between the lands of O’Hanlon and the Great O’Neill, in a region where no other Englishman would dare 80 penetrate without the escort of an army’. In practice, archbishops ‘were present at almost every treaty and parley that took place between 81 the English and the Irish of [Ulster]’. These negotiations, on their own behalf and that of the colonial government, were not always successful. Archbishops were often at odds with the Uí Néill, the most powerful Irish family in the ecclesiastical province, who sought to control the archbishop’s valuable church lands in Ulster and frequently attacked 82 church tenants. And yet the Uí Néill intermittently made agreements with the archbishops and used their relationship with them to ease 83 tensions with the colony and to increase their own prestige. These agreements were not durable, however, and the Ó Néill leaders often contravened them. The archbishops’ recourse in these instances was the threat and sentence of excommunication, which they used regularly but 84 with varying efficacy. Excommunication relied for much of its power

77 Matthew, ‘Henry V and the proposal for an Irish crusade’,p.169. 78 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’; K. Simms, ‘The concordat between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill (1455)’, AH, 24 (1977), 71; Lynch, ‘Religion in late medieval Ireland’, 5, 13. 79 80 Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’,p.361. Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 81 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 82 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 83 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 84 Gundacker has argued excommunication was an important negotiating tool: J. Gundacker, ‘Absolutions and acts of disobedience: Excommunication and society in fourteenth century Armagh’, Traditio, 64 (2009), 183–5, 197–200. 111 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland on enforcement by the secular authorities and shunning by laity, so it was 85 less effective when the leading secular power was the excommunicate. The level of engagement in negotiations varied from one archbishop and Ó Néill chief to another but archbishops Mey and Swayne were frequently and closely involved in political negotiations, while de Palatio had little involvement, a fact which Simms suggests may have been caused by the lack of a clear Ó Néill chief during his episcopate rather than by a 86 disinclination to negotiate with the Irish. It was often in the archbishops’ best interests to negotiate with the Uí Néill, since there was no English secular power in this period that could enforce their dictates in 87 much of the province. Successful agreements with the Uí Néill resulted in greater stability and freedom from attacks for the archbishops’ tenants and thus greater revenue for the archbishop. There were practical reasons, therefore, for the archbishops to work towards peace but that does not mean that more altruistic reasons did not also play a part. Discouraging violence between Christians had become an increasingly central part of Christian teaching in Europe from the eleventh century onwards, and by the later Middle Ages diocesan clergy, for the most part, counselled their 88 flocks against such conflicts. There were many exceptions, and clerics were motivated by personal and political considerations just as the laity 89 were; they were not entirely above secular concerns. It may even have been the case that some clerics in the colony preached that killing Irishmen was not a sin, as the early fourteenth-century Uí Néill leader 90 Domhnall Ó Néill had claimed. Despite such exceptions, however, there was a strong clerical tradition of decrying violence against Christians and this almost certainly motivated archbishops of Armagh and other 91 clerics in Ireland in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.

85 Excommunication was intended to result in the loss of many legal rights for the excommunicate in both secular and church courts, loss of social position, and even refusal of clients or tenants to work with or associate with them. These added legal and social disadvantages made the sentence more eﬀective when and where they operated successfully, but co-operation from secular powers was important in this operation: E. Vodola, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1986), chapters 3, 4, 7. 86 Simms, ‘The archbishops of Armagh’. 87 Simms, ‘Concordat between Mey and Henry O’Neill’, 71. 88 H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Peace and Truce of God in the eleventh century’, PP, 46 (1970), 42–67;D.E. Thiery, Polluting the Sacred: Violence, Faith and the ‘Civilizing’ of Parishioners in Late Medieval England (Leiden, 2009), pp. 23–4. 89 The complexity of clerical identity was highlighted by R. N. Swanson and has since been explored in connection to violence and clerical displays of masculinity: R. N. Swanson, ‘Problems of the priesthood in the pre-Reformation England’, EHR, 105:417 (1990), 845; Thiery, ‘Plowshares and swords’, 201–22; J. Thibodeaux (ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle Ages (London, 2010). 90 ‘Remonstrance of the Irish Chiefs’,p.43; Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 164–6. 91 Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland,p.165. 112 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church It was not just the deliberate actions of the archbishops that could foster peaceable interaction. The quotidian business of the archbishop’s administration brought Irish and English clerics together and archbishops of Armagh and Dublin provided English and Irish candidates to benefices, promoted them in holy orders, dealt with disputes over appointments and resolved disciplinary matters among the clergy and a range of disputes among the laity in their courts. Provincial councils drew in bishops 92 and their representatives from the entire province. For a council in Drogheda in 1427, the Irish bishops of Ardagh, Raphoe, Dromore, and Clogher sent proctors (almost certainly Irishmen) but ‘Donatus O’Gowan’ (Domhnall Ó Gabhann), bishop of Kilmore, and ‘Donald Omeraich’ (Domhnall Ó Mearaich), bishop of Derry, came in person. So did the English bishop of Meath, Edward Dauntsey, and a number of 93 English clerics from Meath, as well as the archbishop himself. Other provincial councils, which were held every few years in Louth (or, under 94 some archbishops, perhaps yearly), featured a similar ethnic mix. Archbishops admonished those bishops (often from the far north-west 95 of the province) who did not attend or send proctors. Archbishop Bole sought the approval of the Irish bishops of Kilmore and Ardagh for his punishment of the bishops of Derry and Raphoe for not attending a council in 1460, which suggests that he used Irish clerics as advisers in his 96 dealings with Irish parts of his province. Though we have no records from them in this period, similar provincial councils were held in the province of Dublin and they would have been attended by English and Irish clerics and bishops, although there were fewer Irish bishops in the 97 province of Dublin than in the province of Armagh. Ordinations were another occasion at which the English and Irish clerics of the diocese of Armagh congregated and conducted church business. In 1428 Archbishop Swayne ordained the following men in 98 St Peter’s Church in Drogheda (Table 2). Most ordination lists, like the list from 1428, contain a mix of Irish and English clerics and illustrate the way in which church business brought Irish

92 For the business of the councils see Lynch, ‘Metropolitical visitations’, 3–4. 93 Reg. Swayne, pp. 73–4. 94 Gwynn, Province of Armagh,p.75; ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’; Reg. Fleming, pp. 179–81. 95 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 24, 31; ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. 96 ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. 97 Murray, Enforcing the English Reformation, pp. 322–1; A. Gwynn, ‘Provincial and diocesan decrees of the diocese of Dublin during the Anglo-Norman period’, AH, 11 (1944), pp. 31–117; A. Lynch, ‘Thomas Fleming, O.F.M., Bishop of Leighlin (1434–c. 58), cited to a provincial council at Ferns’, Collectanea Hibernica, 34/35 (1993), 7–9. 98 Reg. Swayne, pp. 86–7. Many of the men on this list were promoted by the archbishop in the following year: Reg. Swayne, pp. 116–18. 113 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Table 2: Louth ordination list (Irish names are in italics)

First Tonsure: John Whytey, Peter Eliot, Richard Rowe, John Maysyn, Thomas Hawe, John Davy, John Clynton, William Lange, Robert Palmer, Henry Donegan, Simon Maysyn, Nicholas Maysyn, Richard Blake, John Bonnell, Charles Okally.

Acolytes: Master John Heliot, John Carter, Brother Richard Lucok, Brother Smythfeld, Donald McMuchian, Maurice Oderaran, Richard Tanner, Patrick Okemman, Thomas Omulmacha, Brother Walter Courtneys, Brother Edmund White.

Subdeacons: Nicholas Ohalagan, Patrick Ocassabaid, Nellanus Oconnolan, Nicholas Omccerthaid, Andrew Redan.

Deacons: Walter White, William Fernan, John Moynagh, John Allcock, Brother John Gorman.

Priests: John McGiernaid, Patrick Onuthian, Thomas Russel. clerics into towns in Louth, in the heart of the colony, and encouraged 99 them to meet English clerics. An ordination list from Meath in 1430 also had a mix of English and Irish but the names of the Irish clerics were notably anglicized, in contrast to many of the Irish clerics who appeared in 100 ordinations in Louth. One explanation for this is that the Meath ordinations may have included only clerics resident in the diocese of Meath, largely within the four shires, while those in Louth, under the auspices of the archbishop, extended to clerics from the entire province of Armagh. The archbishop’s courts, and indeed all of the church’s courts, provided another venue within the colony in which English and Irish interacted on (at least formally) equal terms. Many of those who used the courts were clerics, both from the colony and outside it, and any cleric who claimed benefit of clergy in colonial secular courts (and thereby evaded capital 101 punishment) was referred to the courts of the archbishop. The archiepiscopal courts acted as the consistory court for the archdiocese of Armagh and as a metropolitan court for appeals from the other dioceses in the province. They ruled on disputes between clerics and on matters of clerical discipline and on the cases of lay parishioners, including marital disputes, probate, defamation, and broken oaths. Crucially all laymen and women in the province, whether English or Irish, were permitted to plead in the 102 church courts. The jurisdictional competence of the archbishop’s courts

99 Reg. Swayne, pp. 86–7, 116–17, 118, 157, 186–7; Reg. Fleming,p.232. 100 Reg. Prene,v,p.517. 101 Sughi, ‘The family of Comedinus Oﬀercheran’,p.27; Reg. Fleming, pp. 42–3. 102 J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (Oxford, 2007), p. 127. 114 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church was limited and did not generally offer redress for many types of dispute, including those concerning land, but in those actions which the courts heard, Irish and English litigants were on an even footing, providing an important alternative for those Irish people who could not plead in many of 103 the secular courts in the colony. The archbishop’s court was also relatively inexpensive and fees were sometimes waived for the poorest 104 litigants. By 1519 a significant majority of litigants in marital cases in the archbishop of Armagh’s court (at consistory level) were Irish, although they only comprised half of the litigants in testamentary and defamation cases, a fact that Jefferies attributes to their relatively lower economic 105 position. The church courts did not award damages, only assigned penance, which might make them less attractive to litigants were it not for the fact that often ‘in practice a civil remedy would be achieved by 106 allowing commutation of the penance on terms’. The archbishop’s courts also offered another kind of opportunity to the Irish. Many Irish clerics worked in them as clerks, judges, and attorneys and the careers of some of the many Irish clerics who worked in the archiepiscopal administration will be discussed in detail below. Overall the archbishops were conciliatory figures, both through their political negotiations and explicit statements encouraging peace and on a more mundane basis through their working relationships with all of the clerics in their province and their administration of a court that did not discriminate against Irish litigants. The very composition of the province of Armagh was a force for peaceful and frequent interaction, since it encompassed Irish and English people, both lay and clerical, and encouraged English and Irish clerics to meet and cooperate at ordinations and provincial councils. The mixed clerical and lay population of the province of Dublin suggests that similar processes occurred there, although perhaps to lesser extent, given that a greater proportion of the province fell within the colony. At a lower level within the diocesan structure, parish churches were also sites of amicable interethnic interaction. This is hardly surprising given the high Irish population of the four shires. These Irish people attended their

103 Breach of faith/oath cases, in which one litigant alleged that the other had broken an oath and therefore committed perjury, allowed for some property disputes to be heard in church courts. This work-around expanded the jurisdiction of church courts and led to some conflict with secular courts who wished to protect their jurisdiction over civil cases: R. H. Helmholtz, The Oxford History of the Laws of England: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford, 2004), pp. 358–368; R. H. Helmhotz, ‘Writs of prohibition and ecclesiastical sanctions in the English courts Christian’, Minnesota Law Review, 60 (1975), 1011–33. 104 H. A. Jefferies, ‘The church courts of Armagh on the eve of the Reformation’, SA, 15:2 (1993), 22. 105 106 Jefferies, ‘Church courts’, 22. Baker, English Legal History,p.219. 115 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 107 local parish churches alongside their English neighbours. Some Irish parishioners became involved in the parochial administration and served as churchwardens once that administrative lay position became established in 108 the colony. Many parish priests, particularly curates, who served in the four counties were also Irish, despite periodic attempts by the administration to prevent Irish clerics from holding benefices or being admitted to religious houses in the colony. Concerns about the dangers Irish clerics posed date from well before the fifteenth century and were expressed in the statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 as well as in the context of the Bruce invasion 109 of Ireland in 1315. These concerns were expressed most often at times of conflict in the colony when interethnic hostility spiked, just as it did during 110 periods of warfare or rebellion in other colonial contexts. However, members of the Irish parliament recognized the possible disjunction between ethnicity and political allegiance in parliamentary statutes of 1360 and 1361 which stipulated that loyal Irishmen who lived peacefully 111 among the English were exempted from exclusions. A provincial council of Archbishop Thomas Minot of Dublin (1363–75) provided for an oath of loyalty to the crown for both Irish clerics and English clerics who lived among the Irish, since, according to the council, both were wont to rebel 112 and support rebellious Irish lords. Such subtleties are less common in the fifteenth-century material, as the Irish parliament continued to pass bans against Irish clerics in the colony. Attempting to control numbers of Irish clerics was an uphill battle, since many settlers and Englishmen did not 113 want some of the poorer benefices available in the colony. The case of Teage OKewan (Tadhg Ó Cíobháin?) gives some insight into the circumstances under which parliamentary prohibitions were actually enforced. Geoffrey Hereford, bishop of Kildare (1447–64), was punished in 1451 for investing OKewan as vicar of Primult (Ballyburly) in medieval county Kildare (modern co. Offaly). OKewan was the preferred candidate of An Calbhach Mór mac Murchadha Ó Conchobhair, lord of

107 Irish parishioners in Dublin parish churches, for example, appear in H. F. Twiss (ed.), ‘Some ancient deeds of the parish of St Werburgh, Dublin 1243–1676’, PRIA, 35c(1918), 288; Obits of Christchurch, pp. 14, 18, 28, 31, 42, 44, 50; MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 206, 226–7. 108 Jefferies, ‘The role of the laity’,p.78. For the rise of the office of churchwardens, see K. French, The People of the Parish: Community Life in a Late Medieval English Diocese (Philadelphia, 2012), pp 68–72;C.Drew,Early Parochial Organisation in England: The Office of Churchwarden (York, 1954). 109 This concern is particularly understandable given the victory of Scottish and Irish forces at the battle of Connor shortly before fears about Irish clerics were expressed: S. Duffy, ‘The Bruce invasion of Ireland: A revised itinerary and chronology’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), pp. 17–19; CCR, Edw. II, ii, pp. 307–10. 110 111 Davies, Age of Conquest,p.458. CCR, Edw. III, x, pp. 575–6. 112 Gwynn, ‘Provincial and diocesan decrees of Dublin’, 100–2. 113 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 273, 420, 435, 445, 481, 560–1; Betham, Early Parliaments of Ireland, p. 356. 116 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church Úi Failghe, ‘a great Irish man and enemy to our sovereign lord the King’. Hereford allegedly also ‘adhered to’ Ó Conchobhair, ‘called him a worthy man’ and honoured him in some kind of ceremony and for 114 these offences his temporalities were seized into the king’s hands. There was clearly more at stake in this particular case than just an Irish parish priest serving in the colony. Hereford’s confirmation of OKewan as vicar was closely related to his political support for an Irish lord who was a major threat to the colony for the first half of the fifteenth century. Ó Conchobhair had waged war on the colony for many decades, captur- ing the earl of Kildare, repeatedly harrying Meath and several times defeating colonial forces, until his power waned and he submitted to 115 the duke of York in 1449. The colonial administration’s apprehension about Bishop Hereford’s actions is thus understandable and there was ample reason for the Irish parliament to mobilize statutes about investing Irish clerics against him. Like other anti-Irish statutes, they were used as needed, rather than uniformly implemented. Dispensations allowing the appointment of Irish clerics were common by the last decades of the fifteenth century. Men of English descent were ‘not willing to remain or dwell amongst Irish enemies’ and someone was required to fill the positions and minister to the laity. However, these parliamentary dispensations were not indiscriminate. They gave the archbishop of Dublin and bishop of Meath the power to appoint Irish clerics to ‘benefices in their gift’ only, or only to benefices ‘where no Englishman would live’, and this provided a check on the total numbers of Irish clerics, where they served, and who they were. The appointment of politically undesirable clerics (at least in the sense of being allied with fractious Irish lords) was unlikely, since they had to be approved by Archbishop FitzSimons or Bishop Sherwood, both of whom served in 116 the colonial administration. But by 1529–32 these informal checks on Irish priests were evidently not considered adequate: a series of inquisitions was held in these years to determine which benefices in English areas were occupied by Irishmen. Three Irish clerics from Meath were deprived during one of these inquisitions: Dormic’ McInclery (Diarmait Mac an Airchinnigh?), vicar of St Mary’s Balleloghcrewe (Loughcrew, co. Meath?), Terrilagh O Kerrolan (Toirdhealbhach Ó Cearbhalláin), rector of

114 Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.477. 115 AFM, s.a. 1436, 1446; Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 109–10, 125;E.O’Byrne, ‘O’Connor Faly (Ó Conchobhair Failghe), An Calbach (d. 1458), king of Oﬀaly’, DIB. 116 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.769; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’,p.85; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII, pp. 65, 83. Both men served and chancellor and deputy lieutenant, and were involved in factional, anti- Geraldine politics, but this did not manifest in alliances with the Irish: D. Bereford, ‘William Sherwood (d. 1482)’ and ‘Walter FitzSimons (d. 1511)’, DIB. 117 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Knock, and Karolus McGranyll (Cearbhall Mac Raighnaill), archdeacon of 117 Meath. The systematic enforcement of prohibitions against Irish clerics in English areas was a new departure but all three of these clerics were subsequently restored to their benefices. This period of enforcement therefore resulted in the identification but not the expulsion of many of 118 the Irish clerics of the four shires. Katharine Simms, Henry Jefferies, and Michael Haren, among others, have remarked that many Irish clerics served in the four shires, but these clerics have not been examined in any detail as a group. Closer investigation reveals where they came from, how they secured their benefices or 119 positions in the four shires and where in the region they served. Determining which priests were resident and active in which parishes is complicated by the fact that some benefice holders may have been absentees who employed curates to do the work of ministry. Much has been made of absenteeism in the Irish church and it was indeed the case 120 that Irish parishes were relatively poor and disposed to pluralism. However, Irish clerics seem to have been more willing than English ones to serve in poor benefices and there is sometimes corroborating evidence that Irish clerics named as benefice holders were in fact resident 121 in their parishes. In the many cases where beneficed clerics employed curates (Jefferies estimates up that this was up to two-thirds of parishes inter anglicos in Louth, 70 per cent in Dublin and 50 per cent of the parishes in Meath), most of these curates were Irish. Thus, most parishes served by 122 curates were, on a day-to-day basis, under the wing of Irish clerics. Irish clerics had never been absent from the four shires but their numbers, like those of the Irish laity, seem to have been rising in the later Middle 123 Ages. They were resident in parishes across the four shires, some well within the maghery. Because many of the extant sources were generated in the context of benefice disputes and other conflicts, they give a misleading picture of the success and security of Irish clerics in the colony; undoubtedly many peaceful and uneventful tenures of Irish clerics are lost

117 118 MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 38, 134. Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 35, 38. 119 Jefferies, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations,p.32; Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.184; M. Haren, ‘Social structures of the Irish church: A new source in papal penitentiary dispensations for illegitimacy’ in L. Schmugge (ed.), Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter (Munich, 1994), p. 212. For more detail on many of these men, see Booker, ‘Irish clergy’. 120 B. Campbell, ‘Benchmarking medieval economic development: England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, c. 1290’, Economic History Review, 61:4 (2008), 902;Jefferies, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations,p.33. 121 Jefferies, Priests and Prelates, pp. 32–3;Jefferies, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations,p.32;J. Murray, ‘The sources of clerical income in the Tudor diocese of Dublin, c. 1530–1600’, AH, 46 (1991/2), 144–5. 122 Jefferies, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations,p.32. 123 Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.184. 118 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church to the historical record, since they required little attention by the papal or archiepiscopal curiae. The reader should therefore not assume that the disputes touched on below indicate that Irish clerics in the four shires were any more fractious than their English counterparts, even if their ethnicity may have made them more vulnerable to challenges of their right to hold benefices. In Louth, the rectory of Dunleer, not far from the coast and halfway between Dundalk and Drogheda, lay in a region of dense English settlement and was held by a member of the Ó Maolchalann family from 1450 124 to 1454, if not significantly longer. As Simms noted, members of this family were hereditary keepers of the shrine of St Patrick’s Bell and 125 important figures in the church in Armagh inter hibernicos. From 1471 until c. 1485, the vicarage of Holy Mary in Drogheda was held by John Omellane (Ó Mealláin), who was a member of another important Armagh ecclesiastical family that shared the role of keeper of Patrick’s bell with the Uí Mhaolchalann. Omellane was also sufficiently prominent in Drogheda that his death in 1491 was recorded in the ‘mayor’s register’ alongside 126 those of other local notables. Other parishes in the maghery in Louth ministered to by Irish clerics include Drumshallon, several miles north of Drogheda, where Thomas McGlew (Mag Laithimh/ Mac Aodha?) and Matthew Mcheuge (Mac Aodha/Mac thaidhg?) were chaplains in the middle of the fifteenth century and where Nelan O Donely (Niall Ó 127 Donnghaile) served as curate in 1520. Termonfeckin and Dromiskin, two of the main archiepiscopal manors which were located on the coast of Louth between Drogheda and Dundalk, were routinely associated with Irish clerics, many of whom were linked to the archbishop’s 128 administration. Haynestown, just south of Dundalk, was also held by a succession of Irish clerics employed in the archiepiscopal curia but they, like the holders of Termonfeckin and Dromiskin, would generally have 129 employed curates to do the work associated with the benefice. The curates of Haynestown whose names are recorded, Maurice Oculean (ÓCoileain/Ó Cuilinn?) and Hugh McColkin/McCowin (Mac Uilcín?), were Irish and

124 Reg. Prene,v,p.191. The next recorded rector of Dunleer was Walter More in 1485,soitis possible that Ó Maolchalann held the post for some time: P. Faulkner, ‘The clergy of the parish of Dunleer’, JCLAS, 23:2 (1994), 219. 125 Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.3; Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish church’,p.184. 126 S. G. Ellis, ‘The Common Bench plea roll of 19 Edward IV (1479–80)’, Analecta Hibernica, 31 (1984), 44–5; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, 74; Mac Iomhair, ‘Two old Drogheda chronicles’, 95. 127 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.195; Reg. Prene,v,p.325; MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 93, 129; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8: 2, 183. 128 Booker, ‘Irish clergy’, 188, 196. 129 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 340–1, 392, 412–16; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:1, 49, 8:4, 334, 351, 10:3, 170. 119 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 130 served the parish in 1499 and the 1530s respectively. Dundalk and the surrounding area was also home to many Irish clerics; some, like Patrick McNab (Mac an Abbadh), who held the chapel of Castletown from c. 1410 131 into the mid-fifteenth century, were resident for many years. There were a great many Irish clerics serving in and near Ardee, one of the important markers of the maghery and of the pale boundary in Louth. The vicarage of Kildemock, just a few miles south of Ardee, was held by Patrick Ocoyn (ÓCuinn)in1410, when he served as co-adjutor – an ecclesiastical deputy – of Sir William Prout, the ‘blind and decrepit’ vicar. Ocoyn was vicar in 1427, which suggests that he was awarded the vicarage upon Prout’s death and thus held it, in one way or another, for at least 132 seventeen years. Kildemock had at least two more Irish vicars in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and one, Thomas O Duffye (ÓDubhthaigh), held the post for some thirty years and also held 133 Moorestown, just south of Dundalk. The vicarages of Charlestown, a few miles to the north of Ardee, and Clonkeen, to the north-west, were 134 held by Irish clerics: Clonkeen on at least four occasions over this period. Clonkeehan, a few miles to the north-east of Ardee, was held by Rory Macgachna (Ruiadhrí Mac Eoghadha)in1442, but he was threatened with deprivation if he did not renounce his concubine once and for all. He had already renounced her publicly several times by 1442 but did not stand by his oaths, allegedly causing ‘a very great scandal’. His proposed replacement 135 was also an Irishman, Patrick Mackearbyll (Mac Cearbhaill). Irish curates and beneficed priests were also common in Meath. In 1400 the papacy confirmed Odo Ocallan’s(Aodh Ó Cathaláin) possession of the church of Lyn, between Maynooth and Dunshaughlin, in south- east county Meath and within the maghery. Ocallan had already been confirmed by the lay patron of the church and by the bishop, so it is likely 136 that he managed to hold onto the benefice. In 1427, two Irish chaplains from Meath were summoned before the bishop, Edward Dauntesey, and at least one, Thomas Olane (Ó Floinn?), was resident in the maghery, 137 since he was employed as chaplain of Ardsallagh, south of Navan. The rectory of Clongill, a few miles north of Navan, was held by Richard Hoyne (Ó hEoghain?) from 1483 to 1496. Hoyne was an important official in the bishop of Meath’s court from 1483 to perhaps as late as 1507, and

130 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 10:2, 117;Jefferies, Priests and Prelates, pp. 35–6. 131 132 Reg. Fleming, pp. 142–3. Reg. Fleming,p.112; Reg. Swayne,p.56. 133 Reg. Swayne, pp. 56, 136; Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.7; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:4, 335, 338; Jefferies, ‘Role of laity’,p.75; MacLysaght, Surname,p.92. 134 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:4, 334–5; Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.195; Reg. Prene,v,p.325; Reg. Mey, pp. 151–2, Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 73–5, 97. 135 136 CPL, ix, p. 292. CPL,v,p.284; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.34. 137 Reg. Swayne, pp. 76–7. 120 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church 138 served as president of the provincial council of Armagh c. 1504. Given his other administrative duties, it is likely that he, like other administrators, employed a curate. Another Irish beneficed cleric from Meath is mentioned in the course of a benefice dispute in 1467–8. In this year the papal curia issued letters supporting the claim of Thomas Ruth alias Magruhere (Mac Reachtabhair?) to the proceeds of the church of St John the Baptist at Kilbery, just north of Navan. Ruth was a canon lawyer and he had been awarded this benefice to support his work as a scholar and teacher, so he too would have used a curate, most likely an Irishman, to 139 conduct his pastoral duties in Kilberry. Irish priests served in the Meath marches and in 1398 the papacy appointed John Okarrwill (Ó Cearbhaill) to the rectory of Killallon, just north of Delvin, but he was opposed by two Englishmen, John Asserby and Thomas de Everdon, who each tried 140 to gain the rectory for himself. Okarrwill was confirmed (or perhaps reconfirmed) as rector c. 1415 by Archbishop Fleming and he may have 141 been in possession of the rectory for much of the intervening period. The valuable vicarage of Delvin itself was claimed by an Irish priest named John Ofloy (Ó Floinn/Ó Flaithimh?) during the primacy of John 142 Bole but he was deprived of it by the archbishop. Some Irish clerics had long tenures in the Meath marches: Gerald Odaly (Ó Dálaigh) was collated to the vicarage of Killucan/Rathwire in 1441 and was described 143 as vicar almost thirty years later in 1470. Dysert, also on the western fringes of the four counties, was held by Henry Okynge until his death in 144 c. 1473. Overall, as Haren has argued, there was a ‘permeation of the 145 diocese of Meath as a whole by Gaelic clerics’. Turning to Kildare, Haren has calculated that four-fifths of the clergy from the diocese of Kildare who petitioned the papacy for dispensations for illegitimacy in the fifteenth century were Irish, although he noted that this figure may not accurately represent the overall proportions of English and Irish priests in the diocese, since the Irish were more likely 146 to be illegitimate sons of priests and require dispensations. All the same, it is clear that Irish priests were common in county Kildare and the proportion of Irish priests within the medieval county of Kildare may be even higher than the diocese, given that it was somewhat more extensive and stretched further south into areas of even greater Irish

138 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 19–20, 144–7, 152–4, 176–8, 183–4, 280–2, 550–2, 654–5, 736. 139 140 CPL, xii, p. 284. CPL,v,p.98. 141 Reg. Fleming, pp. 253–4. Killallon was described in 1388 as ‘destroyed and wasted’ but it remained within the colony’s orbit in 1402: CIRCLE, Patent Roll 12 Richard II, no. 41, Patent Roll 8 Henry IV, no. 76. 142 Lynch, ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’; Valor Beneﬁciorum,p.4. 143 144 CPL, ix, p. 195; Reg. Prene, vi, p. 295. CPL, xiii-1,p.412. 145 146 Haren, ‘Social structures’,p.212. Haren, ‘Social structures’,p.212. 121 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 147 population. The only area that seems not to have had a high percen- tage of Irish (beneficed) priests was the north-western corner of the 148 county around Leixlip, Castletown, and Naas. Nevertheless, one of the most interesting examples of Irish clerics operating in Kildare relates to this area and to the parish church of St David in Naas. The vicarage of St David’s was awarded to Nicholas Meiler in 1486,afterRobertDawe wasdeprivedofit.ThisawardwasmadebyMalachyMalone(Maol Eoin), dean of the church of Kildare, and vicar-general in spirituals (the bishop’s deputy). Like many of the clerics already discussed, Malachy was somewhat anglicized, since he at some point purchased or otherwise gained access to English law and did not use his Ó patronymic (at 149 least in his representations to the Irish parliament). Still, the fact that he exerted such control in Naas, albeit in the bishop’s name, is a striking example of the ways in which the church facilitated different patterns of interaction from those usual in purely secular contexts in the four shires. In the extensive Kildare marches, there were many beneficed Irish clerics and a number served in or near Carbury, seat of the Bermingham family. The vicarage of Carbury was confirmed by the papacy to Maurice Omoenaydh (Ó Maonaigh?) in 1427, having been seized from him by Thomas Sepinand. Maurice had paid the moneys due to the papacy for the vicarage in 1421 and possessed it for some time in the intervening period but the challenge to his possession necessitated this renewed papal 150 collation six years later. Notably, Omoenaydh’s name was unanglicized and other Irish clerics from Kildare also preserved their Irish name 151 forms, just as the Irish laity in the Kildare marches tended to do. The vicarage of St John the Baptist in Carbury was the subject of wrangling between various candidates – both English and Irish – between 1427 and 1459 and it is difficult to know which clerics were successful and for how long. The local Irish Ó Broin and Ó Floinn families provided several of 152 the candidates, as did the Berminghams. Further south in the county, Nurney, south of Kildare town, was collated by the papacy to Kerballus Oduynn (Cearbhall Ó Duinn)in1464; before this it had been held by 153 William Obecayn (Ó Beacháin), and Maurice Ocuynd (Ó Cuinn). The papacy collated the canonry of Kildare and the deanery of Kildare to Irish clerics and the letter of provision for the deanery specified that it was already (and supposedly unlawfully) in the hands of an Irishman, Malachy 154 Omalonma (Ó Maoldhaomhnaigh?). We cannot be certain that any or all

147 Otway-Ruthven, ‘Medieval county Kildare’, map; Watt, Church and Two Nations,p.53. 148 149 Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 17, 25. Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. VI, pp. 79–81. 150 151 CPL, vii, p. 489; Coleman, ‘Obligationes Dublinensis’, 40. See above p. 69. 152 153 CPL, vii, p. 191; CPL, xii, p. 70. CPL, xii, p. 220. 154 CPL, ix, pp. 347–8; CPL, viii, p. 112. 122 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church of these papal providees were able to take possession of their benefices, but the letters do also give the names of a number of previous Irish incumbents in benefices in Kildare. In Dublin, most of the Irish clerics who lived or worked within the city itself seem to have been associated with the archbishop of Dublin’s curia but there were also Irish clerics serving in parishes outside the city. The accounts of William Hatteclyffe, undertreasurer of Ireland (1495–7), show that John Brenan (Ó Braonáin) 155 was the vicar of Donabate, north county Dublin, in 1495. James Kennedy, chaplain, witnessed a grant regarding Garristown, in the far north-west of the county, in 1512 and probably lived and worked 156 nearby. James Ware records that Diarmait Ó Raghallaigh, bishop of Kilmore, acted as vicar of Swords ‘for a long time’ before his death in c. 1529, after violence in his diocese drove him to emigrate to the more 157 peaceful area around Dublin. As well as serving as parish priests, Irish clerics were employed as administrators and lawyers in the archbishops’ administrations. Some of the Irish clerics who served as prebendaries in St Patrick’s cathedral were probably clerks for the archbishops of Dublin, like the prebendary of Mulhuddart or Castleknock in 1412, Maurice Coggeran (Mac Cogaráin?). Other canons of the cathedral included John Obren and John Ohuren (Ó 158 hEaráin?) in 1456, and John Murgan (Ó Muireagáin?) in 1462. Richard Maccarrghamhna alias Carran attained (or almost attained) a more elevated administrative position, since he claimed the archdeaconry of Dublin in 1403. The right to the archdeaconry was contested by William Chamber and the issue was not resolved until 1412. Carran seems to have remained at the cathedral during the dispute since he 159 witnessed a deed there in 1406. Few Irish clerks are attested in Dublin in the sixteenth century and anti-Irish feeling seems to have 160 been on the rise in the cathedral at this time. The will of the dean of the cathedral, John Allyn, made in 1505, stipulated that his estate be used to found a poor house for the faithful ‘of good repute, honest life, and English nation’ and in 1514 the chapter of St Patrick’s enacted a ban

155 G. Warner and J. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections, 4 vols (London, 1921), ii, pp. 303–4. 156 Ellis, ‘The Common Bench plea roll’,p.55; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, TCD, ‘Unpublished calendar of Talbot MSS’ (originals MSS Talbot c. 90–1, Bodleian Library), courtesy of Peter Crooks. 157 James Ware, The Works of Sir James Ware concerning Ireland, ed. W. Harris, 2 vols (Dublin, 1745), i, pp. 229–30;Jeﬀeries, Irish Church and Tudor Reformations,p.45. 158 H. J. Lawlor (ed.), The Fasti of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral Dublin (Dundalk, 1930), p. 197. 159 CPL,v,p.595; Monk Mason, History St Patrick’s, p. lxxiv. 160 Anti-Irish feeling was, as discussed in pp. 59–64, generally on the rise in the later Middle Ages, alongside the rising Irish population, but the expressions of anti-Irish sentiment at the cathedral in the ﬁrst two decades of the sixteenth century do not correspond neatly to any spike in secular expressions of similar feelings in these decades. 123 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 161 against clerics of ‘Irish blood and manners’. This contrasts with the considerable, and perhaps growing, influence of Irish clerics in the archbishop of Armagh’s administration in the early sixteenth century. The archbishop of Armagh’s curia employed a great many Irish 162 clerics to act as lawyers, judges, notaries, and clerks. Some curial clerks were resident on, and supported by, the archiepiscopal manors of Termonfeckin and Dromiskin and thus conveniently located for their work in the curia, including in the archbishop’s courts, which often met 163 in Termonfeckin and nearby Drogheda. Others were supported by the fruits of benefices further afield but probably lived near to the archbishop’s administration. Fergus O Hoyn (Fearghus Ó hEoghain?), for example, was granted the fruits of the church of Nany (Julianstown, co. Meath) in 1518 while working as an official in the archbishop’s court and 164 presumably resident in Louth. Roles in the administration could lead to other opportunities in the archbishop’s service. Patrick Mcgillamura (Mac Giolla Mhuire) was employed in the court when it met in Termonfeckin in 1489, then travelled to Rome in 1492 where he officially witnessed the appointment of the archbishop’s proctors. In 1499 he 165 was himself selected to act as the archbishop’s proctor. Other Irish clerics acted as the archbishop’s proctors in Rome but, as Smith points out, the archbishops did not use Irishmen to be their proctors in the Irish 166 parliament. There is no reason to attribute this to archiepiscopal attitudes, however, since it is probable that the archbishops, pragmatically, did not send Irish proctors because they feared that parliament might object. A number of Irish clerics had long careers and attained high-ranking positions in the archbishop’s administration and they appear so often in the Armagh registers that we can follow their careers in more detail. Philip McKewyn (Mac Eoghain) came from a prominent, perhaps erenagh, family in the church inter hibernicos, and began his career in the administration centred at Armagh, acting as a notary in the cathedral city 167 in 1428 and as the archbishop’s rent collector in Down in 1427. By 1435 he had moved to Louth and he presided over the archbishop’scourtinthat year and again in 1440, as well as serving in various other roles in the 168 administration. He spoke English and had access to English law, a right

161 Alen’s Reg., pp. 258–9, 263. 162 For more detail on these men, see Booker, ‘Irish clergy’, pp. 195–200. 163 164 Booker, ‘Irish clergy’,p.195. ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 7:4, 518, 521–3; Reg. Fleming,p.291. 165 166 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 96, 213–14, 390–1. Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.214. 167 Reg. Swayne, pp. 55–6, 91–2, 101. 168 Reg. Swayne, pp. 32–3, 100–01, 126–8, 154–5, 159–61,183, 191–2; Reg. Fleming,p.82; Reg. Mey, pp. 27–8, 53–4, 66, 67, 70–1, 120; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.177; Reg. Prene, v, pp. 221–4; Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 69. 124 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church which was awarded to him in 1423 for his services as negotiator between 169 John Talbot, the king’s lieutenant in Ireland, and the Irish of Ulster. Both may have helped to smooth his entry into the colony. It was not uncommon for Irish clerics resident in the colony to assist the colonial administration as McKewyn did and Irish and English clergy in Louth contributed 170 to royal subsidies and even sometimes helped to collect them. Henry Corkeran (Ó Corcráin), who, like McKewyn, was trained as a canon lawyer, occupied two of the most important roles in the archbishop’sadministra- tion. He was official principal (the archbishop’s deputy) in the consistory court from 1471 and acted as the archdeacon of Armagh, one of the closest assistants to the archbishop, from 1477 to 1491. Archbishop Bole rewarded Corkeran’s work with the rectories of Ardmulchan and Haynestown in 171 Meath. The rectory of Haynestown was held by two other Irish canon lawyers who rose to prominence in the archbishop’s curia and it seems to have been earmarked for archiepiscopal favourites in the administration. The first, Carolus alias Cale OKaan/y (Cathal Ó Catháin?), presided as official principal over the consistory court in the late 1520s, as well as assessing fines due to the archbishop and acting as a witness for agreements made in 172 the court. The second, Cormac Roth, also held the vicarage of Termonfeckin, in the archbishop’s gift, and the vicarage of St Nicholas 173 in Dundalk. He acted, among other roles in the curia, as official principal of the court in 1521 and became archdeacon of Armagh, presiding over councils of Armagh inter anglicos several times between 1521 174 and 1535. Roth’s work was rewarded: the archbishop gave him a dispensation to ensure that he could hold Haynestown and the archdeaconry at the same time and enjoy the fruits of both. He was chosen for a position of great trust when he was appointed vicar general of Armagh from 1530 to 1532, acting as Archbishop Cromer’s deputy when the 175 archbishop was away from the archdiocese. Although Roth was involved in the politics of the colony and supported Silken Thomas in his rebellion in 1534, he retained the support of Cromer and evaded 176 punishment after the revolt failed. In sum, Irish clerics in the

169 170 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 78. Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 572. 171 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 26–7, 29–30, 105–7, 340–1, 412–16; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, pp. 78– 9, 81; Gwynn, Province Armagh, pp. 15–17. 172 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 7:4, 322, 346–7, 350. 173 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 10:3, 170; Murray, Enforcing English Reformation, pp. 85–6. For the identiﬁcation of Roth as Irish, see Booker, ‘Irish clergy’, 198–99. 174 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:1, 45–6, 8:2, 185; Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.48. 175 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 10:2, passim; Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.61. 176 H. Jeﬀeries, ‘Dr George Cromer, Archbishop of Armagh (1521–43), and Henry VIII’s reformation’ in A. J. Hughes and W. Nolan (eds), Armagh: History and Society (Dublin, 2001), pp. 224–5. 125 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland archbishop of Armagh’s curia were numerous, and, increasingly over the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, filled its most trusted and important roles, presiding over the archbishop’s courts, acting as archdeacon, one of the archbishop’s closest assistants, and even as his deputy. The record of Irish priests in the four shires is far from complete, and there are many parishes whose curates and even beneficed clerics are not known, but what can we learn from those parish priests, beneficed and unbeneficed, and those curial clerks that we do know more about? One notable attribute of these Irish clerics in the four shires is the wide range in their levels of anglicization. Some came from anglicized families who had 177 been in the region for many years. Some took English aliases, like John Whyt alias Brugan, Thomas Ruth alias Magruhere, and Richard Maccarrghamhna alias Carran; many more, including these three men, had English first names. They may have been given these names as children, especially if they were from anglicized families, or adopted them later in life. Changes in naming may have gone hand in hand with linguistic assimilation and many, if not most, of the Irish clerics in the four shires knew English. Newer migrants may have learned the language when they arrived in the four shires but Irish clerics from established, anglicized local Irish families would already have known it. Recent scholarship has emphasized that many medieval people were multilingual, and this was probably even more the case with clerics than 178 with the laity. Some Irish clerics purchased access to English law, which could help to protect them from legal challenges to their possession 179 of a benefice. This was not always necessary, however, and some Irish clerics lived in the four shires for many years before they purchased grants 180 of English law, while others presumably never did so. Similarly, onomastic assimilation was not a prerequisite for serving in parishes in the region and some Irish clerics, particularly outside Dublin, preserved 181 their Irish names and name-forms. In Dublin, clerics and laity alike rarely had unanglicized names while in Kildare and Meath, both laity and clerics had a mix of anglicized and unanglicized forms. In Louth, the

177 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.197. 178 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.200; Bartlett, Making of Medieval Europe,p.223;J.A.Jefferson and A. Putter (eds), with A. Hopkins, Multilingualism in Medieval Britain (c. 1066–1520): Sources and Analysis (Turnhout, 2013), xi; C. Kleinhenz and K. Busby (eds), Medieval Multilingualism: The Francophone World and its Neighbours (Turnhout, 2010). 179 See above pp. 122, 124. MacNiocaill suggests that clerics may have found exclusion from English law ‘a greater source of irritation’ and were likely to need English law so they could be promoted in benefices in the colony: G. MacNiocaill, ‘The contact of Irish and common law’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 23:1 (1972), 19. 180 Booker, ‘Irish clergy’,p.193. 181 Jefferies also notes the existence of unanglicized clerics: Jefferies, Irish Church in Tudor Reformations,p.32. 126 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church patterns for laity and clergy differ. Louth was home to many of the least anglicized Irish clerics, at least from the evidence of their names, while the Irish laity there usually, at least until the later fifteenth century, went by English first names and anglicized surname forms. The disparity in lay and clerical levels of anglicization in Louth may well relate to the presence of the archbishop’s curia and the close contact between the archbishops and the vast swathes of the province of Armagh which lay outside the colony. The curia and the links between the archbishop and Irish clerics in Armagh inter hibernicos drew unanglicized Irish clerics into Louth and the protection of the archbishop may have meant they felt less pressure to anglicize. This mechanism for entering the county also accounts for the very high proportion of Ulster surnames among Irish clerics in Louth (and, to a lesser extent, Meath). Many of the Ulster names found among clerics in Louth, like Ó Maolchalann, Ó Mealláin, Mac Fhinn, Mág Uidhir, Mac an Abbadh, Ó Coileáin, Ó Sirideáin, and Ó Luchráin, are those of clerical families that were influential in Armagh inter 182 hibernicos. The Ó Sirideáin, for example, were erenaghs from Longford and were employed in the administration of the Irish areas of the province of Armagh before a member of their family moved to Louth and into the 183 archbishop’s service in the early sixteenth century. Influence inter hibernicos resulted in benefices and positions inter anglicos, and this link probably operated via the archbishops themselves. When archbishops corresponded with or visited their erenaghs or officials in Irish areas of Armagh, these officials could lobby the archbishops for positions in the church for themselves and members of their family. Charles Ó Mealláin, for example, served as dean of Armagh between c. 1443 and 1477 and had a good working relationship with Archbishop Bole, who was primate until 184 1471. The dean may have had a hand in securing the vicarage of Holy Mary in Drogheda for John Omellane, who was vicar in 1479–80 and may 185 have held the vicarage for some time before this. A curate of Haynestown in 1499, Maurice Oculean, and the vicar of Carlingford in 1518,RogerOCulean(Ó Coileáin/Ó Cuilinn?), may also have had some

182 ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:4, 334; Reg. Swayne, pp. 18, 62, 74; Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, pp. 51, 74, 96–7; NHI, ix, pp. 274, 278; Gwynn, Medieval Armagh, pp. 146–7. MacNab may be a Gaelic Scottish name, or one associated with the Clann Sinaich of Armagh. In any case, it was a prominent clerical family in Armagh by the late fourteenth century: Sughi, ‘The family of Comedinus Oﬀercheran’, pp. 30–1; Reg. Sweteman, pp. 136–7, 155; MacLysaght, More Irish Families,p.165; Reg. Prene,v,p.87; Reg. Swayne,p.175; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8: 3, 272, 334–5, 8:4, 334, 9:2, 129; NHI, ix, p. 353. 183 P. K. Egan and M. A. Costello, ‘Obligationes pro annatis diocesis Clonfertensis’, AH, 21 (1958), 54,n. 7, 57; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 223–4, 473–4; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.271; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:2, 177. 184 185 Lynch, ‘Administration Bole’, pp. 75–6. Ellis, ‘Common bench plea roll’, 44–5. 127 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 186 assistance from family members to secure their positions. Members of this erenagh family served as dean and chancellor in the administration of 187 Armagh inter hibernicos from the early fifteenth century onwards. There is no concrete evidence that Omellane or any of the Ó Coileáin/Ó Cuilinn were awarded their positions because of their family connections but, given the timing of their appointments and the number of Irish clerical families whose influence seems to have extended into the colony, such a relationship is likely. Once they were in place in the four shires, Irish clerics might continue to use their influence to aid members of their family. Cormac Roth and Henry Corkeran, two of the prominent members of the curia discussed above, seem to have done so, since a number of clerics named Roth and Corkeran secured positions in Louth while these two canon lawyers were 188 working closely with the archbishop. Clerical migration from Ulster into the four shires may also have encouraged lay migration. Evidence from a rental of Dundalk made in 1538 suggests that some Irish laymen living there may have entered the four shires after, and perhaps with the aid of, clerical relations. Members of the Ó hÁdhmaill, Mic Ghiolla Bhuidhe, and the Mac an tSaoir families appear on the rental and were preceded in the county by clerics with the same family name in the 189 fifteenth century. Irish clerics may have encouraged members of their family to move to Louth once they had established themselves there, perhaps to become tenants on their benefices. Since clerical concubinage was not uncommon, even within the four counties, some of these tenants may even have been the offspring of Irish clerics who lived in Louth. The relative freedom of movement within the Irish diocesan church may consequently have had a significant impact on the level of lay migration into the colony and also helped to determine where Irish immigrants came from. This staggered migration to Louth also helps to explain the increasingly unanglicized names of Irish laity in the early sixteenth century, decades after Irish clerics with such names appeared in the county. Some of the most prominent Irish families of Dublin, including the Kellys, Colmans, and Kennedys, are first attested in the city by priests bearing those surnames. This suggests that clerics may have 190 provided the vanguard of migration in Dublin city as well. Such

186 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 392; ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:1, 44. 187 Gwynn, Province Armagh,p.79; Rev. J. B. Leslie, Armagh Clergy and Parishes (Dundalk, 1911), p. 8. 188 Booker, ‘Irish clergy’, 188–9, 199–200. 189 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 225–32; Reg. Swayne, pp. 38, 60, 115, 168; Reg. Fleming, pp. 62–3, 67, 131; CPL,v,p.331. 190 Booker, ‘Irish clergy’. 128 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church established, local connections would have been particularly valuable in the context of anti-Irish secular prohibitions, which, though not uniformly enforced, could discourage Irish migrants. This lay migration could not have occurred were Irish clerics not accepted and many had long tenures in the region. John Omellane, vicar of St Catherine’s, held that post in Drogheda for about fifteen years and Patrick Ocoyn, vicar of Kildemock, served for at least seventeen years, while Gerald Odaly lived some thirty years or more in Killucan/Rathwire. This suggests that parishioners (who were both English and Irish) were not resistant to being ministered to by Irish clerics and some clerics, like John Omellane, whose death was recorded in Drogheda’s mayor’s register, seem to have been popular. Laymen could influence the appointments of parish priests and had the opportunity, if they were unhappy with them, 191 to express their dissatisfaction with them in consistory courts. Thus, the continued presence of Irish clerics in the four loyal shires across the century implies that they were largely acceptable to the English population. How often and in what ways did these Irish priests and their English parishioners interact? Much of the evidence we have for the relationships between clerics and laity in the colony comes from discussions of language use. A parliamentary dispensation of 1485 for bishops to present Irish clerks to benefices in the colony stated that ‘various English clerks who are fit to have the cure of souls are inexpert in the Irish language, and of those who are practised in the same, some disdain to live among the Irish people and others dare not, whereby divine service is diminished and 192 the cure of souls sadly neglected’. Concerns about language use also arose in England in relation to foreign clerics, often papal providees, and the inability to speak English was used to challenge these provisions, but 193 in Ireland the issue was generally the candidate’s inability to speak Irish. Thomas Carpentere relinquished his possession of the church of Lyn in Lynaghstown, Meath in c. 1400 because ‘he did not understand well the tongue of the parishioners [Irish], and therefore feared deprivation by the 194 ordinary [the bishop]’. The papacy was similarly concerned about pastoral care and ease of communication between clergy and 195 parishioners. In 1400 Donald Macluay was successful in his attempt to secure papal provision to the rectory of Castlerickard, co. Meath, which was held by John Tathe. The papacy deprived Tathe and instituted Macluay because Tathe allegedly ‘does not well understand and

191 192 Jeﬀeries, ‘The role of the laity’, pp. 75–6. Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.63. 193 194 Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, pp. 110–11. CPL,v,p.284. 195 Dudley Edwards, ‘Kings of England and papal provisions’,p.267; Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’, p. 365. 129 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 196 intelligibly speak the language of the majority of the parishioners’. Similarly, in 1430 Cornelius Obruyn (Conchobhar Ó Broin) submitted a litany of abuses to the pope about the archdeacon of Glendalough, Thomas Fosster. Not only did Fosster allegedly keep concubines and father children, he was also ‘quite unacquainted with the language which that country commonly uses’. Obruyn’s lobbying was successful and the 197 papacy supported his claim to the archdeaconry. Some of these allega- tions about failures to speak Irish may be false, since the complainants were never impartial. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of the allega- tions, however, they demonstrate that the papacy expected day-to-day interaction, in the vernacular, to occur between priests and parishioners. The level of pastoral interaction was probably on the rise in the later Middle Ages, as lay people in Ireland increasingly involved themselves with their parish churches. The older view of the fifteenth-century church, put forth by Protestant historians of England particularly, was that it was a corrupt and ineffective institution, plagued by practices like 198 indulgences and ripe for the coming reformation. This view has been largely refuted in England and in Ireland, and as Brendan Bradshaw argued, the fifteenth-century Irish church was ‘a vigorous and flourishing 199 institution which enjoyed the esteem of the lay community’. The mainstay of this ‘flourishing institution’ was the parish church and the pastoral relationship between the priest and his congregation. Adrian Empey has suggested that the appearance of the office of churchwardens in Ireland, sometime in the later fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, indicated a growing personal connection between the laity and their parish 200 church as well as, presumably, their parish priest. Regional studies have confirmed that lay investment in parish churches rose in this period in 201 202 203 204 Dublin, Louth, Meath, and Kildare. Moreover, the growth in confession after the Fourth Lateran Council was another development in late medieval piety which ensured close contact between the priest and

196 197 CPL, v, pp. 364–5. CPL, viii, p. 177. 198 See for example A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation (London, 1964). 199 B. Bradshaw, ‘The reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway 1534–1603’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society,p.452;E.Duﬀy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven, 2005), esp. pp. 2–6; F. Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003). 200 C. A. Empey, ‘The layperson in the parish: the medieval inheritance, 1169–1536’ in R. Gillespie and W. G. Neely (eds), The Laity and the Church of Ireland, 1000–2000 (Dublin, 2002), pp. 17, 19–25. 201 M. McMahon, Medieval Church Sites of North Dublin: A Heritage Trail (Dublin, 1991); Ní Mharcaigh, ‘Parish churches’, 245–96. 202 Jeﬀeries, ‘The role of the laity’, pp. 73–84. 203 O’Neill, ‘Parish churches in county Meath’, 1–56. 204 M. O’Neill, ‘The medieval parish churches of Kildare’, JCKAS, 19:3 (2005), 406. 130 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church 205 his flock. There is evidence that guides designed to help parish priests hear confessions effectively circulated in the four shires in this period and a provincial council of Archbishop Colton of Armagh from the last decades of the fourteenth century ordered that ‘all the faithful of both sexes ... shall confess once a year to his own priest, curate or entitled 206 person or dep[uty]’. Clearly, clerics were expected to interact with their parishioners at confession and on other occasions as the laity increasingly invested in their parish churches. Consequently, the presence of Irish clerics in the four shires facilitated interaction not only between Irish and English clerics, but also between these clerics and the English lay people who used these Irish priests, many of whom were relatively unanglicized, as their confessors and spiritual advisers. From the papacy down to the parish, and in myriad deliberate and unintentional ways, the diocesan structure was a force for interaction and conciliation in the four shires. The impact of another major segment of the medieval church, the religious orders, was more mixed. The religious orders were complex, international organizations and each order had its own character and rule. Even within an order, particular houses might differ, and it is accordingly problematic to generalize about interethnic 207 relations within the orders overall. The largest and most influential orders in Ireland were the Augustinians, Cistercians, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans, with the mendicants being particularly 208 popular, especially among the Irish, in this period. Smaller orders, such as the Premonstratensians, Crutched Friars, Austin Friars, and the 209 Knights Hospitallers, also had houses in the four shires. The religious orders could be a place of discord between Irish and English, and they were marked by ethnic division on other European frontiers: Watt has argued that they, far more than the diocesan church, were increasingly marked by ethnic hostility and animosity as the fourteenth century

205 Duffy, Stripping the Altars,p.54. 206 The best known of these guides is William of Pagula’s Oculus Sacerdotis:Duffy, Stripping the Altars, p. 54. A fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscript associated with St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin contains directions for hearing confession and uses the seven deadly sins as a guide: G. Hand, ‘Cambridge University Additional MS 710’, Reportorium Novum, 2:1 (1958), 21; Reg. Swayne,p.9. 207 The adaptability of the Rule of St Augustine, for example, meant that it was modified locally for local conditions. For this, and for general information about monastic orders in Ireland and Britain, see Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland; J. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain, 1000–1300 (Cambridge, 1994), esp. pp. 44–5. 208 C. Ó Clabaigh, ‘The Benedictines in medieval and early modern Ireland’ in Browne and Ó Clabaigh, The Irish Benedictines,p.118; C. Ó Clabaigh, The Franciscans in Ireland 1400–1534: from Reform to Reformation (Dublin, 2002), pp. 42–58; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland, pp. 3–9. 209 Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland, pp. 6–8, 201–217, 293, 332. 131 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 210 progressed. This was the case even in orders that sometimes had Irish priors, like the Augustinian canons. Lydon noted that the canons at Christ Church, Dublin tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent Irishmen entering the priory. Lydon has also interpreted the prayers of the prior of Christ Church, James de Rednesse, that the Irish be defeated by Dublin forces 211 in 1402, as a sign of ethnic animosity. Ethnic conflict came to the fore in the Franciscan order in 1445, when the appointment of an Irishman named William Ó Raghallaigh as the minister provincial (the highest position in the Franciscan order in Ireland) resulted in uproar among English friars in the colony. This was despite the fact that Ó Raghallaigh had purchased English law and so should technically have been exempt 212 from any exclusionary statutes. Ó Raghallaigh’s appointment resulted in the restatement of the ban on Irishmen as priors and leaders of religious houses in the colony in 1451, but he continued to act as minister 213 provincial. The orders differed in their levels of success in maintaining peaceful relationships between their English and Irish brethren and some 214 orders were more open to Irish brethren than others. Cowley identified a similar variety in Welsh houses with regards to the proportions of Welsh and English brethren and attributed this variety largely to 215 location. This was certainly one factor in the Irish case, but seemingly not the dominant one. In the four shires, the Augustinian canons and Fratres Cruciferi, who also followed the Augustinian rule, seem to have 216 been particularly open to electing Irish priors and abbots. Thus the religious orders served, at least in some cases, as places of interaction between English and Irish but they acted in this role to a lesser extent than the diocesan church and some houses resisted accepting Irish brethren. Resistance to the institution of an Irish brother was probably the reason for the letter that the papal curia issued in 1400 to the house of Fratres Cruciferi at St John of Jerusalem in Trim, co. Meath, directing them to 217 accept Donatus Okassy (Domhnall Ó Cathasaigh). Okassy was the recipient of a number of papal letters which indicate that he, or a 218 representative, spent time in Rome lobbying the curia. Similar provisions and instances of resistance to Irish brothers in the colony, like those

210 Watt, Church and Two Nations,p.174; Bartlett, Making of Medieval Europe, pp. 227–8. 211 Lydon, ‘Christ church’, pp. 78–9; G. Hand, ‘The Psalter of Christ Church Dublin, Bodleian MS Rawlinson G.135’, Reportorium Novum, 1:2 (1956), 317–18. 212 213 Ó Clabaigh, The Friars in Ireland,p.71. Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 184–5. 214 Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 196–7. 215 F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Orders in South Wales 1066–1349 (Cardiﬀ, 1977), p. 48. 216 Cistercians elected Irish priors in Tipperary and other parts of colony but do not seem to have done so in their houses in Dublin and Louth: Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland, pp. 130–1, 134. 217 218 CPL,v,p.347. CPL, v, pp. 306, 349. 132 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church directed at St Mary’s Granard and St Mary’s in Kells, date from the early fifteenth century but become less common thereafter. This may indicate that some monastic houses relaxed their enforcement of anti-Irish prohibitions after the 1410s, even though these parliamentary prohibitions 219 were reissued several times in the mid- and later fifteenth century. An Augustinian canon, Patrick Offele (Ó Fithil/Ó Fithchilligh?), was part of the community at St Mary’s in Trim in 1484 and the canons at Christ Church in Dublin had an Irish brother, Simon Olyn (Ó Floinn?), whose 220 death in 1407 was recorded in the cathedral psalter. There were Irish Augustinian friars in the four shires later in the fifteenth century, at Holy Trinity Priory in Skryne, co. Meath and at the Dublin friary of the Holy 221 Trinity. There is little evidence about female religious in the colony in this period but the record of one Irish nun, Anna ORegan (Ó Ríagáin), who was in the Arroasian house of St Mary’s at Termonfeckin in 1480, 222 survives. Despite evidence for resistance to Irish monks in houses in the four 223 shires, some rose to positions of power. In the house of Augustinian canons at St Mary’s, Kells, the abbacy was held by John Oragillich (Ó Raghallaigh) from 1444/5 to 1465 and in 1492 the abbot was Philip 224 Orcyghylligh (Ó Raghallaigh), perhaps a relative of the earlier abbot. Philip held the abbacy without papal approval, and the papacy assigned Arthur Macconrich (Mac Conraoi?), canon of Kilmore, to act in the role of abbot and receive Carbry Magbradyd (Cairbre Mac Brádaigh), another 225 Irishman, as a canon at this Kells house. Despite his lack of papal support, Philip Ó Raghallaigh was still abbot when he died of the plague in 1504 and his two immediate successors were Irishmen: Patrick Ó Doibhilin, who died in 1514, and Diarmait Ó Raghallaigh, who was 226 abbot in 1523. The appointment of three Ó Raghallaigh abbots indicates that the Uí Raghallaigh may have been able to exert some influence on provisions at Kells; the house was located not far from the powerbase

219 Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, pp. 184–5; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’,p.92; Conway, Henry VII’s Relations,p.210; CPL, v, pp. 33, 346; CPL, vi, p. 280. 220 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 540; Hand, ‘Psalter of Christ Church’, pp. 311–22. 221 F. X. Martin, ‘The Irish Augustinian reform movement in the ﬁfteenth century’ in Watt, Morrall, and Martin, Medieval Studies, pp. 258–9; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland, pp. 298–9, 301–2. 222 D. Hall, ‘Towards a prosopography of nuns in medieval Ireland’, AH, 53 (1999), 13; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.324. 223 Fore, far to the west of Meath, had an Irish prior in 1484, but he was accused of bribery and may have been deprived immediately: CPL, xiii-1, pp. 170–1. 224 CPL, ix, p. 435; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.181. 225 CPL, xv, p. 444. 226 AFM,v,p.1327; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 500–2; Archdall, Monasticon Hibernicum,p.546; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.181. 133 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland of the resurgent Uí Raghallaigh in modern co. Cavan and on the borders 227 of medieval county Meath. Such a political connection demonstrates that some of the colonial fears about links between Irish clerics and Irish secular elites may have been justified. Another Kells house, St John’s, a house of Fratres Cruciferi, had an Irish prior named Cornelius McGilduff 228 (Conchobhar Mac Giolla Dhuibh)in1522. The Augustinian house of Sts Peter and Paul near Trim was punished in 1531 for electing Onerus Ocoffye (Aodh Ó Cobhthaigh) as prior: the lands of the monastery were 229 taken into the king’s hands. As noted above, a number of Irish parish clergy were stripped of their benefices around this time and it seems that there was a push from the colonial government towards greater exclu- sivity in the colony in the late 1520s and early 1530s. This may have been part of the initial stages of a plan by Henry VIII’s government to bring the 230 church in Ireland under greater control. In Kildare and Louth there were a number of Irish priors and abbots, like John Ociretean (Ó Sirideáin?) prior of St Thomas the Martyr in Athy, co. Kildare in 1475 and John Nelane (Ó Niallan) prior of St Leonard’s, 231 Dundalk from 1479 to 1500, if not longer. Both St Thomas’ and St Leonard’s were houses of Fratres Cruciferi. The Augustinian abbey of the Apostles Peter and Paul of Knock, in co. Louth, had a number of Irish 232 abbots, including Henry O’Connellan (Ó Caoindealbháin?) in c. 1417. His successor, James Lockard, was fined for admitting an Irishman, John 233 McKennavanne (Ó Ceanndubháin?), to the house. John may have been politically objectionable or perhaps there was a renewal of efforts to enforce bans on Irish religious in the colony. Commitment to such efforts waxed and waned and clearly had waned again by the middle of the century when Knock had a number of Irish abbots, including Thomas McKerny (Mac Cearnaigh) and John Mulghan. Magony Macguyre (Mathghamhain? Mag Uidhir) then became abbot but his abbacy was cut 234 short by his death in c. 1471–2. Although one Irish abbot at Knock, James Ybruyn, may have only been abbot in commendam only, and drawn the revenues of the abbey without overseeing its daily discipline and

227 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised, pp. 179–8. 228 Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.213. 229 Griﬃths, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.35. 230 S. G. Ellis, ‘The Kildare Rebellion and the early Henrician Reformation’, The Historical Journal, 19:4 (1976), 808–9. 231 CPL, xiii-1,p.395; Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.210; Dowdall Deeds, pp. 210–12; Reg. Octavian,i,p.3. 232 Lynch, ‘Reassembled calendar Bole’; Reg. Mey, pp. 34–5. 233 Gwynn and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses Ireland,p.184. 234 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.849;Lynch,‘Reassembled calendar Bole’. Mathghamhain was a popular ﬁrst name in the Mac Uidhir family: AU, pp. 3, 247, 315, 453; Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 600–2. 134 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church leadership, the others were, presumably, resident, overseeing both Irish 235 and English monks. County Dublin seems to have had few Irish priors and abbots, just as it had fewer Irish beneficed clergy than other parts of the four shires, but the hospital of St John the Baptist without the New Gate in Dublin, a house of Fratres Cruciferi, had at least two Irish priors in the fifteenth century: 236 Adam OHette (Ó hAodha) c. 1400 and Richard Hedyan in the late 237 1460s. Both men (and others in their families) had grants of English law which, in theory, protected them from parliamentary prohibitions against Irish religious, although it is clear from the case of the Franciscan William Ó Raghallaigh that these grants did not silence all objections and 238 challenges. Hedyan and OHette had other pre-existing ties in the English community. In 1381, OHette used Henry Randulf, prior of the house of St John, as his attorney, suggesting that he may have been a 239 brother in this house for at least twenty years before he became prior. Hedyan came from a prominent Irish clerical family in Munster, one of 240 whom was the archbishop of Cashel (1406–40). They were long- standing allies of the earls of Ormond and this may initially have eased Richard’s acceptance into the higher echelons of the church in the colony, though Ormond power was at a low ebb after the death of the fifth earl in 1461, so it is not likely that the Ormond alliance was directly responsible for Richard’s election to the priorship of St John the 241 Baptist’s. It may be that other Irish priors in the four shires had access to English law as well as to key supporters in the settler community, but it is likely that these supporters were most valuable to Irish religious in Dublin, which appears to have been more exclusive than Meath, Louth, or Kildare, with regard to both in the religious orders and the diocesan church. One Irishman who became prior of the house of Augustinian friars in Dublin by 1507 may, however, have drawn assistance from 242 different quarters. He later became bishop of Clogher and was part of the Ó Coileain/Ó Cuilinn family who were so influential in Armagh inter hibernicos, and familial ties with the Archbishop of Armagh may have assisted him. Alternatively, he may have received support from outside Ireland. He and several other Irish Augustinian friars in the four shires

235 T. Gogarty, ‘The Abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, Knock’, JCLAS, 4:1 (December, 1916), 65. 236 237 CPL, v, pp. 134, 171. CPL, xxii, p. 324. 238 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 5 Henry IV, no. 111, Patent Roll 9 Henry IV, no. 80; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 5 Richard II, no. 22, Patent Roll 9 Henry IV, no. 88. 239 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 5 Richard II, no. 37. 240 Gwynn, ‘Ireland and the English nation’, 207. 241 Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, pp. 339, 371; Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 387–8; Edwards, Ormond Lordship, pp. 256–60. 242 Martin, ‘Irish Augustinian reform’, pp. 258–9. 135 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland may have been facilitated in their moves into houses in the colony because of the Observant reform of the mid-to-late fifteenth century, which was led by Irish friars from Connacht, who were in turn supported by the priors general of the order in Italy. These priors general may have sought to ensure that Irish reforming friars were transferred to, and even 243 became priors of, Augustinian friaries in the colony. The international nature of the church may once more have served in this instance to subvert local, ethnic divisions in the four shires. Popular religious movements could also be avenues for interactions between the English and Irish. Popular religion is characterized by Ryan as ‘personal [lay] response to doctrine’ and ‘engagement by individuals’ in devotional practices and it was an integral part of religious life and supported by the diocesan church and by monastic houses, though its expression in pilgrimages, devotion to saints, and religious guilds was 244 led by the laity. Religious guilds provided funeral masses and prayers for their members, and, as in England, many were founded in the four 245 shires in the fifteenth century. There were at least nineteen in Dublin 246 and Meath, six in Louth and two in Kildare. Although these guilds could, as Lennon argued, ‘[sharpen] a sense of belonging to a colonial 247 community’, some admitted Irish members. The fraternity of St Patrick’s Cathedral had several significantly anglicized Irish members when it was founded in c. 1360 andtheguildofStSythe,basedinSt Michan’s church in Oxmantown, Dublin, included Thomas Mulghin 248 and William Donagh among its founding members in 1476. These guilds, like their secular counterparts, organized dinners and gatherings for their members and expected some level of social involvement in their activities. They reflected the connections between the English and 249 Irish, while encouraging and facilitating further links.

243 Martin, ‘The Irish Augustinian reform movement’, pp. 242–7, 249–50. 244 S. Ryan, ‘The most contentious of terms: towards a new understanding of late medieval “popular religion”’, Irish Theological Quarterly, 68:3 (2003), 283–4. 245 C. Lennon, ‘The chanceries in the Irish reformation: The case of St Anne’s guild, Dublin, 1550–1630’ in R. V. Comerford, M. Cullen, J. R. Hill, and C. Lennon (eds), Religion, Conﬂict and Co-existence in Ireland: Essays Presented to Monsignor Patrick Corish (Dublin, 1990), pp. 6–25;Duﬀy, Stripping the Altars, pp. 141–54; K. Farnhill, Guilds and the Parish Community in Late Medieval East Anglia, c. 1470–1550 (Woodbridge, 2001). 246 C. Lennon, ‘The confraternities and cultural duality in Ireland, 1450–1550’ in C. Black and P. Gravestock (eds), Early Modern Confraternities in Europe and the Americas (Aldershot, England, 2006), p. 36. 247 Lennon, ‘Confraternities’, pp. 38–9; Reg. Swayne, pp. 178–80. 248 Clark and Refaussé, Historic Dublin Guilds,p.34; Hand, ‘Cambridge University Additional MS 710’, pp. 17–32; C. Lennon, ‘The foundation charter of St Sythe’s guild, Dublin, 1476’, AH, 48 (1994), 9. 249 Empey, ‘The layperson’,p.37. 136 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church Pilgrimages were another popular expression of medieval lay piety, and they too could facilitate the free movement of Irish people within the 250 colony. In 1431, an exception was made for pilgrims in an act prohibiting Irish people from coming into towns in the colony and a statute of 1449 ordered that pilgrims of both ethnicities must be allowed to come 251 and go freely. A grant of protection from the colonial administration to pilgrims going to the house of St Mary in Navan in 1455 stipulated that ‘Irish enemies’, as well as felons, ‘English rebels’ and all strangers, were included in the protection, as long as they behaved themselves properly while on pilgrimage. The grant to St Mary’s was a confirmation by the colonial administration of a general protection issued initially by the papacy, whose pronouncements here again subverted anti-Irish enactments, and succeeded in making the colonial administration provide 252 exceptions to them. Some of the pilgrims mentioned in these grants of protection may have been en route to popular destinations on the continent, like Rome or Compostela, but others were visiting relics and shrines within the four shires, as at St Mary’s in Navan and perhaps Christ Church cathedral in Dublin, which held a number of important 253 relics, including the shrine of the heart of St Lawrence O’Toole, a fragment of the true cross, and the Bachall Iosa, the purported staff of Jesus 254 which had passed to St Patrick. Pilgrimages and the associated venera- tion of relics were expressions of devotion to saint’s cults, which thrived 255 in the later Middle Ages. Cults of saints could be mobilized for political and communal functions and saints like St George, St Andrew, and St Patrick were increasingly 256 used as symbols of national identity. In the four counties, late medieval religious guilds and parish churches often chose to honour saints with specific regional or ethnic associations. Dublin’s connections to England were emphasized by the choice of St George as the patron of a religious guild in the city, founded in 1426, and St George was also the chosen

250 Duffy, Stripping the Altars, pp. 190–200; R. and C. Brooke, Popular Religion in the Middle Ages: Western Europe 1000–1300 (London, 1984), pp. 21–6. 251 252 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 45, 176. Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 341–7. 253 R. Stalley, ‘Sailing to Santiago: medieval pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela and its artistic influence in Ireland’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society,p.398; D. Ó Riain-Raedel, ‘The Irish medieval pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela’, HI, 6:3 (1998), 17–21. 254 Gerald of Wales, Topographia Hibernica, ed. and trans., J. O’Meara (Dundalk, 1951), pp. 68–70; S. Kinsella, ‘From Hiberno-Norse to Anglo-Norman, c. 1030–1300’ in K. Milne (ed.), Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin: A History (Dublin, 2000), p. 46; J. Lydon, ‘Christ Church in the later medieval Irish world, 1300–1500’ in Milne, Christ Church Cathedral,p.93. 255 Duffy, Stripping the Altars,p.156. 256 R. N. Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215–c. 1515 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 145–6; Boardman, ‘Cult of St George’, pp. 146–60; Jean Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans. G. Brereton (London, 1978), pp. 62, 80, 88, 121, 136–7. 137 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland patron of the aforementioned military fraternity founded in the four 257 shires in 1474. There is record in the Chain Book of Dublin of a pageant on the feast of St George in Dublin in 1498 which included an elaborate procession through the city. The celebration of St George was 258 in part a celebration of the city’s English roots and connections. Biblical saints such as Mary and St John the Baptist and continental saints were also popular in the colony but there is evidence that the inhabitants of the four shires were devoted to Irish saints as well. Archbishop Fleming of Armagh supported this devotion with the declaration in a provincial council of 1411 that ‘the feasts of Sts Patrick, Brigit, Columba, Fechin, 259 and Ronan be celebrated throughout the province of Armagh’. Calendars of churches in the four shires list these saints’ days, indicating that they were commemorated as part of the cycle of the religious year. Church calendars, listing each day of the year with notable obits and saints’ feast days, reveal which saints were locally popular across Europe, 260 and the saints included in calendars vary significantly by region. The Calendar of Christ Church Cathedral, created in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, included Sts Patrick, Brigit, and Columba, as well as less widely popular saints like Aidan, Fintan, Lawrence O’Toole, Ciarán, and Malachy. More Irish saints were added in the later fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, including Sts Berach, Énna, Beccán, Canice, Colmán, Begnet, Dúileach, Senóg, and Maignend, the seventh-century 261 abbot of Kilmainham. St Lawrence’s widespread popularity and connections to Christ Church, and Maignend’s Dublin associations, explain their inclusion and other Irish saints in the calendar had local associations 262 and established cults in the four shires. St Begnet is associated with Dalkey, co. Dublin, for example, and she also appears in the calendars of Clondalkin Church and St John the Evangelist in Dublin. St Begnet’s feast was still celebrated in Dalkey in 1482 when the town was granted a

257 H. B. Clarke, ‘Angliores ipsis Anglis: the place of medieval Dubliners in English history’ in H. B. Clarke, J. Prunty, and M. Hennessy (eds), Surveying Ireland’s Past: Multidisciplinary Essays in honour of Anngret Simms (Dublin, 2004), p. 57; See above, pp. 43–4. 258 CARD, i, pp. 240–2. 259 Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 197–8; Reg. Swayne,p.13; M. Burroughs, ‘Fifteenth-century Irish provincial legislation and pastoral care’ in W. J. Shields and D. Wood (eds), Studies in Church History 45: The Churches, Ireland and the Irish (Oxford, 1989), pp. 58–61. 260 For the use of ecclesiastical calendars and records of feast days to examine local saints’ cults see, for example, C. Cubitt, ‘Universal and local saints in Anglo-Saxon England’ in A. Thacker and R. Sharpe (eds), Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford, 2002), pp. 437–43; A. MacQuarrie, ‘Scottish saints’ legends in the Aberdeen Breviary’ in S. Boardman and E. Williamson (eds), The Cult of Saints and the Virgin Mary in Medieval Scotland (Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 143–158. 261 Crosthwaite, Obits of Christchurch, pp. xliii-xlix; Lydon, ‘Christ Church’,p.93. 262 P. Ó Riain, ‘The calendar and martyrology of Christ Church’ in R. Gillespie and R. Refaussé (eds), The Medieval Manuscripts of Christ Church Cathedral Dublin (Dublin, 2006), pp. 33–59. 138 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church 263 three-day fair at her feast day. A parish church in Coolock was dedicated to St Dúileach and one in Sutton to St Fintan. These parish churches in county Dublin were not late medieval foundations, but the inclusion of their Irish patron saints in church calendars suggests that their 264 cults persisted throughout the later Middle Ages. The fifteenth-century ‘Clondalkin calendar’ included not only Begnet and the widely popular Patrick and Brigit but also Aidan, Ciarán, Canice, 265 Lawrence, Malachy, Kevin, Dunán, Michan, and Brendan. Other late medieval calendars associated with Dublin include the feasts of Patrick and Brigit as well as of more obscure Irish saints, some with local con- 266 nections, like Dunán, co-founder of Christ Church cathedral. The calendar in a mid-fifteenth century breviary associated with St Patrick’s and St Michan’s originally contained the feast of only one Irish saint, St Brigid, but a further thirteen Irish saints, some with Dublin associa- 267 tions, were added over the course of the fifteenth century. A breviary from Trim suggests that these Irish saints’ cults were long-standing in the colony. The breviary was created in the twelfth century but additions were made to it as late as 1360 and Irish saints, particularly those with Meath connections, like St Ultan of Ardbraccan and St Finnian of 268 Clonard, feature prominently, with double feasts. More sustained treatment of Irish saints is found in MS TCD 175 which is associated with St Mary’s Abbey in Dublin and contains the lives of many Irish and non-Irish saints. These include the very popular saints Lawrence and 269 Brendan, as well as Fiontan, Colmán, Ciarán, ‘Mocheomog’, Ruadhan, Crónán, Comhghall, Carthach, Declan, Molua, Munna, 270 Bairre, and Aidan. Hagiographic material providing readers with

263 Alen’s Reg.,p.247;J.P.O’Reilly, ‘Notes on the orientations and certain architectural details of the old churches of Dalkey town and Dalkey island’, PRIA, 24c(1902–1904), 199–206. 264 R. Cochrane, ‘Notes on the ecclesiastical antiquities in the parish of Howth, county of Dublin’, JRSAI, 3:4 (1893), 386–96; P. Harbison, ‘St Doulagh’s church’, Studies, 71:281 (1982), 29, 34. 265 TCD MS 78; M. Colker, (ed.), Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts of Trinity College Dublin, 2 vols (Dublin, 1991), i, p. 122. 266 TCD MS 79; R. Refaussé, ‘Introduction’ in Milne, Christ Church Cathedral Dublin,p.1; TCD MS 88; Colker, Descriptive Catalogue, i, pp. 122, 156; A. Buckley, ‘Music in Ireland to c. 1500’ in NHI,i,p.790; Hand, ‘Psalter of Christ Church’, 313; A. J. Fletcher, ‘The de Derby Psalter of Christ Church cathedral, Dublin’ in Gillespie and Refaussé, Medieval Manuscripts of Christ Church, pp. 81–102. 267 W. Hawkes, ‘The liturgy in Dublin 1200–1500’, Reportorium Novum, 2:1 (1958), 53. 268 A. Gwynn, ‘A breviary from St Mary’s abbey, Trim’, RnM, 3 (1966), 290–8. 269 Mochaomhóg is ‘a pet form of Cáemgen and Cáemán ...and according to an early text there are perhaps twenty-one saints who bore the name’: D. Ó Corráin and F. Maguire, Gaelic Personal Names (Dublin, 1981), p. 137. This may also refer to Caomhóg, who was an early Leinster saint. 270 MS TCD 175; Colker, Descriptive Catalogue,i,p.330; C. Plummer, Vitae Sanctorum Hibernici partim Hactenus Ineditae (Oxford, 1910). 139 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland stories about the miracles and attributes of particular saints was crucial for keeping their cults alive. Thus, devotion to Irish saints was long-standing in the four counties and the addition of further Irish saints to pre-existing calendars suggests 271 that it continued to flourish in the later Middle Ages. How are we to interpret this? James Lydon has argued that the devotion of the English of Ireland to Irish saints was indicative of their identification with the land of Ireland and their pride in the history of the colony, rather than of any 272 identification with Irish culture. It is true that devotion to saints’ cults was motivated by a variety of factors and Irish saint’s cults certainly did not express the same kind of political allegiances signalled by the cult of St George in Dublin. Nevertheless, the devotion of some settlers to Irish saints, particularly the less well-known and strictly local ones, indicates a familiarity and willingness to engage with Irish culture and history. The Irish church in the later Middle Ages has often been presented as the 273 ecclesiastical mirror of a secular society deeply divided along ethnic lines. As we have seen, the secular sphere was not so divided as is often thought and the membership of parish communities and religious guilds reflected the links that existed between the Irish and English laity, while the existence of the cults of Irish saints in the four counties likewise reflects cultural exchange between English and Irish. Furthermore, the church in Ireland was not passive and it actively influenced the nature and frequency of ethnic interaction. This was partially intentional, and the papacy and archbishops of Armagh often deliberately acted as agents for peace and cooperation between the English and the Irish. The papacy, though it accepted English political hegemony, refused to bow to pressure to discriminate against the Irish in matters of collations to benefices and challenged exclusionary statutes banning Irish religious in English monastic houses. The archbishops of Armagh, though ethnically English, repeatedly expressed their desire for peace and worked to make such peace possible by acting as negotiators between the colony and Irish chiefs. On a more mundane level, but perhaps more importantly, the archbishops of Armagh encouraged the movement of Irish clerics, many from Ulster, into benefices in Louth and Meath and into the archiepiscopal administration. This mobility of Irish clerics throughout the province of Armagh and the influence of Irish clerics in the archbishop’s administration were ever increasing in the fifteenth century, just as the influence of

271 S. Duffy, ‘The first Ulster plantation: John de Courcy and the men of Cumbria’ in Colony and Frontier, pp. 8–9. 272 Lydon, ‘Nation and race’,p.111. 273 Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 11, 51, 71; Watt, ‘Confrontation and coexistence’, pp. 46–64; Jefferies, ‘Role of laity’,p.73. 140 Mediation and Cooperation: The ‘Two Nations’ in the Church 274 Irish clerics waxed in other parts of the colony. The archbishop of Dublin also employed Irish clerks in his curia, though in smaller numbers and in less elevated roles. The mixed clerical and lay populations of the dioceses and archdioceses of the four counties was a product of historical circumstance, but it encouraged English and Irish clerics, both anglicized and unanglicized, to meet at councils and ordinations and to co-operate with one another. Church courts, which gave equal access to English and Irish litigants, provided a legal option for the Irish of the colony who might be excluded from many secular courts. The considerable disparity between secular and ecclesiastical borders makes the Irish case somewhat unusual; unlike in late medieval France and Scotland, no effort was made 275 to change diocesan boundaries when political boundaries changed. In the north of England, for example, no English archbishop presided over significant areas of Scotland after York’s claims in Scotland were extin- 276 guished in the fourteenth century. The situation in Wales differed from the colony because Edward I’s victories in Wales ensured that political divisions between it and England were less significant, but some of the characteristics of the Irish church were also evident in Wales. There was linguistic and cultural mixing within the church in Hereford and in Welsh dioceses, and Hayes has highlighted the manner in which the church machinery encouraged mobility for clerics between 277 England and Wales in a later period. Patterns of ordination for parish priests and the interaction of local laity and clergy in north-western French dioceses under partial Lancastrian rule in the fifteenth century might provide illuminating comparisons, despite the very significant 278 differences between the Irish and French circumstances. The Irish example demonstrates how fruitful it can be to integrate the church

274 Parker has identified similar trends in Waterford in the fifteenth century: Parker, ‘The internal frontier’, pp. 146–9. 275 R. N. Swanson, ‘Bishoprics and parishes’ in R. N. Swanson (ed.), Routledge History of Medieval Christianity, 1050–1500 (New York, 2015), p. 21. 276 Anthony Goodman has identified shared saint’s cults and religious houses with shared institutional links across the border, but has nonetheless emphasized the growing distance between the Scottish and English church in the later Middle Ages: A. Goodman, ‘Religion and warfare in the Anglo-Scottish marches’ in Bartlett and Mackay, Medieval Frontier Societies,p.257; A. Goodman, ‘The Anglo-Scottish marches in the fifteenth century: A frontier society?’ in R. Mason (ed.), Scotland and England, 1286–1815 (Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 23, 28; D. E. R. Watt, Medieval Church Councils in Scotland (Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 29–30. 277 G. Hayes, ‘Ordination ritual and practice in the Welsh-English frontier, circa 1540–1640’, Journal of British Studies, 44:4 (2005), 717, 722, 725. 278 I am not aware of work done precisely on this topic, but it was the case that some French clergy served in benefices in English-held Rouen in the 1440s, and seem to have benefitted from English support: C. Allmand, ‘Local reaction to the French reconquest of Normandy: The case of Rouen’ in J. Highfield and R. Jeffs (eds), The Crown and Local Communities in England and France in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1981), pp. 148–51. 141 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland (particularly with regards to its day-to-day operations) into examinations of wider social and cultural developments. The split within the church with regard to customs and personnel was significant, and benefices in English-controlled areas were most often held by English clerics. And yet, as we have seen, Irish clerics served across the four shires, in march and in maghery. This is most evident to the historian in Louth and Meath, because of the nature of the record survival, but Kildare also was home to many Irish clerics, although Dublin seems to have been less so. Some of these clerics held their benefices for many years and were presumably acceptable to their English and Irish parishioners, with whom they interacted frequently. Once established in the region, some of them assisted family members, both laity and clergy, in migrating to the colony. The religious orders were, on the whole, more likely to be marked by ethnic division than was the parochial church but they too provided opportunities for English and Irish to mix on occasion, and religious houses across the four shires had Irish priors and abbots in this period. On the whole, the Irish church on every level was responsible for far more amicable interaction than conflict, and from what we can tell, it was the intention of many leading churchmen that this should be the case.

142 Chapter 4

INTERETHNIC FAMILY TIES: INTERMARRIAGE AND FOSTERAGE

The act for marrying with Irishmen, passed by the Irish parliament of 1536–7, opined that by mariage alterage and fostering of the kinges subjectes of this his lande of Irlande with his graces Irishe rebels great lacke of obedience hathe growen to his 1 highnes and his moost noble progenitours of their people within this lande. Parliament therefore reiterated the bans against intermarriage and fosterage between Irish and English. These had been enacted from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards, althoughtolittleavail.Interethnicfamilial links between the colonists and Irish people from within the colony and 2 from without were a constant feature of life in the four shires. Marriage between settlers and the Irish occurred in the colony from its inception – the marriage of Richard FitzGilbert de Clare to Aoife, daughter of Diarmait MacMurchadha, had helped to legitimate the earliest English settlement in 3 Ireland. English elite families in Ireland married into local elite families to gain allies and a firmer foothold in the new colony, just as they did in 4 Wales. Politically, militarily, and economically strategic intermarriages among elites persisted but intermarriage also spread down the social scale as colonization progressed, reflecting the extensive interaction between 5 English and Irish. This process could occur quickly; in fifteenth-century

1 Stat. Ire, Ric. III-Hen. VIII, pp. 217–20. 2 A. Cosgrove, ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’ in A. Cosgrove (ed.), Marriage in Ireland (Dublin, 1985), pp. 25–50; G. Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women in Ireland, c. 1170–1540 (Dublin, 2007), p. 89; F. Fitzsimons, ‘Wolsey, the native aﬃnities and the failure of reform in Henrician Ireland’ in D. Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1100–1650: Essays for Kenneth Nicholls (Dublin, 2004), pp. 78–121. 3 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 85. 4 Davies, Age of Conquest,p.422; A. J. Roderick, ‘Marriage and politics in Wales, 1066–1282’, WHR, 4:1 (1968), 7. 5 Medieval historiography has diﬀerentiated between secular and ecclesiastical ideas about the motivations for marriage, and the church championed individual’s rights to consent, but among elites, families led marriage negotiations and secular concerns were usually paramount: G. Duby, 143 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Lancastrian France, intermarriage among non-elites happened almost immediately and helped integrate the English into local society and increase 6 their landholdings. There were also informal sexual relationships between the English and Irish, though they are only rarely noted in the sources; these too were natural in an environment of close contact between these 7 ethnic groups. Formal relationships created in childhood, like fosterage and godparenthood, between the English and Irish were also used to forge 8 political and familial alliances, as well as personal ones. Thus, the personal, political, and familial were closely intertwined in medieval Ireland, as they were elsewhere in the medieval world. Interethnic ties, especially those with powerful Irish families who lived outside the colony’s bounds, had the potential to present political difficulties to the colonial administration. The earliest bans focused on marriages with Irish persons who were at war with the colony but, by the mid-fourteenth century, some enactments used less specific language and 9 sought to ban intermarriage outright. It is likely that, for some of the drafters of these prohibitions, the loyal Irish of the colony were implicitly exempted but this is only specified occasionally, as in 1351 when parliament banned marriages with the king’s English enemies as well as with his 10 Irish ones. Legislation drafted by the crown in 1357 and sent to be confirmed in Ireland did not mention English or Irish enemies but proscribed marriage, fosterage, and ‘divers other ties’ between English marchers and the Irish in general. It explained that the Irish exploited personal connections within the English community to spy on the colony and these Irish spies supposedly conveyed information to Irish chiefs and 11 hampered the campaigns of the colonial administration. Although the 1357 legislation was written by the royal administration in England, it probably arose out of petitions and information provided by the 12 colonists.

Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France, trans. E. Forster (Baltimore, 1991 [first published 1978]); C. Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford, 1989), pp. 1–25, 119–43;C. McCarthy, Marriage in Medieval England: Law, Literature and Practice (Woodbridge, 2004), esp. chapters 2 and 3; G. Ribordy, ‘The two paths to marriage: the preliminaries of noble marriage in late medieval France’, Journal of Family History, 26:3 (2001), 323–36. 6 Massey, ‘Lancastrian Rouen’, pp. 269–86; Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy,p.102. 7 For examples of these sexual relationships see below, pp. 148–50, 155–6. 8 See below, p. 170–5. 9 Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish colony’, pp. 383–4; G. Mac Niocaill, Na Buirgéisí, 2 vols (Dublin, 1964), ii, pp. 336–7; G. O. Sayles, Documents on the Affairs of Ireland before the King’s Council (Dublin, 1979), pp. 188–9; Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.120. 10 11 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 386–7. Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.412. 12 Late medieval English legislation and royal directives often reflected the petitions that prompted them and sometimes even used the same language, structure, and phrasing: H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, ‘The early statutes’ in Richardson and Sayles, The English Parliament in the Middle 144 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage The statutes of Kilkenny, promulgated in 1366, used the general term ‘Irish’, rather than ‘Irish enemies’, when prohibiting intermarriage and 13 fosterage between English and Irish. This terminological imprecision characterized much of the legislation of the Irish parliament and was evident both in legislation drafted by parliaments that were overseen by homegrown 14 chief governors and those overseen by chief governors sent from England. The meaning of ‘Irish’ was not secure or static within the colony and may sometimes imply only ‘Irish enemies’. Still, the unqualified use of the term ‘Irish’ in 1366 may be symptomatic of a growing anxiety about interethnic familial ties in and of themselves, rather than because of specific military threats posed by particular intermarriages. The enactments passed in Kilkenny were frequently re-issued, particularly in the first ten years of 15 the fifteenth century and in the early 1420s. In 1430 the Irish parliament again called for the existing statutes against interethnic marriage and gos- 16 sipred to be imposed more effectively. Here the parliament used the 17 specific term ‘Irish enemies’, rather than ‘Irish’. This may indicate that these bans were not intended to apply to all Irish people, although how deliberate the choice of words was is open to speculation. Even what the precise meaning of ‘Irish enemy’ was by the fifteenth century is not certain. It did not apply only to those who actively attacked the colony and may have extended to all unanglicized Irish people or to those without English law; in some instances, it may have applied to anyone who was Irish by descent. It is clear that some people who were anglicized and did not act like ‘enemies’ of the colony, like the Dublin citizen John Lytill, could be accused of being an ‘Irish enemy’ simply because they were related to elite Irish 18 families from outside the colony, rather than because of their own actions. There was scope within the unstable definitions of ‘Irish’ and ‘Irish enemy’ to discriminate against any person of Irish ancestry and against those who married them.

Ages (London, 1981), chapter 25, pp. 21–22 (originally published in Law Quarterly Review, 50 [1954], 201–223, 540–521). 13 14 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.433. Stat. Ire, John-Hen.V,p.375; Stat. Ire. Hen. VI, pp. 42–5. 15 For an exhaustive list of re-issuings of the statutes of Kilkenny, see P. Crooks, ‘“Hobbes”, “Dogs” and politics in the Ireland of Lionel of Antwerp, c. 1361–6’, Haskins Society Journal, 16 (2005), n. 18, 121. 16 Gossipred can mean godparenthood but also may have signiﬁed other ties: F. Fitzsimons, ‘Fosterage and gossipred in late medieval Ireland: some new evidence’ in P. J. Duﬀy, D. Edwards, and E. Fitzpatrick (eds), Gaelic Ireland: Land, Lordship, and Settlement c. 1250–c. 1650 (Dublin, 2001), pp. 138–52. 17 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.31. 18 Lytill was accused of being ‘an Irishman and of the Irish nation, namely the McGwyers Irish enemies of our lord King’. With many thanks to Randolph Jones: See above pp. 85–7; NAI MS RC 8/38, pp. 186–91. The Maguires were not particularly threatening in this period, but they were allies of Ó Néill and based in Gaelic Ulster: K. Simms, ‘The medieval kingdom of Lough Erne’, Clogher Record, 9:2 (1977), 132. 145 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland The Irish parliament used economic sanctions to enforce prohibitions against mixed marriage and confiscated the land of some colonists who married Irish people. Elizabeth Calf/la Veel, widow of the baron of Norragh, co. Kildare, married Art MacMurchadha Caomhánach, self- proclaimed king of Leinster, in c. 1390 and her lands were taken into 19 crown hands for the offence. MacMurchadha did not accept the confiscation and attacked the colony, ending his attacks only when Norragh was restored to him and his wife upon his submission to Richard II. MacMurchadha is an excellent example of what parliament feared when noble English women, particularly wealthy ones, wed powerful Irish men, and provided them with lands and a foothold in the colony – he did not adhere to his submission to the English crown, and attacked Wexford in 20 1401. In 1472–3 the lands of Katherine Byron of Rathbeggan, co. Meath were taken into crown hands because of her marriage to Esmond Deshe (Déise/Deiseach?). Deshe was nowhere near as powerful a threat as MacMurchadha but he was, according to parliament, not just ‘an Irishman and of the Irish nation’ but ‘of the Deshes enemies to our said 21 sovereign’. Byron’s lands were restored to her in 1474,after‘diverse considerations had in the last Parliament’; the statute rolls are no more specific than this about what made parliament reconsider. Perhaps Deshe or his family had made peace with the crown and were thus no longer considered ‘enemies’, or perhaps Byron used some personal connection 22 to encourage parliament to reverse its decision. Although the limited evidence we have makes generalization difficult, it seems that these confiscations were executed on a case-by-case basis and that women with significant landholdings who married men outside English law, and often men who were actively antagonistic to the colony, were the usual targets. Two further landholding women seem to have had their lands seized when they married Irishmen, or at least men accused of being Irish, in the early fifteenth century but the records of confiscation are not as unambiguous as 23 those for Calf and Byron. The marriage to Irishmen of women with limited or no landholdings was less of a concern, since such marriages

19 Cosgrove, ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’,p.35; Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.37. For the (MacMurrough) Kavanaghs see K. W. Nicholls, ‘The Kavanaghs, 1400–1700’, IG, 5:4 (1977), 435–47, 5:5 (1978), 573–80. 20 Frame, ‘Two kings in Leinster’, 155–75; Fitzgerald, ‘Narraghmore’, 251; E. Curtis and E. St John Brooks, ‘The barons of Norragh, co. Kildare, 1171–1660’,JRSAI, 5:1 (1935), 89–90. 21 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.147. Edmund may have been a member of the Déise family who, Edward MacLysaght argues, took their name from Deece in co. Meath. It is, therefore, not the usual form for an Irish surname, being toponymic rather than patronymic, and may identify a lower-status Irish family: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.77. 22 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.241. 23 These women were Margery Hynkeley, who married Thomas Hert, and Eleanor Comyn, who married John Lytill: see pp. 85–7 above. 146 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage would not place significant portions of land in the colony under the control of their Irish husbands, and in any case such women would have been unlikely to marry elite Irishmen who posed a serious military threat. At least two men from the colonial community, Christopher Nugent and Edward Nugent of Ballebrannagh, co. Meath, were punished for marrying Irish women. Proceedings against Christopher were underway in 1512 because he married Katherine Oneyll, while Edward’s lands were in the king’s hand in 1520 because he married Owyn Niny Molloy (Úna 24 (?)Uí Iníon Mhaoilmhuaidh), an ‘Irish enemy’. These men, by virtue of their gender, would retain control of their lands during their lifetime but, on their death, their widows might take control of jointure or dower portions from those lands. Fears about land ownership, therefore, could have prompted these confiscations, but other considerations were probably relevant. The Nugent family from which both of these men came was a prominent Meath marcher lineage, while the Ó Néill, from which family Katherine may have come, were the dominant Irish family of 25 Ulster. The Ó Maolmhuaidh were an Irish elite family who controlled lands in modern co. Offaly, to the south-west of the four shires. They could therefore pose a threat both to the region and to parts of the colony 26 in Munster and south Leinster. They were the targets of colonial hostings and hostility in the early fifteenth century, and in the mid- and late sixteenth, when they were accused of sheltering ‘wood kern and 27 other insurgents’. The administration, it seems, did not look kindly on marital links between powerful marcher families and potentially threatening Irish ones. Despite this, at least one of the Nugents, Edward, 28 managed to regain his lands. Aside from legal barriers to mixed marriages, there could be social pressure against them. In 1448,inStackallan,co.Meath,anEnglishwomannamed Mabina Huns sought the annulment of her marriage to John Brogeam. She argued that he had previously been pre-contracted to marry an Irish woman named Katherine Oduboy (?) and, although John and Katherine

24 NAI MS 999/184, ‘Extracts from various records formerly of the Public Record Office of Ireland made by members of staff of PROI before 1922’,p.3; Griffith, Calendar of Inquisitions,p.35: Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women, pp. 89–90. 25 Persons named O/Neill were also common in the four shires, and it is possible that Katherine was one of these more humble, anglicized Ó Néills. 26 Abraham, ‘Upward mobility’,p.16; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.209. 27 AFM, s.a. 1430, 1557, 1585; Annals Loch Cé, 1401. In the mid-fourteenth century, the leader of the Uí Mhaoilmhuaidh was exhorted to ‘wreck thy vengeance on [the Goill who are set on attacking thy native land]’ and turn his ‘terrible vanguard with its coloured shields ... against the choice troops of the Goill of Laighin’. If poets did indeed express their patrons’ desires and aims, then the colony was right to fear Ó Maoilmhuaidh aggression: L. McKenna, ‘Some Irish Bardic poems: lxxxvii. Poet seeks reconciliation with his patron’, Studies, 37:147 (1948), 324. 28 Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.89. 147 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland never had a marriage ceremony, such verbal contracts were generally held binding. John had apparently broken his betrothal to Katherine at the urging of his friends, who objected that she was of Irish blood and, since John was ‘the son of a good father’ (‘good’ perhaps implying elevated 29 social status), she was therefore beneath him. Thepossiblesocialstigma of intermarriage seems to have worried John’s friends, not the legal or economic consequence. What is clear is that some segment of the colonial population disapproved of mixed marriages on a variety of grounds and that such marriages could be subject to legal and social censure. However, these cases where mixed marriages were discouraged are far outweighed by the number of mixed marriages that appear in the sources without comment. Once again, it is evident that there was a considerable gap between official rhetoric and actual practice and, as was the case with most anti-degeneracy legislation from Ireland, enactments against intermarriage were not uniformly enforced, either within the four shires or in the colony at 30 large. A range of sources provide evidence for mixed marriages and sexual relationships in the four shires in the first few decades of the fifteenth century. The register of Archbishop Alen of Dublin records that Roger Bekeford, who gave lands in Dublin to the archbishop in 1405, was the son of Elena Neell. His English surname suggests that his father was of English ancestry while his mother was presumably a member of the 31 anglicized Dublin Neill family. Another mixed couple from Dublin were Thomas Hert alias Ohertecane (Ó hArtagain), an Irishman with an English first name and alias, who was married to Margery, daughter of 32 John Hynkeley, by November of 1411. Margery and Thomas’ lands may have been seized because of their marriage: they were in the king’s 33 hands by forfeiture when he granted them to Robert Dyke in 1416. The papal registers record mixed marriages from outlying areas of the four shires in this period. In 1423, the papacy gave ‘Herbert de Almar, donsel, of his diocese [Meath], and Grany Nyergayall, damsel, of the diocese of 34 Ardagh’ a dispensation to marry. They required this dispensation because they were linked by affinity in the prohibited degrees, since de

29 Register Prene,v,p.214; Cosgrove, ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’,p.35. ‘Good (bonus)’ could imply high rank or status in late medieval usages: OED. 30 In areas outside the four counties, there were many elite families who frequently practised intermarriage, like the Dillons of the midlands, Burkes of Connacht, Savages of Ulster, FitzGeralds of Desmond, and Ormond Butlers: CPL, iv, p. 452; Cox, ‘Dillon lords part one’, 71–4; Cox, ‘Dillon lords, part two’, 87; Dillon, ‘Cnoc Diolún’, 364–5; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, p. 487; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 22 Edward IV, no. 2. Urban families, like those in Youghal, also routinely intermarried with the Irish: Caulﬁeld, ‘Early charters of Youghal’, 2, 191–4. 31 32 33 Alen’s Reg.,p.236. CCD,p.185. CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry V, no. 63. 34 CPL, vii, p. 256. 148 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage 35 Almar had previously had sexual relations with a relative of his bride. Canon law held that sexual relationships created a bond like that of blood, so they created limitations on marriage just like those imposed on relatives 36 within four degrees of relation. De Almar is a form of Delamare, a notably gaelicized English family of modern co. Westmeath, while 37 ‘Grany Nyergayall’ is a rendering of Gráinne Iníon Uí Fhearghail. The Ui Fhearghail were based in modern co. Longford and some of their lands may have bordered on those of the Delamares in Westmeath. This may have been a marriage undertaken for political reasons, perhaps to cement an alliance between these two prominent neighbouring families, although since we know no more about the marriage, we can only speculate. In the following year, 1424, the papal curia issued a dispensation to marry to William Fitzgerald and Mor inge Ycon[co]beir (Mór Iníon Uí Chonchobhair) of Kildare. They also required a dispensation because of 38 affinity: William had engaged in sexual relations with a relative of Mór. The Uí Chonchobhair Failghe were a particular thorn in the side of the earls of Kildare and the colonial administration in the later fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth century. Hostilities reached an apogee in 1398 when An Calbhach, son of Murchadh, captured and imprisoned the earl but the situation remained volatile after Murchadh’s death in 1421 and throughout the lifetime of An Calbhach, who succeeded him. The marriage of William and Mór in c. 1424 may have been prompted by Geraldine desires to put relations with this powerful and threatening Irish family on a friendlier foot in the early years of An Calbhach’s leadership.39 An Calbhach’s repeated raids on Meath in the 1420s, and the military successes of his brother Cathaoir in Kildare at the same time, may have convinced the seventh earl that alliance was a better tactic than trying to contest the Uí Chonchobhair Failghe militarily. If so, this conciliatory tactic was unsuccessful, since the Uí Chonchobhair had seized the Kildare 40 manor of Rathangan by 1433. Unfortunately, the lack of information about this married couple, William and Mór, make this mere speculation. They may have been relatively unimportant members of their respective families and not of the leading branches which would have brokered

35 Cosgrove, ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’,p.27. 36 From the fourth Lateran council in 1215, the prohibited degree was to the fourth degree, so an individual could not marry their ﬁrst cousin, great aunts or uncles, great nieces or nephews or anyone more closely related: A. Cosgrove, ‘Consent, consummation and indissolubility: some evidence from medieval ecclesiastical courts’, Downside Review, 109:375 (1991), 95. 37 38 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.209. CPL, vii, p. 362. 39 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.206; Ó Clérigh, ‘O’Connor Faly lordship’, 88–93. 40 Ó Clérigh, ‘O’Connor Faly lordship’, 92. 149 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 41 interethnic marriages as part of a wider political strategy. And yet their resort to the papacy is suggestive of high status and most of the lay people from Ireland who appear in the papal documents from this period were from the elite. In any case, the affinity that pre-dated their marriage, like that of Delamare and iníon uí Fhearghail, highlights the close links between the colonists and the Irish, expressed through non-marital sexual relationships as well as marital ones. Interethnic marriages were not isolated events but reflected continuous social relationships between families like the Fitzgeralds and Delamares and their Irish neighbours. From c. 1425 onwards, the registers of the archbishops of Armagh record details about laypeople who resorted to the archbishop’s court to resolve 42 disputes. These records are a particularly valuable window on to the marriage practices of non-elites in Louth, where almost all of the couples who appear in the registers lived. The ecclesiastical court records, however, can be misleading, since marriages usually appear in the context of marital disputes and divorce proceedings and therefore provide a skewed vision of how successful intermarriages were. It must be borne in mind that happy interethnic marriages would be unlikely to leave any trace in the ecclesiastical records. The records of defamation cases that came before the consistory court provide information about mixed marriages that seem to have gone badly wrong. For example, in 1426 Archbishop Swayne ordered that clerics in the archdiocese must reproach anyone who accused Richard Heyne (Ó hEidhin) of Drogheda of having beaten to death his wife, Clarys 43 White. Presumably Heyne had sued for defamation in the archbishop’s 44 court and had won his case and the archbishop’s support with it. Butler has found similar cases in which men used defamation suits to defend themselves against accusations of violence and cruelty against their wives 45 in fifteenth-century England. The surname ‘White’ was used by both the Irish and the English of the colony but Clarys’ first name and her place of residence make it likely that she was a member of the English White family 46 of Louth. In 1428 Swayne again attempted to quash rumours about a man murdering his wife. According to these rumours, Roger Michyn of

41 An Calbhach had a daughter named Mór, but she married MacWilliam Burke: Ó Clérigh, ‘O’Connor Faly lordship’, 91. 42 The registers survive before c. 1425, but the earlier registers contain little material from the consistory court. 43 Reg. Swayne,p.43. 44 Unfortunately, no records of such a case survive, but this is the most likely way that the archbishop would have become involved (and be convinced that no murder had occurred). 45 S. Butler, The Language of Abuse: Marital Violence in the Later Medieval England (Leiden, 2007), pp. 180–1. 46 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.291; K. Simms, ‘The Ulster Revolt of 1404 – an anti-Lancastrian dimension?’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 2009), pp. 147, 155. 150 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage 47 Dundalk had beaten his wife, Joanna Walsh, to death. Physically chastis- ing one’s wife was considered justified by some medieval commentators but beating them in an unrestrained fashion, out of anger rather than a desire to discipline, was frowned upon and killing one’s wife was clearly 48 going too far. We do not know whether either or both of these Irish men caused their English wives’ deaths – the archbishop was convinced they did not – but, even if they did, the total numbers of cases of spousal violence that appear in the archbishops’ registers are so small that it would be foolhardy to use them to generalize about strife within interethnic marriages. Other accusations of violence or cruelty in marriage come from marriages where both parties were Irish and the only other accusation of murder, or at least some culpability in a spouse’s death, relates to an 49 ostensibly settler couple. Defamation suits also provide evidence of mixed marriages and mixed sexual relationships in contexts that do not suggest marital violence. Agnes WalshofDunany,co.Louth,wifeofThomasLorkan(ÓLorcáin), initiated adefamationsuitin1510 and John Meghin (Mag Fhinn/Ó Miadhacháin?) and his English wife Jane Sandall were sued for defamation and found guilty 50 c. 1518. Dunany lies on the coast between Drogheda and Dundalk, as 51 does Walshetown, near which Meghin and Sandall probably resided. A fewyearslaterMaginaFenan,wifeofDonaldOGelmely(Domhnall Ó Goirmleadhaigh) of Dundalk, sued three of her neighbours for saying that 52 she was the whore of John Salman, priest. While Fenan and O Gelmely are Irish surnames, Salman is English, so, if Fenan was indeed engaged in a sexual relationship with him, it would have been an interethnic one. It is possible, of course, that the insults levelled at Fenan were just scurrilous rumours. The accusation of being a ‘meretrix sacerdotis (priest’s whore)’ was a common insult and Helmholtz has warned that many defamatory state- 53 ments were nothing more than ‘term[s] of general abuse’. Nevertheless,

47 Reg. Swayne,p.95. 48 B. Hanawault, ‘Violence in the domestic milieu’, pp. 200–1, 206 and J. Brundage, ‘Domestic violence in classical canon law’,p.186 in R. Kaueper (ed.), Violence in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 2000). 49 Cosgrove, ‘Consent, consummation and indissolubility’, 96; G. Kenny, ‘The women of county Louth in the later medieval period, 1170–1540’, JCLAHS, 26:4 (2008), 585. The couple were Margery Hardin and Michael Carpinter, and she was accused of being responsible for his death: ‘Cromer’s Reg.’, 8:3, 263. 50 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 597; ‘Cromer’s Reg’, 7:4, 521. Sandall is a toponymic from England. The Irish did (only occasionally) take toponymics, but they were ones taken from places in Ireland. 51 Meghin and Sandall were from ‘Carrick’, which I have not been able to identify, but defamation cases usually involved neighbours, and their victim, William Drumgowle, was from Welshtown. 52 ‘Cromer’s Reg’, 8:4, 333. 53 J. McCaﬀerty, ‘Defamation and the church courts in sixteenth-century Armagh’, AH, 48 (1994), 93; Kenny, ‘Women of county Louth’, 593; R. H. Helmholtz, ‘Canonical defamation in medieval 151 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland the fact that the particular priest in question was named suggests that this was a more specific allegation, though there is no way of knowing how accurate it was. Petitions to dissolve marriages because of a pre-existing marital contract were heard by the consistory court of Armagh. One such case details an engagement between an Irishwoman and a man from the settler community in Louth, probably in the 1420s. Johanna Kennedy and Hugo Credy (Mac Riada/Ó Grádaigh?) were a married Irish couple from Clonkeen parish, a rural area in north-western co. Louth near Ardee. Johanna claimed that she had agreed to marry a man named Roger Bode before her marriage to Credy and that her marriage to Credy was thus invalid. Bode is an Anglo-Norse and Anglo-Norman name, which suggests that, if Roger was 54 indeed engaged to Johanna Kennedy, this engagement was interethnic. If claims of pre-contract were proved, the couple could secure an annulment, or, in the contemporary terminology, a divorce a vinculo matrimonii (from the bond of marriage), rather than just a separation a mensa et thoro (from bed 55 and board). This meant that the parties could remarry freely, even while their former partner was alive. Claims of pre-contract were one of the most common ways to secure a divorce in the archbishop of Armagh’s courts in 56 the fifteenth century. They were common in part because medieval marriage was a process rather than a stand-alone event and it was often contracted informally, or ‘clandestinely’. This remained the case notwithstanding the church’s efforts to regulate marriages and make them public by publishing banns and conducting ceremonies before witnesses and in 57 church. Informality was particularly common in non-elite unions and 58 between persons and families who had little property. Exchanging words of consent to marry (in the present tense) was enough to constitute a valid

England’, American Journal of Legal History, 15:255 (1971), 258–9. Sexual insults were the most common types of insults levelled at women, while insults for men were often related to property (‘thief’, ‘forger’, ‘counterfeiter’). These varying insults reveal the diﬀering bases for male and female reputations: K. Jones, Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: The Local Courts in Kent, 1460–1560 (Woodbridge, 2006), p. 32. 54 Reg. Swayne,p.57. Bode is also a Hiberno-Norse name, but an Anglo-Norse or Anglo-Norman provenance is more likely in this case. 55 Helmholtz, Canon Law, pp. 524–6, 540–4. 56 Attitudes towards pre-contract seem to have shifted in the colony, though not in England, and judges in Armagh resisted overturning existing marriages on those grounds in the early sixteenth century: Helmholtz, Canon Law, pp. 528–9;Jeﬀeries, ‘Church courts of Armagh’, 12. 57 J. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), pp. 225–8. Thirteenth-century English diocesan statutes regulated against clandestine marriages: M. Sheehan, ‘Marriage theory and practice in the conciliar legislation and diocesan statutes of medieval England’ in J. K. Farge (ed.), Marriage, Family and Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Studies (Toronto, 1996), pp. 120–5. 58 S. Butler, Divorce in Medieval England: From One Person to Two Persons in Law (New York, 2013), p. 2; Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, pp. 458–9. 152 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage union and this could be, and was, done in taverns, fields, and private 59 homes. Marriages could therefore be entered into with little planning or forethought and pre-contract claims may often have had some basis in truth. An interethnic marriage in Kilsaran, on the northern coast of Louth, was challenged by reason of pre-contract in 1445. John Olounchegan’s (Ó Luchráin?) marriage to Jenet Petendy was contested by Agnes Mckynkerde (Mac an Ceaird?), who claimed that John was pre-contracted 60 to marry her. Petendy is a form of de Repenteny, the surname of an Anglo-Norman family which settled in co. Louth in the late twelfth 61 century. In 1450 William Gernon of Cappoge, co. Louth disputed the validity of his marriage to Joanna Nangle in light of his pre-contract with an Irish woman named Oonem Mcmaguna (Úna or Iníon (?) Mhic 62 Mhathghamhna). Nangle defended the validity of the marriage and was accused of attempting to bribe two witnesses in the case to support her 63 side of the story (allegedly spending a total of six shillings on bribes). The Gernons and Nangles were long-established settler families of the four counties but Mcmaguna was probably a member of the Mhic Mhathghamhna family which was the ruling Irish dynasty of Airghialla 64 in northern co. Monaghan. The Mhic Mhathghamhna held lands adjacent to the western Louth marches and the leading members of the lineage had a great deal of contact with the colony, hostile and otherwise. The crown eventually accepted their control of lands bordering Louth and leased the lordship of Farney, north-west of Ardee, to the leading Mac Mathghamhna for much of the fifteenth century. We know little about William or Úna individually, or about their parentage, but if they were in the leading line of their respective families, their pre-contract may relate to the peace contracted in 1445 between Ruaidhrí Mac 65 Mathghamhna (himself married to a settler woman) and the colony. It may be possible to glimpse political motives for another interethnic union tested in the archbishop’s court in 1452. The court ruled that the marriage of Jenkyn Dalton to Alice Ohanlowan (Ó hAnluain) was valid and that Alton’s subsequent union to an Englishwoman named Agnes

59 60 Butler, Divorce in Medieval England, pp. 1–3; Reg. Mey, pp. 356–7. Reg. Prene,v,p.138. 61 This family practised intermarriage in the fourteenth century: Smith, Colonisation and Conquest, p. 125. 62 Cappoge is about halfway between Dundalk and Drogheda, several miles east of Ardee. 63 Reg. Prene, v, pp. 221–2, 224. 64 For Gernon, see Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 9–20. For the Mhic Mhathghamhna: K. Simms, ‘The MacMahon pedigree: A medieval forgery’ in D. Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1110–1650 (Dublin, 2004), pp. 27–36; P. Moore, ‘The MacMahons of Monaghan (1500–1593)’, Clogher Record, 1:3 (1955), 22–38. 65 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.165; Smith, Crisis and Survival, pp. 128–9. 153 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 66 Frene was therefore invalid. The Daltons were a large, gaelicized Westmeath family, while Ó hAnluain was a south-eastern Ulster sept that alternatively menaced and made peace with the colony in the fifteenth century. They lived in close proximity to the northern Louth marches and Simms suggests that this motivated them to co-operate with the colonial administration, just as the Mhic Mhathghamhna occasionally did. The waning of Ó hAnluain power in the fifteenth century, in the face of Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill dominance of Ulster, made them particularly keen to ally themselves with the settler families of the 67 marches. Thus, like Gernon’s union with the Mhic Mhathghamhna, this union may have had political/territorial significance and could even be linked to the submission by the Ó hAnluain chief to Richard duke of 68 York, lieutenant of the king in Ireland, in 1449. However, as with the couples who received papal dispensations in the first decades of the fifteenth century, we do not know if Jenkyn and Alice were members of the leading lines of their families. Relatively humble men and women named Gernon and Dalton and anglicized Irish people named Hanlon and Macmahon were resident in the four shires and may have met and 69 married for more personal reasons, now unknown to us. A particularly complicated multi-party matrimonial case came before the archbishop’scourtin1487. Joan Norreys of Termonfeckin sought an annulment of her marriage to William Elise on the basis of her pre-contract with Robert Sowleghan. However, this pre-contract was invalid because Sowleghan was already married to Fynwole ny McMahon (Finnghuala 70 Iníon Mhic Mhathghamhna) when he entered into it. Norreys and Elise are English surnames and MacMathghamhna is the name of the powerful Monaghan sept discussed above, while Sowleghan is probably the Irish 71 Ó Súileacháin. Thus, it is likely that Norreys’ invalidated pre-contract with Sowleghan was interethnic. In another case, dating from 1518, Nicholas Conghor of ‘Maston’ (Mapastown, co. Louth?) appealed the decision of the archiepiscopal court that his marriage to Jenet Courcy was valid. He claimed that he was already married to Jenet Contyn. This

66 Reg. Mey, pp. 266–7. 67 K. Simms, ‘Medieval Armagh: the kingdom of Oirthir (Orior) and its rulers the Uí Annluain (O’Hanlons)’ in A. J. Hughes and W. Nolan (eds), Armagh History and Society (Dublin, 2001), pp. 205–10. 68 Simms, ‘Medieval Armagh’,p.207. 69 MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 75, 145; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland, pp. 209–10; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 29 Henry VI, no. 21. 70 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 21. 71 For Norreys see above, p. 92,n.291. Sowleghan could conceivably be the uncommon English name Solingham, but in that case, Robert’s marriage to Fionnghula would have been a mixed one: MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.280. 154 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage Irishman therefore made marital contracts with two English women in succession, both from families of long standing in the colony, and there were other examples of pre-contract in which both the spouse and the pre- 72 contract partner were of a different ethnicity from the petitioner. In 1520, Thomas Palmer of Tullyallen, just outside Drogheda, sued for a declaration that the marriage between himself and Anisia Gowin (Mac Gabhann)was valid and that her subsequent marriage to Nicholas Conyll was not. He failed to secure such a declaration, and was furthermore ordered to stop interfering with Gowin and Conyll’s marriage.73 We have seen that dispensations for marriage were required if there was an existing familial relationship between the couple, and they could be dissolved on the same grounds. In 1449 William Pumrell sought to have his de facto marriage to Marian neu Odonnony (Muireann (?) Iníon Uí Dhoinneannaigh?) dissolved on the grounds of affinity. Pumrell is most likely Englishinorigin,whileMarianwasIrishandpreservedtheiníon in her 74 name. De facto in this case may signify that the pair never had a church or public marriage ceremony and may indeed relate to an existing impediment 75 to the marriage that prevented it from being canonically approved. William’s argument for the union’s invalidity was that his mother had been Marian’s godmother. Spiritual bonds were considered as binding as ones of blood or sexual relation and thus persons related through god- 76 parents, by ‘spiritual affinity’, could not marry without a dispensation. In 1488, another marriage from Louth was challenged on grounds of affinity but in this case a carnal relationship, not a spiritual one, had created 77 the affinity. The marriage of Matilda ny Mcmaghawun (Ínion Mhic Mhathghamhna)andPatrickMcKenan(Mag Fhionnáin?) was annulled because of Matilda’sprevious‘carnal knowledge’ of Henry Verdon of the

72 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 7:4, 524, 8:3, 188. See Patrick Woulfe for the evolution of Condon in Ireland and the use of ‘t’ and ‘d’ in the name: Sloinnte Gaedeal is Gall, pp. 53–4. Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 301–2. 73 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:2, 183, 186. Gowin and Conyll both bear Irish surnames, while Palmer’s surname was Norman in origin; it was recorded in Ireland since the late twelfth century: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.241;G.O’Keeﬀe, ‘The hospital of St John the Baptist in medieval Dublin: Functions and maintenance’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin IX (Dublin, 2009), pp. 167–70. 74 Reg. Mey, pp. 143–4. Pumrell is attested elsewhere in Louth and has a decidedly English sound to it. It resembles no known Irish surname: Leslie, Armagh Clergy and Parishes,p.237. Marian’s family originated in Tyrone, but the vast majority of marital cases that appear in the archbishop’s registers deal with residents of county Louth. 75 Sheehan, ‘Marriage theory’,p.134. Donahue allows for both meanings of de facto as ‘valid but clandestine’ and ‘attempted but invalid’: C. Donahue, ‘Clandestine’ marriage in the later Middle Ages: A reply’, Law and History Review, 10 (1992), 322. 76 Helmholtz, Canon Law,p.553. 77 M. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family: the de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales, 1066–1316 (Dublin, 2001); Smith, ‘A county community’, 561–88; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.176. 155 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 78 prominent settler family. This case therefore suggests that Ínion Mhic Mhathghamhna and Verdon had a sexual relationship. Furthermore, it tells us that McKenan and Verdon were related within the prohibited degrees since otherwise Matilda’s relationship with Verdon would not have been an impediment to her marriage to McKenan. As we have seen, papal dispensations for marriage within the prohibited degrees were available but divorce on these grounds was not as easy to obtain as some commentators have assumed, and these limits placed constraints on marital choice within the relatively small colonial community and 79 may have encouraged intermarriage with the Irish. This case and others like it, mentioned above, provide, as it were, double evidence of interethnic relations, since interethnic couples were sometimes alreadylinkedbyexistingbondsofmarriageorsexualrelation.Sexual relationships outside marriage were occasionally recorded in other contexts as well; when Archbishop Octavian made a visitation of Louth in 1482, a panel of local men informed him that a number of people had fornicated with one another. Three of these supposedly fornicating couples were Irish but one, Roger Omylyne (Ó Mealláin/ 80 ÓMaolEoin?) and Isabella Myltone, was interethnic. Some marital disputes hinged on the question of consent and two Irishwomen claimed that their marriages to men of settler stock were invalid because they did not enter them willingly. In 1438,thearch- bishop’s court annulled the marriage of Catherine Mckesky 81 (MacAscaidh) to John Cusack of Termonfeckin. Mckesky claimed that she had not consented to the match but only gone along with it after being beaten and coerced by her parents, who hit her so hard with a 82 bed frame that it broke. The archbishops of Armagh, like bishops elsewhere in medieval Europe, generally upheld the right of individuals to refuse marriage and, if lack of consent could be proven along with sufficient ‘fear and force’ to ensure that the petitioner had only gone alone with the match under duress, they would usually grant an 83 annulment. In 1442 the archbishop granted an annulment to another Irish woman, Joanna Ohoire (ÓhÉir?) of Drumcath, co. Louth, who 84 claimed she had been coerced into marriage with William Pembroke.

78 79 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 23. Cosgrove, ‘Consent, consummation and indissolubility’, 100. 80 81 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 460–1. MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.69; Gallwey, ‘Cusack family’. 82 Reg. Swayne,p.165. 83 Cosgrove, ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’,p.43; P. J. Goldberg, ‘Fiction in the archives: the York cause papers as a source for later medieval social history’, Continuity and Change, 12 (1997), 433, 438. 84 Reg. Prene, v, pp. 144–9; A. Cosgrove, ‘The Armagh registers: an underexplored source for late medieval Ireland’, Peritia, 6–7 (1987–8), 312. Pembroke is a Welsh toponymic: MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 146, 243. 156 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage As Cosgrove has noted, Ohoire had a public ceremony and subsequent sexual relations with Pembroke, which in many cases would have been enough to ensure the validity of the marriage, but the archbishop’scourt sided with Ohoire and determined that she had not consented to 85 marriage or to intercourse. If the witnesses in these cases were truthful, and there is no particular reason to doubt them, these are sad cases of physical abuse and, in Ohoire’s case, rape, but there is no reason to think that they related to ethnic tensions and forced marriages also occurred intraethnically.86 Litigants also used the archbishop’s courts to make potential spouses fulfil their promises and proceed with marriage. In 1452, Isabella Conlan (Ó Caoindealbháin?) of Ardee brought just such a case against John Tallon. Isabella had an anglicized surname that was common in Louth and some 87 members of this family had grants of English law. Tallon was the name of an English family associated with southern Leinster, although Tallonstown in Louth, just north of Ardee, attests to their presence in 88 the area. John and Isabella were not married, but she claimed that he had 89 agreed to marry her and reneged on his promise. The church took promises to marry very seriously and pushed couples to marry if they had 90 ever been betrothed. In England, women used the consistory courts to enforce marriage promises more often than men and this was the case in 91 Ireland as well. Many of their suits were successful, but in this case 92 Conlan was unable to provide adequate witnesses for her claim. A strange case that appears in the registers in 1518 may indicate a broken romantic attachment or promise between an Irishman and English woman. Magonius O Congan (Mathghamhain Ó Connacháin?) was accused of repeatedly preventing Isabella Lawless from getting married, and was punished by having to stand in front of his parish congregation in 93 Drumshallan, co. Louth, with a one-pound candle in his hand. The register does not record O Congan’s motives, or his connection to

85 86 Cosgrove, ‘Consent, consummation and indissolubility’, 102. Reg. Mey, pp. 199–200. 87 88 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 9 Henry V, no. 37. MacLysaght, Surnames,p.282. 89 Conlan is the version of several Irish names, but the most common in Leinster is Ó Caoindealbháin: MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 45–6. 90 L. R. Poos, ‘Heavy handed marriage counsellor: regulating marriage in some later medieval English local ecclesiastical court jurisdictions’, American Journal of Legal History, 39:3 (1995), 298–9, 301. 91 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 7:4, 520; ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:1, 44, 49;Jefferies, ‘Church courts on eve of reform’, 11–13. Although the proportion of female plaintiffs for such actions was not as large in the fifteenth century as it was in the fourteenth, they remained the majority of plaintiffs in York: C. Donahue, ‘Female plaintiffs in marriage cases in the court of York in the later Middle Ages: What can we learn from the numbers?’ in S. Sheridan Walker (ed.), Wife and Widow in Medieval England (Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 194–7, 201–2. 92 93 Reg. Mey,p.198. For the Lawless family see pp. 238 below. 157 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Lawless, but he may have been harbouring hopes of marrying her himself 94 or objecting on the basis of a pre-existing agreement with her. One way to prevent future disputes about the validity of a marriage was to enrol a record of it in the archbishop’s registers and one interethnic couple, Shaglyn/Schaghlun Carnele and Joanna Rochford, did just this in 1460. They married in a house in Drogheda and this informal and private venue for the ceremony may have prompted them to ensure that the 95 marriage was recorded. Rochford was the name of a widespread English family of the colony, while Carnele may be Ó Catharnaigh, a Meath Irish 96 family, or Ó Conghaile of Monaghan. Unusually, Carnele retained an Irish first name [Maol] Seachlainn. This indicates that he was somewhat less anglicized than many of the other Irish spouses of colonists in the four shires. Indeed, significant onomastic assimilation among the Irish resident in the four shires presents problems in even identifying interethnic marriages and a number of other marriages mentioned in the context of marital disputes were also probably interethnic but the surname evidence is not sufficient to make a strong case.97 Interethnic couples occasionally appeared before the archbishop’s court in connection with cases that had nothing to do with their marriage, such as probate cases. At the close of the fifteenth century, an Irish man named Seth O’Galy (Ó Ceallaigh?) of Termonfeckin was married to a settler woman named Joan Symcock when he testified in an inquiry into 98 the possessions of her deceased husband, John Thonder. Robert Brangane (Ó Branagáin) was described as the husband of Alison Rowe in 1502, during a probate dispute over the goods of Alison’s deceased husband William Rede. Rowe probably represents an English surname. If so, Alison’s marriage to Brangane was interethnic; if Rowe is a rendering of the Irish ruadh, which is possible, her first marriage to William Rede 99 would have been. In 1522, a case was convened to determine whether William Kinton of Stabannon was the legitimate heir of his father, and

94 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 7:4, 520. Drumshallan is located just north of Drogheda and west of Termonfeckin. 95 Reg. Fleming,p.265; Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.53. 96 Carnelley is a Norman name but given that this man lived in Louth and bore an Irish ﬁrst name, the Irish provenance is vastly more likely: Reaney and Wilson, Dictionary English Surnames,p.84; MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 171, 259. 97 See pp. 21–3 for comments on surname identiﬁcation. The possibly interethnic couples were John McCann (Mac Cana) and Anasia FitzJohn; Isabella Kerulan (Ó Cearbhalláin) and John Bridin; Robert Kitale and Katharina ny Hynnery (Ínion Úí Inneirghe); Joan Knock and Hugo Myghyn (Ó Miadhacháin): ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:3, 272; A. Cosgrove, ‘Marriage and marriage litigation in medieval Ireland’ in P. Reynolds and J. White (eds), To Have and to Hold: Marrying and its Documentation in Western Christendom, 400–1600 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 351–3; Reg. Octavian,i,p.64, ii, pp. 674– 5; ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:2, 179, 183, 186, 8:3, 264. 98 99 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 736–7. Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 173–4. 158 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage two of the witnesses were Dermitius O Hamyll (Diarmait Ó hÁdhmaill) 100 and Genet Howed, husband and wife. Ó hÁdhmaill was an Ulster surname used by a branch of the Cenel Eoghain, some of whom established themselves in Louth by the fifteenth century, while Howed may be Howlett, a name used by an Anglo-Norman Leinster family, or 101 Howard. Diarmait was less anglicized, onomastically, than most Irish partners in interethnic marriages but, as we have seen, there was a wide range. A number of Irishwomen who were betrothed to, or married, settler men of the four shires in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries preserved iníon uí surnames. Sabina Necarvell (Sadhbh Iníon Uí 102 Chearbhaill) was the wife of Nicholas Kenver and Katerina ny Mawon (Iníon Mhic Mhathghamhna) was affianced to John Dawe before her 103 untimely death. Sadhbh did not take her husband’s surname (which fits the tendency in the colony and in Irish practice for women to use natal, not married surnames) and neither woman anglicized their Irish 104 surname to any great extent. These two women, like Diarmait O Hamyll, were not so unusual in having unanglicized surnames but it is striking that they seem not to have been married to members of significant local elite families. Most onomastically unanglicized Irish partners in intermarriages from Louth in the first half of the fifteenth century were members of high-status Irish families from outside the colony, linked by strategic intermarriage to marcher elites of the four shires. By the later fifteenth century, unanglicized names appear in more humble intermarriages and were borne by Irish people who were probably already resident in Louth before the marriage. This confirms the shift towards a less 105 anglicized Irish population in Louth that has already been noted. The archbishop’s registers are a particularly rich source for married couples but they appear in other sources and contexts. One couple from Carlingford featured a relatively unanglicized Irish partner: John Glasse (glás – grey-haired) Omorghy (Ó Murchadha), whose widow, Matilda Messynge, leased lands in the town in 1487. John’s name appeared in the same indenture in a considerably more anglicized form as ‘John Morghy’,

100 101 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:4, 331. MacLysaght, Surnames,p.163. 102 Reg. Prene, v, pp. 82, 138. 103 ‘Reg. Cromer’, 8:3, 271. Katerina was Irish on both her maternal and paternal side, as her mother’s name was Iníon Uí Raghalliagh, another north midlands Irish family. Dawe, on the other hand, was an English name that had been in Ireland since at least the late thirteenth century, and was associated with Dublin and perhaps Meath: CJR, i, pp. 143, 303, 330, 340; CJR, ii, pp. 233, 316, 320, 479, 483–4, 500. 104 Many women do not appear with surnames but rather with identiﬁers like ‘the wife of’, ‘daughter of’, etc. Those that do appear with surnames favour natal family names not married ones. See, for example, Ormond Deeds, vols ii and iii, passim, and the slightly higher proportion of married names in Dublin, though still the minority: CCD, pp. 157–224. 105 See pp. 51–2. 159 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland a demonstration of the way that anglicized and unanglicized aliases were 106 sometimes used alongside one another. Mixed married couples appear in conveyancing documents from county Dublin in the second half of the fifteenth century: Juliana Loghlyn (Ó Lachtnáin/Ó Lochlainn) and John 107 Bicoll, and Dionisius More (Ó Mórdha) and Joan Boyscher. Testamentary material from Dublin provides further evidence of mixed marriages in the city and county in the later fifteenth century. These marriages often involved members of long-established settler families like Walsh and Fleming, as well as members of Irish families that were also 108 long-established in the region, like the Kelly and Neill families. One of several mixed marriages in the Kelly family is referenced in the will of 1487 of John Staunton, who was enfeoffed of the land of Thomas Newbery, former mayor of Dublin. Staunton stipulated that two mes- suages of land in Skinner’s Row, inside the Dublin city walls, be given to 109 one Thomas Kelly. Thomas was the son of Alison Newbery and grandson of Mayor Newbery and his wife Dame Margaret Nugent. He was therefore maternally descended from high-status members of the urban 110 settler community of Dublin and paternally from the Kelly family. Thus, even high-status urban families like that of the mayor of Dublin engaged in intermarriage, although the names of mixed couples from Dublin show that the Irish spouse was generally significantly anglicized. This was the case more consistently in Dublin than in Louth, which fits with the overall evidence about the onomastic anglicization of the Irish residents of each 111 county. This high level of anglicization in Dublin is evident in the richest single source for mixed marriages in the city – the franchise roll, which survives for the period 1468–1512. It records the names of people who gained the franchise of the city, some by virtue of their spouse’s citizenship. The majority of marriages mentioned were between English partners, but a

106 Dowdall Deeds, pp. 207–8. 107 Alen’s Reg.,p.242. The ﬁrst suggestion is not the usual Irish version of O’Loughlin, but MacLysaght suggests that the Meath branch of O’Loughlins, of whom this Juliana is most likely a member, were originally O’Loughnane: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.198. Bic- is a common sound in English names, meaning beekeeper, but the name Bicoll was not common: Reaney and Wilson, Dictionary of English Surnames, pp. 42–3. Dionysius is a Latinate name that may have been used as a cognate of ‘Domhnall’ or ‘Donnchadh’ in some English sources, but it is attested in the Annals as a name in Irish community: Otway-Ruthven, ‘Unpublished calendar of Talbot MSS’, document of 18 February 1491; AC, s.a. 1231; AU, s.a. 1216, 1225, 1231. 108 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 18, 65; Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 57, 69; Obits of Christchurch, p. 51. 109 Dublin City Franchise Rolls,p.60. 110 Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 78–9; M. A. Lyons, ‘Lay female piety and church patronage in late medieval Ireland’ in B. Bradshaw (ed.), Christianity in Ireland: Revisiting the Story (Dublin, 2002), p. 68. 111 See pp. 51–2, 58–9. 160 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage significant minority were mixed (12 per cent or 13 per cent). Several enfranchised Irishwomen had English husbands who gained the franchise through them. These women may have been awarded citizenship through a former husband or a father, or because they possessed a skill or craft that 112 made them attractive as citizens in their own right. Marrying into the franchise of a town or city was an established path for Irishmen seeking citizenship in the colony’s towns and the city council of Waterford dictated in 1465 and 1469–70 that even if a man ‘of Irish blode’ married the wife (presumably widow!) or daughter of a freeman, he must also purchase a grant of English law from the king. If Irishmen did not fulfil this prerequi- 113 site, both he and his wife would lose their franchise. There is no record that the Dublin city council attempted to regulate enfranchisement by marriage in the way that Waterford did. This may have been because such a high proportion of the Irish of Dublin city were highly anglicized and may have purchased grants of English law or had an inherited entitle- 114 ment to it. The first intermarriage that appears in the franchise roll is that of Nicholas Nangle, who became a citizen of Dublin by right of his (Irish) 115 wife, Johanna Ryan, in 1470. A further three interethnic couples appeared in the rolls for 1475 and 1476. In two of these cases the Irish 116 wife was the citizen first. A member of the Kelly family, Walter, was enfranchised in 1478 by right of his marriage to Margery Dennyse, and Isabel Kelly’s citizenship allowed her husband Henry Kenwyke to become 117 a citizen in 1500. In 1480, Milo Coffyn gained the franchise of the city through his wife, Katherine Boyane (ÓBaoighealláin?), and in 1495 John Cougane (ÓCuagáin) became a citizen through his marriage to Joneta 118 Locum. Coffin and Locum are relatively unusual surnames in the 119 colony, but both are of English origin. The citizenry of Dublin were members of an urban elite and, although many litigants in the archbishop’s courts seem not to have come from the

112 Irish women like Cecelia Colman and Margaret Hedyan were admitted at the instance of the mayor, suggesting that, perhaps, they had a craft needed in the city: CARD,i,p.347; Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.39. 113 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.307; Walton, Royal Charters of Waterford,p.34. 114 Such entitlements existed for the direct descendants of Irish people who purchased grants of English law and, perhaps, for families like the Neills: See above pp. 68–71, 84. 115 116 CARD,i,p.334. Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 10, 11. 117 Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 12, 36. Dennis is an old French name found mainly in Dublin: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.79. 118 Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 15, 31.O’Boyhan is a Westmeath Irish name, but the original Gaelic form is uncertain. This name may also be Ó Baoighealláin, an Irish name from Louth and Meath: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.23; MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.44. 119 Coﬃn is originally a Norman name and Milo is also a name favoured by colonists and not the Irish. Locum has an English sound, and does not bear a resemblance to any Irish surname: M. A. Lower, A Dictionary of Surnames (Ware, Hertfordshire, 1988), pp. 64–5. 161 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland elite, some, like the Verdons and Gernons, may have been significant landowners and local figures. Intermarriages among the landed elite, and especially among the most powerful settler lineages in the colony, is the phenomenon that has been most often discussed in the secondary literature and therefore will be explored in less detail here. Much of the evidence for such marriages in the four shires relates to the later fifteenth- century earls of Kildare and the extended Geraldine lineage. In 1480,for example, Eleanor, sister of the eighth earl of Kildare, married Conn Ó Néill, son and successor of the Ó Néill chief Énri. The resurgent Uí Néill were a valuable ally in the north of Ireland for the earl, whose powerbase was in the south and east, and this match linked the pre-eminent settler and Irish families of the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The earls of Kildare, like noblemen across Europe, used marriage strategically and strengthened their network of allies with marriages to both English 120 and Irish elites. The eighth earl was criticized for these marriages and other family ties with the Irish but his network of Irish allies was one of 121 his great strengths. The Irish parliament, doubtless because of the earl’s power and position as deputy lieutenant from 1479 to 1483, did not seek to punish Eleanor Fitzgerald for her marriage but rather facilitated it by granting English law to Ó Néill and to the couple’s children and being careful to stipulate that Conn and Eleanor and their issue could hold land, plead in the colony’s courts, and be ‘adjudged 122 English’. The eighth earl also married at least two of his six daughters from his first marriage to powerful Irish lords. His daughter Alice married her cousin, Art Og Ó Néill of Tyrone, and his daughter Eleanor married 123 Domhnall Mac Carthaigh Riabhach of Carbery. Mac Cathaigh Riabhach also had family ties, albeit more distant ones, to his Geraldine 124 wife, since his mother was daughter of the earl of Desmond. When Eleanor was widowed, she married Maghnus Ó Domhnaill and this, like other high-profile intermarriages in the house of Kildare, was politically motivated. Eleanor sought Ó Domhnaill’s assistance to protect her nephew Gerald, heir to the earldom, in the wake of the Geraldine rebellion. Ó Domhnaill aided her and the young Gerald initially but the marriage quickly broke down and Eleanor fled to France with her

120 S. G. Ellis, ‘A crisis of the aristocracy? Frontiers and noble power in the early Tudor state’ in J. Guy (ed.), The Tudor Monarchy (London, 1997), p. 337. 121 Patrick Finglas, ‘The Decay of Ireland’ in Cal. Carew,i,p.3; G. O. Sayles, ‘The vindication of the earl of Kildare from treason in 1496’, IHS, 7:25 (1950), 39–47. 122 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.787. 123 S. G. Ellis, ‘Gerald Fitzgerald, eighth earl of Kildare (1456?–1513)’, ODNB. 124 E. O’Byrne, ‘Domhnall MacCarthy (Mac Carthaigh)’, DIB. 162 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage 125 nephew. The earls of Kildare seem to have avoided marrying Irishwomen themselves or marrying their heirs to them, a point to which we shall return, but the eighth earl’s younger son, Oliver Fitzgerald of Belagh, married Maedhbh, daughter of Cathaoir Ó Conchobhair in the 126 early sixteenth century, and founded a cadet line in Westmeath. Members of other cadet Geraldine lines, of which there were a great many, intermarried with the Irish. Several Geraldines of Allen, based in central/west Kildare, married or had less formal sexual relationships with Irish people in this period, many of them from local Irish families who were 127 their neighbours. Significant marcher landowners from Louth and Meath also intermarried with Irish elites. The parliament rolls for 1467 record that John Haddesors of Cappoge, co. Louth was married to the daughter of Mac Mathghamhna, 128 ‘the King’s Irish enemy’. The account of Haddesors’ marriage was contained in a petition of Nicholas Broun, who arrested Haddesors and sought a reward for doing so. Haddesors was accused of arson, robbery, and 129 murder and the kidnapping and ransoming of Englishmen. Broun’s petition used gruesome stories to stress Haddesors’ villainy, accusing him of killing the gaoler of Trim Castle and the gaoler’s wife, who was heavy with child, and of murdering George Taaffe and throwing his body to be eaten by dogs. Haddesors’ marriage to Aodh Ruadh Mac Mathghamhna’s (d.1453) daughter Grainne, his use of the ‘inhuman manners of the Irish Enemies’ and his alliance with the powerful Irish families of Ó hAnluain, Mac Mathghamhna, and Ó Raghallaigh were presented 130 as other facets of his criminal behaviour. The language and stories may have been exaggerated to suit Broun’s aim of getting a reward from the Irish parliament (and he succeeded in this), but there is no reason to doubt that Haddesors’ marriage occurred, since it is also referenced in the registers 131 of Archbishop Octavian of Armagh. Although his family had a long history of service in local government, the events of 1467 did not constitute 132 the first run-in between John Haddesors and the Dublin administration. He was attainted for various crimes in 1447 and 1456 but his attainder

125 E. McKenna, ‘Was there a political role for women in Medieval Ireland? Lady Margaret Butler and Lady Eleanor MacCarthy’ in C. Meek and K. Simms (eds), ‘The Fragility of Her Sex?: Medieval Irishwomen in the European Context (Dublin, 1996), pp. 171–3; J. J. Silke, ‘Manus O’Donnell, lord of Tyrconnell (d. 1563)’, ODNB. 126 K. W. Nicholls, ‘The descendants of Oliver FitzGerald of Belagh’, IG, 4:1 (1968), 2–3, 5. 127 K. W. Nicholls, ‘Geraldines of Allen’, IG, 4:1 (1968), 94–5, 98; Lyons, Church and Society,p.78. 128 129 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.611. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 611–13. 130 These Irish families were all based on the western marches of the four shires in the Irish midlands. 131 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 131. 132 D. Hodgers, ‘The “rebellion” of John Hadsor, c. 1446–1468’, JCLAHS, 27:4 (2012), 569, 571; Dowdall Deeds, pp. 115, 130; Frame, ‘Commissions of the peace’, 21–2. 163 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland was retracted in 1458, when he promised to ‘be of good rule and 133 conduct’ in future and to wear ‘English dress’. Haddesors was therefore already somewhat gaelicized, at least sartorially, and this may have been the case for many marchers who married Irish people; intermarriage was both a result of and vehicle for cultural exchange. Haddesors’ détente with the colonial administration did not last long and his lands had been confiscated by 1462 (perhaps after an attack on Robert Clynton in 1460) and this confiscation may have been a prompt for his attacks on Louth in 134 the 1460s. This is one of only a few mixed marriages recorded in fifteenth-century parliamentary records, along with those relating to land 135 confiscations as a result of these forbidden unions. Like the other mixed marriages noted in the parliament rolls, this involved a significant landowner (and Haddesors was called ‘gentleman’ in some sources) and it was presented negatively. An unsuccessful elite intermarriage was that between Margery, daughter of the marcher lord William Darcy of Platten, and Aodh Dubh Ó 136 Domhnaill, chief of the Uí Dhomhnaill in 1520. This marriage was an anomaly in a marcher family which generally married into other English families of the four counties and took place, in Steven Ellis’ opinion, ‘in the first flush of optimism after Surrey’s arrival, when, briefly, it was 137 thought that O’Donnell might become a loyal subject’. The bride’s father had identified ‘maryages and nowrishynges [milk fostering?] dailye making with the kynges Irishe rebelles’ as a key problem for the colony only five years earlier but this marriage was, of course, to an Irishman who 138 was not a ‘rebel’ at the time of the union. In any case, it did not last, and must have been annulled, since Margery was free to marry James Fitzgerald, son of the eighth earl of Kildare, several years before 139 O’Donnell’s death in 1537. Intermarriage and less formal sexual relationships between the English and Irish were therefore found across the four shires and in all grades of settler society, but more precise quantification of their prevalence is problematic. As elsewhere in the English territories, there are no records from Ireland which listed marriages as part of their raison d’être before the 140 parish registers of the early modern period. Records of marriages and the names of married couples therefore appear in the course of other business, like conveyances, testamentary material, and court rolls, and

133 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 93–5, 441–5, 531–5, 755. 134 135 Stat. Ire., Edw. IV, pp. 69–77; Hodgers, ‘John Hadsor’, 573. See above pp. 146–7. 136 137 Barnewall, ‘Darcy of Platten’, 411. Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.37. 138 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.91. 139 Barnewall, ‘Darcy of Platten’, pp. 403–11; Bradshaw, Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 41, 67. 140 C. Cox, The Parish Registers of England (2nd edn, Totowa, NJ, 1974), pp. 1–24, 235–40. 164 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage these source collections are incomplete and chronologically uneven. Thus, the total number of marriages recorded of any type, interethnic or not, is low and it is a matter of chance which marriages are mentioned in the sources that survive. Despite these difficulties, calculating the proportion of mixed marriages out of all marriages mentioned in a single source collection does give an impressionistic view of how prevalent they were. These proportions are the roughest of guides, for the reasons outlined here, but they fall between 5.1 per cent and 20 per cent of marriages in the main sources surveyed. Thus, most marriages were 141 endogamous, but interethnic marriage was not exceptional. What patterns emerge from this body of interethnic marriages and sexual relationships from the four shires? With regard to chronological distribution, few examples survive from the first two decades of the fifteenth century. This could indicate that such marriages became more common as the century progressed, which would make sense given the influx of Irish migrants in the fifteenth century. However, it may be an illusion of the irregular and inconsistently spread primary sources. The same holds true for the geographical distribution of these marriages. Few are recorded in Meath and Kildare, which were home to a great many Irish people, but, unlike Louth, these counties did not fall into archdiocese of Armagh, nor did they have the excellent civic record survivals of Dublin. Although it cannot be firmly established, it is likely that both of these counties had even higher numbers of mixed marriages than Louth and Dublin but fewer sources to record these unions. The proportion of urban and rural mixed marriages examined here is also determined largely by the production and survival of sources. Despite their contemporary and subsequent reputation as bastions of Englishness in the colony, urban settlements were home to the majority of the interethnic couples discussed above. However, again, the sources do not report rural and urban areas equally; the franchise rolls, for example, deal only with urban couples. Thus, the sources provide a fractured picture of intermarriage in the four counties but, when and where they exist, there are instances of intermarriage. We might reasonably extrapolate from this that intermarriage was widespread throughout the four shires and throughout the later Middle Ages. With regard to the social distribution of intermarriage, it was not confined to the lower strata of society, nor was it found only among the 142 elite, whose mixed marriages are best known. Elite intermarriages in

141 S. Booker, ‘Intermarriage in ﬁfteenth-century Ireland: The English and Irish in the “four obedient shires”’, PRIA, 113c(2013), 229. 142 See above, pp. 161–4. 165 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Ireland, as elsewhere, often had identifiable political and strategic motivations and politically deft marriages with the Irish were one way in which 143 settler elites created and maintained networks of Irish allies. However, many of the mixed couples who appear in the franchise rolls and the Armagh registers were of a middling status, being townspeople or craftsmen, and their marriages may have been motivated by a wide range of personal, economic, and social considerations, the intricacies of which are sadly lost to us. Whatever their motivations, they must have outweighed the possible legal and social sanctions that could arise from marrying an Irish person. Cultural anglicization and procurement of English law on the part of some, though by no means all, of the Irish partners of colonists may have lessened these dangers in some cases. Grants of English law may have been particularly useful for Irish women marrying Englishmen and hoping to claim dower or jointure land upon widowhood: in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries complaints about Irish widows of colonists not 144 being able to claim these entitlements were common. More frequent grants of English law probably lessened this problem by the fifteenth century, at least among those who could afford them. The marriages of low status people were rarely recorded in sources, so we cannot know how often low status settlers married Irish people, although presumably they sometimes did so, given that marriages were usually contracted between people of similar social standing and the Irish were over-represented in the 145 lowest levels of society in the colony. Some settler families, particularly in the Dublin area, stalwartly refused 146 to marry people of Irish ancestry. This could be a difficult stance to maintain in the small colonial community, where church laws against

143 Ellis, ‘A crisis of the aristocracy?’,p.337; D. B. Quinn, ‘“Irish” Ireland and “English” Ireland’ in NHI, ii, pp. 623, 629; S. G. Ellis, ‘Gerald Fitzgerald, eighth earl of Kildare (1456?–1513)’, ODNB. MacDonald has identified marriage as a key to accommodation and diplomatic relationships between the Scottish and Anglo-Norman nobility in the high Middle Ages: R. A. McDonald, ‘Matrimonial politics and core-periphery interactions in twelfth and early thirteenth-century Scotland’, JMH, 21:3 (1995), 227–47. 144 G. Kenny, ‘Anglo-Irish and Gaelic marriage laws and traditions in late medieval Ireland’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 38. 145 Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.90. 146 The St Lawrence family, for example, avoided marriage with the Irish, as did the Barnewalls, Talbots and other families. However, they did marry into families like the Nugents and Dillons, who intermarried with the Irish, and so were connected to Irish people, albeit more distantly, via the extended web of marital connections in the four counties: S. B. Barnewall, ‘Seventeenth century Dublin leather merchants’, IG, 5:2 (1975), 181–6; S. B. Barnewall, ‘Barnewall of Kilbrew, co. Meath’, IG, 6:1 (1980), 9–17; McGowan-Doyle, The Book of Howth, esp. chapter 2; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 121–43. Genealogies like that found in Christopher Cusack’s commonplace book of 1511 (TCD MS 594, ff 3v, 4r-5v, 34v – 35v) and the Geraldine genealogies from the sixteenth century found in TCD MS 1212, ff. display the deeply interwoven nature of Pale families. 166 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage marriage between relatives combined with secular regulations against marriage with the Irish to limit marital choice. That the marital pool was restricted is confirmed by sixteenth-century commentators and par- 147 liamentary legislation. According to a complaint of the commons in the Irish parliament in 1531, statutes against marriage with the Irish and resulting endogamous marriage among some ‘Gentilmen of the Englishe pale’ led to a situation where ‘in effecte they all be kyn and alied to gider [together] by consanguynyte or affyntye’. This delayed legal actions in the colony, since it was difficult to find jurors and court officials who were not related to the litigants and one side could challenge the legitimacy of 148 proceedings on those grounds. About ten years later, the Irish parliament again addressed this problem by lowering both the property requirements for jurors and the degrees of relation to one of the litigants 149 needed to disqualify them. We might expect gendered patterns of intermarriage, as were found in some colonial situations, where men from the colonising community more often married or had sexual relationships with native women than 150 the reverse. In the four shires, however, this was not the case and significant numbers of women from the settler community married Irish 151 men. This may be in part because the colonial community was well- established by the later Middle Ages and there was no shortage of women in it, in contrast with the gender ratios that often prevail in the earlier stages of colonial settlement. However, the marriage of these women to Irish men could present a particular problem: their lands fell under the 152 control, though not ownership, of their husbands. This was not problematic in all cases, as we know, and many people of Irish descent held land in the four shires. If, however, the Irish husband in question was considered an ‘Irish enemy’, their foothold in the colony was more

147 Fynes Moryson, ‘Manners and customs of Ireland’, CELT,p.318. 148 Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, 131; A. Musson, ‘Twelve good men and true? The character of early fourteenth-century juries’, Law and History Review, 15:1 (1997), 132. 149 Quinn, ‘Bills and Statutes’, 158–9. 150 K. DuVal, ‘Indian intermarriage and métissage in colonial Louisiana’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 6:2 (2008), 267–305; R. Hyam, Empire and Sexuality: the British Experience (New York, 1990), pp. 92, 95, 115; A. L. Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire (Durham, NC, 1995), p. 42. 151 Kenny, Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women,p.87. 152 Coverture was not absolute or monolithic, as recent scholarship has highlighted, but it was largely in place in higher secular courts of the colony: K. Simms, ‘Women in Norman Ireland’ in M. Maccurtain and D. Ó Corráin (ed.), Women in Irish Society: the Historical Dimension (Dublin, 1978), pp. 14–25; K. W. Nicholls, ‘Irishwomen and property in the sixteenth century’ in M. Maccurtain and M. O’Dowd (ed.), Women in Early Modern Ireland (Edinburgh, 1991), pp. 17–31; C. Beattie and M. F. Stevens (eds), Married Women and the Law in Premodern Northwestern Europe (Woodbridge, 2013), esp. chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7; M. F. Stevens, ‘London women, the courts and the “Golden Age”: A quantitative analysis of female litigants in the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth centuries’, The London Journal, 37:2 (2012), 75; Butler, ‘Discourse of coverture’,p.39. 167 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 153 threatening, as the case of Elizabeth Calf demonstrates. Patrick Finglas made no distinction between the two types of intermarriage, when he wrote in c. 1537 that ‘no man of the kynges Englishe subiectes possessed of landes or tenements shoulde marye any woman of Irishe nation, ne noo women to marye a man of Irishe nation upon payne of forfayitor of all 154 their lands and tenements’. He distinguished between those ‘Englishe subiectes’ who held land and those that did not, suggesting that he felt that the transfer of assets to Irish people was the essential problem with intermarriage, but he made no comment on the ways that this transfer differed depending on gender. Other discussions of intermarriage usually focused not on land but on the cultural and political links that arose from 155 the practice, which would arise regardless of the type of intermarriage. The enactments of the Irish parliament, for example, did not distinguish between the two types of intermarriage, and social pressure against intermarriage also seems to have applied to settler men marrying Irish women just as the reverse. Overall, and despite the differing land implications, both types of intermarriage seem to have been considered undesirable. A problem that arose from both types of intermarriage was the creation of half-Irish and half-English children. This had legal, as well as cultural and political, implications. The legal status of the children of mixed couples should not have been at issue in cases where the Irish parent had access to English law. In Dublin in particular, this may have included a significant proportion of Irish people from established local families. However, the resistance in fifteenth-century inquisitions into ethnicity to admitting to Irish ancestry suggests that even these grants did not protect people of Irish ancestry from all discrimination. In Louth, and presumably Kildare and Meath, there were some less anglicized Irish partners in mixed marriages, particularly by the later fifteenth century, and many of them probably did not have access to English law. Thus, there would have been a significant number of half-Irish/half-English people living in the four shires who were the children of Irish people without English law. They were not in any worse a position than full-blooded Irish people without English law, some of whom were able to live in the colony with relative success, as we have seen, but their Irish ancestry could be mobilized against them in disputes and some of the people who were accused of being Irish in the cases examined in chapter two may have been the products of mixed marriages.

153 154 See above pp. 146–7. Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 28–9, 72. 155 For explication of the presumed links between culture, marriage, and allegiance: Spenser, ‘View of a present state of Ireland’ in A. Grosart (ed.), The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Edmund Spenser (London, 1884), ix, pp. 106–7. 168 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage Thetypeofintermarriage,whetherbetweenanIrishmanandEnglish- woman or an Irishwoman and Englishman, may have influenced the status of the half-Irish children that resulted. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century inquisitions into ethnicity focused on surnames, passed down the father’s family line, to determine Irish or English status, and genealogies, heraldry, and some medical theories of the time also centred on paternal lines of 156 descent. This was the way that villienage in England (a state sometimes compared to Irish status in the colony) was transferred in marriages between villeins and free persons – legitimate children normally inherited their 157 father’s legal status. It makes sense then, that Eleanor FitzGerald felt it necessary to seek charters of English law for her Irish husband and any future children when she married in c. 1480, but it is somewhat more surprising that James Butler and his Irish wife, Sadhbh Cháomhánach, also did so. They sought to ensure that their sons were adjudged legitimate (by procur- ing a papal bull legitimating their marriage) and that there could be no challenge to their English legal status (by purchasing a grant of English law for Sadhbh). This couple’s petition to the Irish parliament emphasized the problem of legitimacy rather than that of Irish ancestry, which may suggest that James and Sadhbh were most concerned about challenges to their sons on that score. Nevertheless, they clearly were not certain that Butler’s English status would pass to their sons; this was probably a particular danger 158 forpeoplewhoselegitimacywascontested. On balance, it seems that the paternal bloodline was more important than the maternal in determining legal status but contemporary sources which discussed ethnicity and even legal status sometimes mentioned both paternal and maternal blood

156 The importance of the father’sinfluence on the character of his children was emphasized in Aristotelian ideas of heredity, which were current in fifteenth-century Ireland. Aristotle argued that women provided only the matter to make the child, while the father determined what traits and characteristic the child would exhibit. TCD MS 667,afifteenth-century manuscript from Ireland displays these ideas with its assertion that ‘septem sunt cellule in matrice mulieris, tres in dextera et tres in sinistra et una in medio. Si semen ceciderit in dextera, filius erit, et si in sinestra, filia erit, et si in medio, ermofodricus erit et si semen ceciderit a dextera in sinistram uir feminalis erit et si cecederit a sinistra in dexteram, mulier virilis erit’–‘There are seven cells in the womb of women, three on the right, and three on the left and one in the middle. If semen should fall on the right, it will be a son, and if it should fall on the left, it will be a daughter, and if it falls in the middle, it will be a hermaphrodite and if it should fall from the right into the left it will be womanly man, and if it should fall from the left to the right, it will be a masculine woman’: TCD MS 667,p.160; Colker, Descriptive Catalogue, ii, p. 1123. Galen’s theories, which gave men and women a more equal role in shaping the child, were known in early modern England, and likely too in the English colony in Ireland: B. Hindson, ‘Attitudes towards menstruation and menstrual blood in Elizabethan England’, Journal of Social History, 45:1 (2009), 92. 157 Murphy, ‘Status of the native Irish’, 125–6. Jurists did not agree in the early thirteenth century but by the end of the century, in most cases ‘a child took his father’s status’, both in theory and in practice: P. Hyams, ‘The proof of villain status in the common law’, EHR, 89:353 (1974), 741–2. 158 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. VI, pp. 487–9; Ormond Deeds, iii, pp. 199–203, 205–6. 169 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 159 lines. There was no clearly established rule to ensure that children with an Irish mother were not subject to legal or social discrimination and intermarriage of both types may have carried a small, but significant, risk of future discrimination. This may have motivated families like the Fitzgeralds of Kildare to ensure that the ruling male line in the family remained English on both sides, maternal as well as paternal. Though they were perfectly willing to marry daughters and sisters to Irishmen, as well as sons who were not in line to inherit, the earls did not marry Irishwomen themselves, nor did they marry their eldest sons to them. This same pattern was repeated in 160 other branches of the Geraldines, both in the four shires and elsewhere. Concerns about bloodline, and perhaps an awareness among elites that they could be criticized by the English of England for marrying Irish people, may have made them wary of allowing intermarriage in the leading line of the 161 family. Fosterage and godparenthood between the English and Irish did not occasion problems about Irish land ownership or about mixed ancestry but they nevertheless alarmed the colonial administration and prompted 162 prohibitive legislation. These familial relationships, like marriage, forged bonds between families and could be used to garner political and economic advantage. In English and in Irish culture, the bond between a godparent and godchild was an important one: parents would seek to provide their children with influential godparents to help them over the course of their lives. Godchildren were often named after their godparents, honouring the godparent and, in theory, strengthening the 163 relationship. Fosterage established even stronger links between a child and his or her foster family. It was common among Irish elites and 164 found in Wales and Scotland, as well as elsewhere in Europe. Children were raised not in their family home, but in the homes of allies or clients of their parents, sometimes from infancy. This practice and the strong ties

159 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.585, The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns, 4 vols (Dublin, 1994), ii, pp. 156–7. 160 Booker, Geraldines, pp. 293–301; Barnewall, ‘Darcy of Platten’, 403–22; Cox, ‘The Dillon lords, part one’, 71–4; Cox, ‘The Dillon lords, part two’, 87; Dillon, ‘Cnoc Diolún’, 364–5. 161 M. O’Dowd, ‘Women and the law in early modern Ireland’ in C. Meek (ed.), Women in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe (Dublin, 2000), p. 101. 162 I use the term godparenthood rather than gossipred since gossipred could signify not just godparenthood but other forms of association, oathtaking, and pledging between adults: Fitzsimons, ‘Fosterage and gossipred’, pp. 138–52. 163 Verstraten, ‘Naming practices’,p.50; R. Lutton, ‘Godparenthood, kinship and piety in Tenterden, England 1449–1537’ in I. Davis, M. Müller, and S. Rees Jones (eds), Love, Marriage and Family Ties in the Later Middle Ages (Turnhout, 2003), p. 231. 164 P. Parkes, ‘Celtic fosterage: Adoptive kinship and clientage in northwest Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 48:2 (2006), 359–95 and for what is still the most comprehensive account of Irish fosterage, see S. Ó h-Innse, ‘Fosterage in early and medieval Ireland’ unpublished Ph.D thesis, University College Galway (1943). 170 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage it created, which often superseded ties of blood, horrified English com- 165 mentators from the twelfth century into and beyond the sixteenth. Unlike many Irish partners in non-elite intermarriages, Irish parties in fostering were not generally inhabitants of the four shires and were not anglicized. Fosterage in the four shires was transacted largely between settler families and elite Irish families from outside the colony. In this sense, it is much like those elite intermarriages that were undertaken for political and strategic ends. An ordinance of the Irish parliament of 1359–60 linked gaelicization and fosterage, claiming, quite plausibly, that English children fostered in Irish homes grew up as Irish speakers. Indeed it alleged that some of the English of Ireland who fostered their children with the Irish did so for the 166 express reason of teaching them the language. The colonial administration did not see familiarity with the Irish language in such a positive light and fostering children with the Irish was banned in 1351, 1357, 1366, 167 and 1430, though exemptions were issued on an individual basis. Gossipred (in this context meaning both godparenthood and perhaps other ties solemnized by oath) with the Irish was also prohibited in 168 1430. In times of particular anxiety for the English in Wales, fosterage with the Welsh was prohibited for similar reasons but the Irish anti- 169 fosterage legislation was issued more regularly. In 1515, the author of ‘The state of Ireland and plan for its reformation’ complained that the Englyshe noble folke useith to delyver therre children to the Kynges Irysshe enymyes to foster, and therwyth, as well as wyth maryage, makeyth bandes, and in consyderations with the Kynges enymyes, wherof groweth manye inconveniences and grete domage [damage] to the Kynges subgettes. The tract opined that the chief governor, the ninth earl of Kildare, could not or would not punish those who entered into such arrangements 170 because he was himself so greatly implicated in them. Complaints about marchers fostering their children with the Irish and the resultant legislation of 1537 were not geographically specific about where fosterage occurred but it is likely that it was on the marches of the four shires, given the propensity of later fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century legislators in

165 Gerald of Wales, Topography of Ireland, ed. and trans. T. Forester, revised by T. Wright (Ontario, 2000), p. 77; Moryson, Shakespeare’s Europe,p.196. 166 10th Report, pp. 260–1; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 34 Edward III, no. 1. For sixteenth-century echoes of these concerns: Spenser, ‘View of the present state of Ireland’,p.109. 167 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 49 Edward III, no. 272. 168 Stat. Ire., John-Hen V, pp. 412, 433; Stat. Ire., Hen VI,p.31; see n. 161 above. 169 L. Beverly Smith, ‘Fosterage, adoption and godparenthood: ritual and ﬁctive kinship in medieval Wales’, WHR, 16:1 (1992), 25–6. 170 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.13. See also p. 26,n.8. 171 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 171 the colony to focus their efforts on the region. Apieceofreform literature from the early sixteenth century (perhaps c. 1519), possibly written by William Darcy of Platten, explicitly stated that fosterage occurred in the four shires and it provides further detail about how fosterage arrangements worked. This tract, ‘the ordy[n]aunces and provisions for this lande of Irelande’, put forth some 110 suggestions for strengthening the colony, two of which mention ‘alterage’, a term taken 172 from the Irish and meaning some kind of fosterage. The ‘ordynaunces’ did not suggest banning the practice outright and in fact implicitly approved it, so long as it was conducted freely and without compulsion. The first suggestion stated that no Irishman should ‘compell any man to buy his alterage’, while the second elaborated further that if any Irish or Englishman who lived in the four shires bought or sold the right to foster a child, the child could not be taken and reared without the free 173 agreement of both parties. This was necessary since some ‘Irishmen’ took ‘dystresse or pledge’ to force residents of the four shires to accept fosterees or offer up their own children (or perhaps children associated with their household –‘pounge’, the word used to describe the fosteree, is 174 obscure). This pressure to foster may be evident elsewhere in the colony: ordinances passed by the Waterford city council in 1474 or 1475, prohibiting persons from taking away children, young apprentices or servants of citizens, may also have been designed to halt forced fosterage, though the term fosterage is not used so it is difficult to know precisely what practice 175 was being described. An enactment from the city five years earlier dealt with the financial problems that could arise from fostering Irish children, and ordered any person fostering a child to provide financial sureties against legal challenges that might arise if any person sued for the child, or to pay damages if citizens were attacked or robbed in the course of a dispute over 176 the child. Clearly not all fosterage arrangements went smoothly, and

171 Stat. Ire., R. III-Hen. VIII, pp. 217–20; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 479, 482. 172 Alterage is routinely translated as fosterage and linked to the Irish word ‘altram’, and yet it often appears in a duo or trio with the term fosterage, suggesting that it might have had a slightly different meaning. Sir John Davies uses the two as synonyms or near synonyms in the early seventeenth century, but implies that alterage may have been the practice of fosterage in which the parent paid the fosteree rather than the reverse: P. Parkes, ‘Fosterage, kinship and legend: When milk was thicker than blood?’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46:3 (2004), 588–9. 173 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.106. 174 The meaning of ‘pounge’ is not easily uncovered and the only, very tentative, attribution is a connection with ‘páiste’ meaning child in modern Irish, but ‘page or attendant’ in older usages, coming from Anglo-Norman loanword. The sense would be reasonable, but the fact that Hiberno-English most likely did not pronounce the final –e means that the sounds of the words are not particularly close: A. Lucas, ‘Hiberno-English literature’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopaedia (Abingdon, 2005), p. 357; ‘páiste’, eDIL. 175 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.311. 176 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report,p.307. 172 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage there was also clearly a major financial element to the practice, at least in some cases. If Darcy was indeed the author of the ‘Ordynaunces’,itwould come as no surprise that he, a marcher of western Meath, would be familiar with the economic arrangements that accompanied fosterage. Several of the cases of fosterage noted in the historical record involve families of the 177 Meath marches. Thomas Bath of Meath, for example, was given permission to foster the sons of Irish ‘enemies’ and to trade with them in 1405. The connection between familial ties and economic ones is clear, for this fosterage 178 was granted alongside a dispensation to trade. This link was also apparent in 1474 when the priors of the abbeys of St Thomas, St Mary, and All Saints in Dublin sought and were granted licence to trade with the Irish in times of peace and war and to become godfathers to Irish 179 children. In Bath’s case, fears about the gaelicization of settler children were not relevant since he would be taking an Irish child into his home, rather than the other way around. The colonial administration was fully aware of the anglicizing potential of fosterage and in 1415 Thomas Talbot and Thomas Barre were appointed to confiscate the infant children of Irish and English rebels and turn them over to loyal English lieges to be 180 fostered and kept as hostages. Thus, while fosterage was a custom associated with the Irish, it was not frowned upon as a practice in and of itself by the colonial administration, which used it to its own ends. The administration was willing to license fosterage in the other direction also, and in 1406 a dispensation was granted to William, son of Henry Betagh, who wished to foster his daughter with Aodh Ó Raghallaigh (presumably of the increasingly powerful Breifne family, but not the leading Ó 181 Raghallaigh in this period). Fosterage was not new to the Betaghs, since William’s sister had been fostered with Thomas McHegh (MacTaidhg)in1389, while Robert Betagh had been granted permission to have Mahoun McKabe (Mac Cába), described as ‘the king’s Irish 182 enemy’, foster his daughter Katherine in 1405. The Mic Cába were an Irish midlands family associated with the Uí Raghallaigh and the Betaghs’ spate of fostering seems to have been designed to give them a base of support

177 178 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 60–1. CIRCLE, Patent Roll 6 Henry IV, no. 46. 179 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.217. 180 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 2 Henry V, no. 198. Thanks to Dr Peter Crooks and Dr Ute Kühlmann for their advice about fosterage in chancery documents. 181 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 7 Henry IV, no. 74. 182 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 13 Richard II, no. 187, CIRCLE, Patent Roll 6 Henry IV, no. 45. The Mic Cába were a gallowglass family that had come from the western Isles in the fourteenth century, and by this period were associated with the Ó Raghallaigh and Ó Ruairc families of Cavan and Leitrim, and would have been considered part of the Irish community: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.32; Nicholls, ‘Scottish mercenary kindreds’, pp. 103–4. 173 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland and alliance in the northern midlands. The Betaghs, as we have seen, were a Meath family of uncertain ethnic origin but, if they were Irish, they had by the fifteenth century assimilatedtosuchanextentthatthey 183 were treated as Englishmen. They would be one of the few families to have done so successfully and it begs the question of whether they were, in any meaningful way, still Irish, if even the memory of their ancestry wasforgottenandtheywereabletosecurelicencestofosterjustlike other subjects of the crown. Whether the Betaghs’ fosterage arrangements were interethnic is thus open to debate but they undoubtedly linked an established family of the four shires to Irish families outside the colony. In 1410, James White was given a dispensation to foster his children with ‘Moritagh s. of Cowlo Onele’ (Muircheartach, son of Cú Uladh Ó Néill) and other ‘Irish enemies of the king in the marches of Louth’.He was also given permission to be a godparent to Ó Néill’s children and the children of other ‘Irish enemies’. Fosterage and godparenthood seem to have been used in similar ways to link settler and Irish families from outside the colony. These familial ties were expected to smooth relations with the Irish and keep the peace, for White’sactionswere 184 considered to be ‘for the king’sprofit’. James White’slicencemen- tions both his sons and his daughters as possible foster children, but the three children of settlers actually named as foster children to Irish families were daughters. This may be sheer coincidence but may also indicate that girls were seen as less valuable than boys by these colonists. It was the Irish custom that foster parents of girls were paid more, suggesting that it was more expensive to raise girls or that girls were 185 considered less valuable foster children by the Irish as well. Licences to permit fostering do not survive for the four shires after 1410.This maybebecausethepracticedeclined or because it was so rarely punished that settlers stopped paying for licences for it. The latter seems more likely in the context of the ban of 1430 on the practice and later fifteenth- and sixteenth-century evidence for its continued existence. The next attested case of fosterage among the English of the four counties comes at the very end of the fifteenth century, when the eighth earl of Kildare sent his son Henry to be fostered with Aodh 186 Ruadh Ó Domhnaill. This fits well with the earl’s efforts around this

183 See above pp. 84–5. 184 For the Latin see: Rot. Pat. Hib.,p.196, no. 82; CIRCLE, Patent 11 Henry IV, no. 86. For this White family: Simms, ‘The Ulster Revolt’, pp. 147, 152–5. 185 B. Ni Chonaill, ‘Fosterage: Child-rearing in medieval Ireland’, HI, 5:1 (1997), 30. 186 AU, iii, p. 439. 174 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage time, through the marriages of his sister and daughter, to build his network of allies in Ulster. It was not just fosterage that could create links between English children and Irish people or families, and this is clear from a case that came before the archbishop of Armagh’scourtin1509. It examined the legitimacy of two brothers, William and Patrick Kyntone of Stabannan, and referenced William’s nutrix,AgnesnyFyeghan(iníon uí Faodhagain) 187 of Kilsaran, in the maghery in Louth. This Irishwoman may have been William’s foster mother, since that is one sense of nutrix, and it is how the editor of Octavian’sregisterinterpretsit.‘Nutrix’ however, canalsomeanwetnurseandthisisprobably the sense intended here, given that fosterage seems to have been confined to the marches. Fosterage might entail nursing in some cases but more limited wetnur- sing arrangements, whereby a woman, usually of lower status than the child’s family, was employed to nurse the child in infancy, were 188 common in England and across Europe. Wetnurses might have life-long links with their charges but their employment did not forge the deliberate political links between elites that fosterage was designed 189 for. Few wetnurses’ names are recorded in the sources but like others in service in the four shires, many were probably Irish, like Agnes ny Fyeghan. This ensured that settler children in the four shires whose families could afford the services of a wetnurse might be cared for in their earliest days by Irish, perhaps Irish-speaking, women, thereby encouraging the kind of cultural exchange that moved the Irish parlia- 190 ment to ban intermarriage and fosterage. Thus this case from the Louth maghery sheds light on the manner in which other arrangements for childcare may have linked Irish carers to settler children. In general, unlike intermarriage, fosterage, and gossipred with the Irish were relatively uncommon, and occurred largely or entirely on the marches and among elites. Family relationships between the Irish and English were an integral part of life in Louth, Meath, Dublin, and Kildare in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. English men and women from rural and urban areas in the four counties entered into mixed marriages with the Irish and a small number fostered their children with Irish people and acted as godparents and foster parents to Irish children, in spite of parliamentary bans on these practices. Interethnic marriages, particularly among

187 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 181–2, 830 (index). 188 C. Tait, ‘Safely delivered: Childbirth, wet-nursing, gossip-feasts and churching in Ireland, c. 1530–1690’, Irish Economic History Society, 30 (2003), 11–13; S. Bardsley, Women’s Roles in the Middle Ages (London, 2007), pp. 63–9, 115. 189 190 Tait, ‘Safely delivered’,p.14. Tait, ‘Safely delivered’, pp. 15–16. 175 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland non-elites, reflected the considerable, though not total, integration of Irish people into four shires society and were motivated by the same constellation of personal, economic, and familial factors that dictated marriage choice within settler society. In the four shires, fosterage and elite intermarriage were most likely to occur between settler families andunanglicizedIrishoneswholived outside the colony and were often prompted by political and military considerations. Intermarriage was also characteristic of elite interactions in Wales in the early decades after the conquest, and remained relatively common, encouraging the cultural mixing that characterized marcher society, just as it did colonial society in Ireland. On the northern borders of England, on the other hand, elite intermarriage was not usual by the later Middle Ages because the English crown disapproved of such ties across the border in 191 timesofwar. The colonial administration also disapproved of some elite intermarriages in Ireland for political and military reasons – the case of Elizabeth Calf and Art MacMurchadha Caomhánach springs to mind – and, although most intermarriages did not attract punishment from the 192 administration, a small number resulted in the confiscation of lands. Some also occasioned social discrimination and perhaps discrimination against children of mixed ancestry, perhaps especially those with Irish fathers. This may be why some settler families eschewed intermarriage entirely, despite the small pool of potential partners available in the four shires. All of these links could be, just as the administration feared, a force for cultural exchange and it is no coincidence that some of those families that practised intermarriage also used Irish names and Irish cultural practices. On the other hand, many of the Irish men and women who were married to colonists of lower status were, from their names, somewhat anglicized and interethnic marriage had both 193 an anglicizing and a gaelicizing effect. These ties, most of all marriage, occasioned other challenges for the colonial community because they blurred the boundaries of both ethnicity and legal status. The offspring of mixed marriages, or even several generations of mixed marriages, belied the fictive but nonetheless pervasive vision of the colony divided between those who were either English or Irish ‘by blood’. The fact that some elite settler families like the Fitzgeralds of Kildare routinely intermarried but ensured that the dominant line of

191 S. G. Ellis, ‘A border baron and the Tudor state: the rise and fall of lord Dacre of the north’, The Historical Journal, 35:2 (1992), p. 262. 192 See above pp. 146–7. 193 Duﬀy, ‘The problem of degeneracy’, pp. 89–90; Verstraten, ‘Naming practices’, 43–53. 176 Interethnic Family Ties: Intermarriage and Fosterage their family remained English on both maternal and paternal sides suggests that they were aware of these implications. Interethnic marriage and sexual relationships were, in a community that defined itself increasingly by descent, practices that could fundamentally disrupt distinctions between the English and the Irish and provided a further challenge to a colonial community struggling to retain its distinctiveness.

177 Chapter 5

IRISH CUSTOMS IN THE FOUR SHIRES

A recurring bugbear of the colonial administration was the spread of ‘Irish customs’ in the colony and the erosion of English ones. A great many practices fell under the nebulous heading of Irish customs and some singled out for censure, like fosterage, have been addressed in Chapter 4,butthere were many others: Irish forms of billeting and seigniorial taxation, Irish clothing and hairstyles, Irish methods of familial organization, Brehon law, patronage of bardic poets, and Irish military conventions. These were not necessarily adopted wholesale from Irish tradition and many were hybrid customs that incorporated Irish and English practices and were further tempered by and adapted to local conditions. The colonial community, like many medieval communities, privileged precedent and often validated customs with appeals to their antiquity, invoking ‘ancient custom’,but historical justifications were often post hoc constructions and local innovations arose to contend with local conditions. Nonetheless, customs identified as Irish by colonists or by the English of England usually drew, at least in part, on Irish exemplars and were prohibited on those grounds as well as others. Some English people, particularly in the marches, deployed forms of taxation, military organization, prestige display, and law influenced by Irish practice in a pragmatic attempt to cope with local conditions and maintain relationships with their many Irish neighbours and allies. They could, and did, use Irish social conventions or practices occasionally, and situationally, and the ability of the colonial elites to move between and 1 comfortably interact in English and Irish milieus has often been noted. The adoption of Irish clothing and, still more, hairstyles may signal a more thoroughgoing assimilation: hairstyles in particular could not be so easily changed for different circumstances. Of course, cultural markers like clothing, hairstyles, and patronage of bardic poets could be key facets of successful military and clientship

1 Nicholls, ‘Worlds apart?’, 22–6; Frame, ‘Munster’,p.13. 178 Irish Customs in the Four Shires alliances between English and Irish. The use of one Irish custom was often linked to the use of others: settlers who spoke Irish often intermarried with the Irish and were more likely to wear Irish clothes and interact with their clients using Irish models, and so on. However, this was a trend, not a truism, and just because a person or a family practised one or more Irish 2 customs did not necessarily mean that they practised others. Cultural exchange was piecemeal and individual and the way that different customs influenced one another was complex. For example, politico- military customs like coyne and livery might encourage the gaelicization 3 of clothing and language. This was the contention of early sixteenth- century commentators from the colony, like William Darcy and others, who blamed the emigration of English husbandmen from the four shires on the unsupportable burden of coyne and livery. Irish tenants allegedly took their place, resulting in a flood of Irish language and custom into the colony. Darcy claimed that ‘by the forsaid extorte [coyne and livery] means and presidentes all the kynges subiectes of the saide foure shyres be nerehande Irishe and weare their habyte and used their tongue, so as they 4 are cleane goone and decayed’. It is difficult to determine the accuracy of Darcy’scomplaintthat the inhabitants of the four shires were, in matters of dress and custom, ‘nerehande Irishe’. The most detailed accounts of the use of Irish customs by the English of Ireland come to us from English authors of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. They accused the colonists of adopting Irish dress, language, taxation structures, and law and asserted that the spread of Irish practices was injurious to the colony. This suited their political agendas but there was some truth in it and even those New Englishmen who were relatively sympathetic to the Old English agreed that the latter 5 had adopted many Irish customs. Upon his examination of medieval records from the colony, William Gerrard, lord chancellor of Ireland, concluded in 1577–8 that the English of Ireland speake Irishe, use Irishe habitt, feadinge, rydinge, spendinge, coysheringe, coyninge; they exacte, oppresse, extorte, praye, spoyle, and take pledgies, and dis- tressies as doe the Irishe. They marrye and foster with the Irishe, and, to conclude, 6 they imbrace rather Irishe braghan lawes then sweete government by justice.

2 3 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.189. See below, pp. 180–5. 4 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.92; State Papers Henry VIII, ii, 3,p.12. 5 Gerard was fairly moderate and accepted some of the views of the Old English, ﬁnally urging a measure of compromise on the issue of cess, a hated royal tax much imposed on Ireland by Queen Elizabeth: P. Williams, ‘Sir William Gerard (d. 1581)’, ODNB. 6 C. McNeill (ed.), ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s notes of his report on Ireland’, Analecta Hibernica, 2 (1931), 95–6. 179 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland The ‘coyninge’ that Gerrard mentioned, and perhaps also the references to exaction, oppression, and extortion, refer to coyne and livery, that system of billeting lambasted by Darcy. Under coyne and livery a lord’s tenants and clients provided food, shelter, and perhaps sometimes wages 7 for soldiers in his employ. It was employed frequently in the four shires in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries since unremitting low-level warfare necessitated that magnates maintain large private armies. It was sometimes imposed with the consent of tenants who relied on their lord’s forces for protection; the earl of Kildare, and perhaps others, also arranged rent reductions or remittances to make coyne and livery more 8 palatable to tenants. Nevertheless, complaints about it were frequent and vociferous and these complaints and the legislation occasioned by them provide much of our information about the practice. The name ‘coyne and livery’, which is combination of the Irish coinnmheadh, meaning quartering or billeting, and the French livre, meaning horses’ feed, reflects 9 its hybrid nature. It may have been introduced by the Vikings and evolved further under the influence of Scottish galloglasses and the English of Ireland but, whatever the truth of its origins, it was often associated with the Irish by the English of England and of Ireland in the 10 later Middle Ages. Coyne and livery, or a practice much like it, was banned in 1297, 1310, 1351, and 1366 but the Irish parliament first used the terms ‘coigne’ and ‘liverey’ in 1410 when it prohibited forced billeting and mandated that anyone who attempted it would be adjudged ‘traytors and open robbers’ 11 and be subject to land confiscation and even imprisonment. In c. 1416 the English of Louth sent a petition to the king’s council in England to object to the billeting of the army of an Irish chief, Eachaidh Mac Mathghamhna, on the people of the county by John Talbot, the king’s 12 lieutenant in Ireland. The petition also complained about kerns in the employ of the Burkes, Geraldines, and Powers and, perhaps hyperboli- cally, declared that the better part of the colony was destroyed by the

7 C. A. Empey and K. Simms, ‘The ordinances of the White Earl and the problem of coign in the later Middle Ages’, PRIA, 75c(1975), 179. 8 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers,p.129. 9 Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the White Earl’, 161–87; Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties, pp. 160–76; G. O. Sayles, ‘The legal proceedings against the ﬁrst earl of Desmond’, Analecta Hibernica, 23 (1966), 8, 18. 10 Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the White Earl’, 178–83. Ellis describes coyne and livery as a ‘quasi-Gaelic’ practice: Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.22. 11 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 203–4, 447–9, 520–1; Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the White Earl’, 176;C.M.O’Sullivan, Hospitality in Medieval Ireland, 900–1500 (Dublin, 2004), p. 57. 12 K. Simms, ‘Guesting and feasting in Gaelic Ireland’, JRSAI, 108 (1978), 84; H. Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, 7 vols (1834), ii, pp. 49–50; Griﬃth, ‘The Talbot- Ormond struggle’, 381. 180 Irish Customs in the Four Shires 13 exactions of these families. This petition was sent as part of an effort to discredit Talbot in the eyes of the king and his council and the parliament of 1421, under the leadership of the fourth earl of Ormond, made similar 14 complaints about Talbot’s taking of coyne. Talbot was embroiled in a long and bitter feud with Ormond and the latter ensured that negative 15 reports about Talbot were sent to England. Many of the surviving reports about coyne and livery arose in this context, out of factionalism and rivalry between the leaders of the colonial community. And yet such reports would have had little effect were they entirely fabricated and almost all of the leading elites of the colony billeted their troops on the 16 local population at one time or another. Officials in the employ of the colonial administration, as well as ‘Gentlemen’ and their sons and adherents, were particularly likely to exact coyne and livery, since they had large fighting forces to support, and the power and influence to bully the inhabitants of the colony into providing for them. Ormond boasted in the 1421 parliament that he had abolished the ‘most heinous and unbearable custom’ of ‘coigne’ but, if there was any truth at all to his claim, the hiatus 17 was short-lived. By the later fifteenth century, the colonial administration seems to have accepted that it was not possible (or perhaps even desirable) to enforce blanket bans on coyne and livery but the issue of when, how, and upon whom it could be levied arose frequently. It was supposed to be limited to one’s own tenants and this principle was affirmed in 1449, 1471–2, and in 1493, when parliament ordered that no lord or gentleman take coyne and 18 livery from anyone but ‘his owne proper tenaunts and servaunts’. There were also geographical limits imposed on coyne and livery and it was 19 banned outright in the maghery in 1488 and 1493. Some notion of an inner region in the four shires not subject to the exaction may predate the 1488 delineation, and a number of individual jurisdictions within the 20 maghery claimed dispensations from coyne and livery before this date.

13 Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances, ii, p. 49. 14 This parliament mentioned Talbot by name only once, but the numerous references to the extortions of ‘recent lieutenants’ are clearly barbs directed at him and at John Stanley, his ally: Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 563–73. 15 Griﬃth, ‘The Talbot-Ormond struggle’, pp. 376–97; E. Matthew, ‘Governing the Lancastrian lordship’, pp. 115–18, 122–8, 159–67, 171–3. 16 Crooks, ‘Factions, feuds and noble power’, 425–54. 17 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.573; W. Betham, Dignities, Feudal and Parliamentary and the Constitutional Legislature of the United Kingdom (Dublin, 1830), p. 336. 18 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.881; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, pp. 89–90. 19 Alen’s Reg., pp. 250–1. 20 Ellis interprets these restrictions on coyne and livery as evidence of ‘growing peace and prosper- ity’, as coyne and livery was restrained: Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.71; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, pp. 81–2. 181 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland The re-statement in 1493 of the ban of 1488 on coyne and livery in the maghery indicates that the earlier statute required reinforcement and it may have been prompted by the conduct of the eighth earl of Kildare and the seventh earl of Ormond, both of whose forces were active in the 21 Dublin area in this year. In 1494–5, a parliament overseen by a deputy lieutenant from England, Sir Edward Poynings, attempted a more comprehensive ban on coyne and livery, but it still provided for the billeting of Poynings’s own troops on the tenantry of the colony. However, it set rates that soldiers were to pay for their provisions, thereby proceeding along accepted English lines, whereby (in theory at least) royal forces paid 22 for the provisions they took. The grouping of coyne and livery with other practices associated with the Irish was common. Enactments of the Irish parliament of 1430 prohibited the unlicensed billeting of kerns and linked coyne and livery to intermarriage, fosterage, and gossipred with ‘Irish enemies’, calling for existing 23 statutes that limited all of these practices to be enforced. When parliament addressed the issue of coyne in the marches of Dublin and elsewhere in 1449, it also mentioned ‘night suppers called cuddies’ that marchers 24 demanded for themselves, their households, and their Irish allies. ‘Cuddies’ is a transliteration of cuid oidhche or ‘night-portion’,whichwasa practice associated with the Irish and defined by Simms as ‘aperiodicfeast 25 exactedbyanIrishorAnglo-Irishlordfromhisvassals’. Cuddies and coyne were also linked in ordinances from the earldom of Ormond, which lay to the south of the four shires, in 1447–9 and in a letter of protection issued by Archbishop Octavian of Armagh in 1495. The letter was given to Mellifont Abbey, near Drogheda, to protect them against ‘certain nobles ... [who] presume nefariously to extort illegal and detestable exactions, especially those commonly known as Coyne and Liver, Foyes and Codhyes 26 demanding their right provision and lodging’. The nobles, who were not

21 M. A. Lyons, ‘Sidelights on the Kildare ascendancy: a survey of Geraldine involvement in the church, c. 1470–c. 1520’, AH, 48 (1994), 78; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.301; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, pp. 85–6. 22 Conway, Henry VII’s Relations, pp. 119, 128, 202–4. Royal purveyors did not always do so, but the assumption and the usual practice within England, at least after the Great statute of Purveyors in 1362, was that they should: G. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 376–83; S. Cohn, Popular Protest in Late Medieval English Towns (Cambridge, 2013), p. 76. Legislation ordering that purveyors acting for the colonial administration or crown in Ireland pay for goods and regulating prices were passed in the Irish parliament in the same period (1357), but they never seem to have been enforced as eﬀectively as in England: Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 409–10. 23 24 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 30–1. Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 166–8. 25 Simms, From Kings to Warlords, pp. 141, 173. Vassal is freighted with other meanings and associations that are not applicable to the Irish situation, and ‘client’ is preferred here in all contexts except direct quotations. 26 Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the white earl’, pp. 168–99. 182 Irish Customs in the Four Shires named (but were presumably English by descent), were threatened with 27 excommunication unless they made restitution within fifteen days. The ‘Foyes’ that some Louth nobles demanded is difficult to define precisely but it was also a kind of provisioning for fighting men, like coyne and livery, 28 basedonanIrishcustom. Evidently, those English lords who used coyne and livery often adopted other Irish conventions for exacting goods or services from their tenants. A complaint about coyne and livery from Siddan, co. Meath in 1475–6 madethesupposedlinkbetween‘Irish rule’ andcoyneandliveryparticularlyclear, and other accounts explicitly and 29 implicitly link Irishness, disorder, and coyne and livery. The complaint from Siddan alleged that certain lords of the said town [who] have taken wrongful customs ...abandoning English conduct and adhering to Irish rule, having with them horsemen and kerns, and disturb the King’s liege people from coming to the said market and also the 30 inhabitants of the said town with coigne, livery and other wrongful charges. However, despite the use of Irish words for these practices and their Irish associations, the use of coyne and livery was clearly not always evidence of cultural exchange and assimilation: a number of English-born chief governors, newly arrived in the colony, resorted to it. A letter from c. 1428 to the duke of Gloucester, most likely written by Archbishop John Swayne of Armagh or his suffragan, Edward Dauntsey, complained that all of the leutenantz that hath be in this contre for the most part whar they come there edir her soudioris leven [either their soliders live] on the hosbondis [husbandmen] nozt paying for hors mete [horse feed] ne man mete and the leutenantz 31 purviones [purveyors] take up all maner vitalle for hare [their] houshouldes. One of the lieutenants referenced here was John de Grey, who was only 32 in Ireland for a matter of months in 1427. As Simms notes, the custom of the king billeting his servants on his subjects existed in England, although it was infrequent by the later Middle Ages, while, conversely, it was 33 increasingly used in Ireland. The impoverished state of the late medieval Irish exchequer made such provisions necessary because it would have been difficult to support an army in the colony from Irish tax revenues

27 Reg. Octavian, ii, pp. 742–3; Fr. Columcille, ‘Seven documents from the old Abbey of Mellifont’, JCLAHS, 13:1 (1953), 57–9. 28 Cal. Carew, iv, pp. 454–6. Simms wrote that ‘the very word foighdhe by the end of the sixteenth century had become a technical term for one of the soldiers’ exactions’: Simms, ‘Guesting and feasting’,p.78. 29 30 State Papers Henry VIII, ii, no. 3,p.12. Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.365. 31 Reg. Swayne,p.108; Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland,p.195; Matthew, ‘Governing the Lancastrian lordship’, pp. 219–26. 32 Simms, ‘Guesting and feasting’,p.85; State Papers Henry VIII, ii, no. 3,p.12. 33 Simms, ‘Guesting and feasting’,p.82. 183 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland alone. Sources from the colony do not always ascribe ethnic associations to coyne and livery and in 1456 and 1462 the Irish parliament classed coyne and livery with robbery, murder ‘and other abominable mischiefs’ 34 and made no mention of Irishness. When James de Dokeray of Drogheda was called to answer for his accusation that the earl of Desmond extorted coyne and livery from county Meath in 1463,he also made no connection between the practice and the Irish. Parliament dismissed de Dokeray’s accusations as slander but this probably relates to Desmond’s recent award of the deputy lieutenantship and the fact that he presided over this parliament rather than to the truth or otherwise of the 35 claims. Therefore, although the terms coyne and livery and foyes and cuddies were taken at least in part from the Irish language and were dictated in part by Irish traditions, there was no direct, automatic link between using coyne and livery and being culturally gaelicized and the practice was not always associated with the Irish. Coyne and livery persisted into the sixteenth century and was sometimes approved by the crown administration although William Darcy suggested in 1520 that it should be replaced with a tax and the Irish 36 parliament attempted to do this in 1533. The practice, or at least its excessive or unrestrained use, continued to attract censure within the settler community and in 1515 the dowager countess of Kildare complained that the ninth earl, her stepson, exacted coyne and livery to such an extent that the lands held by her ward in Kilbride, co. Kildare were ‘waste’ and worthless from lack of tenants, who had been driven away by 37 the financial burdens of the practice. William Darcy of Platten’s complaints about coyne and livery, mentioned above, also centred on the earl of Kildare and linked it to ‘cuddies’, which he claimed were held in the 38 four counties. Darcy’s tract has been interpreted as a piece of anti- Kildare rhetoric, intended to discredit the ninth earl’s deputyship, and motivated by the conflict between the gentry of Meath and the earl, or by the personal insult offered when the earl removed Darcy from his baronial council, but complaints about coyne and livery from 1530s also centred 39 largely on the ninth earl of Kildare. These complaints relate, presumably, to the fact that Kildare did indeed resort to this exaction (though perhaps to a lesser extent than his predecessors) but still more to the

34 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.447; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 15–7. 35 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 97–9. 36 L and P., Henry VIII, iii, no. 1, pp. 222, 301; Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’,p.35; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, pp. 137–8. 37 Cal. State Papers Ire.,i,p.2. See also State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 12, 16. 38 Cal. Carew, i, pp. 7–8. An older copy of Darcy’s articles is recorded in the Hatﬁeld compendium: Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 91–3. 39 Quinn, ‘Hegemony of earls of Kildare’, pp. 658–9; Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’, pp. 33–4. 184 Irish Customs in the Four Shires animosity he engendered in some settlers as the dominant figure in the politics of the colony. Kildare’s fall from favour with the crown, his death, and the revolt of his son, Silken Thomas, in 1534 allowed these resent- 40 ments to be aired freely. Even if complaints about his use of coyne and livery predated the Geraldine revolt – Darcy’s, for example – they multi- 41 plied in its aftermath. In 1537, for example, David Sutton, a member of an established English family based in Kildare, claimed that the earl and other Kildare nobles had supported companies of kerns and galloglasses with coyne and livery. Sutton also alleged that the earl of Kildare gave his supporters horses and then feasted with them. He did not identify this practice 42 as Irish but presented it in a negative light. The earl’sfrequentgifts of horses are recorded in his accounts and were clearly a key aspect of his efforts to attract and maintain supporters. Ellis estimates that Kildare gave an average of sixty-five chief horses a year and thirty- three hackneys, along with harnesses and armour, costing, at the very 43 least, Ir. £800 annually. Long lists of men (and some women) who were the beneficiaries of gifts from the earl survive from 1513 to 1530. These beneficiaries were split almost evenly between settlers and Irish and almost always received horses, sometimes with the 44 addition of saddles and pieces of armour. The military nature of thesegiftsmaysupporttheideathattheyrepresentedtheIrish custom of tuarastal, which was originally a military arrangement in which retainers were given gifts as part of their salary, though by the later Middle Ages these military implications were less relevant and accepting tuarastal was above all a sign of deference. This later incarnation of tuarastal is defined by Simms as a ‘ceremonial gift’ accepted as a signal of submission: it could be accepted by defeated lords from their overlords or by more humble clients from their 45 lord. Late medieval mentions of tuarastal in the annals do not specify what items served as gifts, but earlier sources confirm that animals and armour might be given, along with other valuable commodities. The earl’s gifts fit well with Irish conventions about

40 Ellis suggests that the earl was able to support many of his forces on his Irish lands, not in the colony: S. G. Ellis, ‘Gerald FitzGerald, ninth earl of Kildare (1487–1534)’, ODNB. For these political events see Ellis, ‘Tudor policy and Kildare Ascendancy’, 235–71. 41 Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties, pp. 167–8; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 502–3. 42 43 Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties,p.161. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers,p.137. 44 J. T. Gilbert, ‘Manuscripts of his Grace, Duke of Leinster’ in Appendix to the 9th Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1883), pp. 279–86; MacNiocaill, Crown Surveys, pp. 319–50; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 137–8. 45 Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 101–4, 109–10, 178. 185 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland what was given as tuarastal, and other sources confirm that the 46 practice was known in the four shires. But did the earl’s systematic award of horses necessarily reflect Irish practice? Ellis is sceptical about an Irish connection. He notes that gifting horses rather than money to retainers was not usual in England but speculates that the earl’s actions were prompted by the lack of stud farms in Ireland and the military utility of horses, rather than by any 47 Irish cultural influence. As Ellis points out, Kildare also gave horses to English chief governors, royal officials in England, and the king himself, 48 though these made up only a small proportion of his gifts overall. In these cases, neither party would have perceived the gift as tuarastal or as a significant deviation from English practice, nor was accepting the gift a sign of submission, since lavish gift-giving to one’s social equals and 49 superiors was common in the English context. Neither did Kildare’s gifts of horses to a number of women, including his own wife, signal a clientship arrangement but rather reflected a different nexus of gift meanings. And yet the earl was (to modify MacNiocaill’s phrase) culturally ambidextrous and capable of making gifts that signified different things in 50 different contexts. The meaning of gifts depended on the significance 51 with which they were imbued by their givers and recipients. Kildare’s award of horses to retainers and to those below him socially, which accounted for the majority of his gifts, occurred on a large scale and with little variation. Gifts were rarely anything other than a horse or, occasionally, the money ‘to buy a horse’. This suggests that the award of a horse had a specific meaning in seigniorial relations, rather than being an expression of a more general largesse. These gifts seem to have been conditional and conditional in a patent and systematic way, acting in 52 effect as tokens of a contract. The feasting that followed these gifts may have been a further symbol of this contract. A number of men received horses year on year and some of these repeat recipients were in the

46 Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 101–3, 110, n. 110; AU, s.a. 1430, 1450, 1463; AC, s.a. 1515, 1525. The sheriﬀ of Meath paid ‘twerestell’ to ﬁghting men employed against Ó Néill in 1384: Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.190. 47 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 140–1. 48 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 137–8; MacNiocaill, Crown Surveys, pp. 329, 334, 338, 341, 344, 348, 350. 49 Noble exchanges of horses occurred in England, but horses, especially those of very high quality, were often seen as a royal gift: F. Heal, The Power of Gifts: Gift-exchange in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2015), pp. 157–8. 50 MacNiocaill, ‘Contact of Irish and common law’, 19. 51 F. Heal, ‘Food gifts, the household and the politics of exchange in early modern England’, PP, 199 (2008), 57–60, 64–5; E. Powell, ‘Law and justice’ and R. Horrox, ‘Service’ in R. Horrox (ed.), Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late Medieval England (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 41, 67. 52 The line between gift and contractual token was indistinct: Heal, The Power of Gifts,p.7. 186 Irish Customs in the Four Shires employ of the earl, a confirmation that their gifts may have been part of a 53 salary arrangement. It is therefore likely that the earl’s award of horses to many of the people who appear on his lists of beneficiaries was indeed some form of tuarastal. Coyne and livery and other forms of exchange between lords and tenants were levied in the four shires with some regularity in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, most often by the elite of the settler community. Coyne and livery was often linked to the Irish in parliamentary statutes, especially before 1450, and in practice seems often to have gone hand in hand with practices like foyes, cuid oidhche, and, perhaps, tuarastal. However, it was also used by chief governors from England, so it is clear that merely using coyne and livery did not indicate that a person was in any way gaelicized. And yet these chief governors were almost certainly taking their cue from the English of Ireland, who served as advisers to English officials and remained the backbone of the colonial government. All in all, practical, economic, and military concerns may have prompted the adoption of this form of billeting and other methods of seigniorial interaction, but it is telling that the settler nobility adapted to the conditions of the colony using methods that, in name, and perhaps to some extent in form, were taken from their Irish neighbours. Several other Irish or hybrid practices were used by the English of Ireland, although they were mentioned less often in parliamentary records, indicating that they were less common than coyne and livery, or that they aroused less rancour. One such practice banned by the Irish parliament in 1430 was the protection of thieves and rebels by ‘grith and comrick’. The enactment does not specify where the ‘divers English’ who offered this protection lived, but it is likely that some lived in the four shires, since most fifteenth-century parliamentary legislation was directed at the region and similar protections were offered by the earl of Kildare by the later fifteenth century. Like coyne and livery, the term is a hybrid one: ‘grith’ is an Old English word meaning truce, safety, or asylum, while comrick comes from the Irish comairce or 54 commairghe, which means protection or sanctuary. Combined, ‘grith and comrick’ meant protection from arrest or prosecution and it was banned because elite settlers sheltered men, presumably their allies or clients, who were sought by the colonial government to be prosecuted for various 55 crimes. The comairce offered by Irish nobles implied a similar type of protection and, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a number of Irish

53 Edmund O Coyne and Malaghline O Shagnas were among these Irishmen: MacNiocaill, Crown Survey, pp. 319, 323, 328, 329, 330, 334, 335, 337; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers,p.138. 54 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.31; G. H. Orpen, ‘Review of Statute Rolls Henry VI’, EHR, 25:100 (1910), 773; Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 112, 172; ‘grith’, n., OED. 55 Crooks, ‘Factions, feuds and noble power’, 442. 187 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland chiefs entered into agreements with the king’s lieutenant in Ireland whereby they promised that they would refrain from extending it to rebels: comairce did 56 not co-exist easily with centralized royal justice. In Irish society comairce was given along with tuarastal as part of the exchange between client and lord and many of those who received horses from the earl of Kildare may have been entitled to it, depending on how closely the earl’s clientship arrangements 57 mirrored Irish exemplars. A related term was ‘slatynaght’ (in Irish sláinte or slánuigheacht), defined by Nicholls as ‘protection extended by a greater man 58 to a lesser one’. It was similar to comairce in that it was a protection provided by a lord to his clients but, given the context in which it appears, it may 59 connote physical protection from harm rather than protection from arrest. TheninthearlofKildareextendedslánuigheacht to many Irishmen in exchange for payment and punished those who injured men under his 60 protection. The Kildare rental, a sixteenth-century compilation of the seigniorial records of the earls of Kildare, records that two men were to pay seventy cows to the earl because they broke his ‘slatynaght’ of Feral macOwin (Fearghal Mac Eoghain). The earl was also paid sixty cows for the death of Moryartage mc Hue McGeoghegan (Muircheartach mac Aodha Mac 61 Eochagáin), who was under his protection and ‘sleynintreason’. By common law, a capital punishment for murder would have been imposed but, in these instances, restitution was made by payment in the Irish manner. The ninth earl of Kildare was clearly conversant with Irish seigniorial and legal principles and willing to use them, as were many of his predecessors, but the extent to which he applied them inside the four shires and in his relations with non-Irish associates is uncertain. Moreover, there is nothing exclusively Irish about the assumption that a lord should protect and support his adherents. It was current in England as elsewhere in medieval Europe, bound up with notions of ‘good 62 lordship’. In contemporary England the lord’s responsibility to provide good lordship was often fulfilled by providing dispute resolution through arbitration and by using their influence and connections to support their 63 affinity in legal cases in royal courts. However, although good lordship

56 57 Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 105–7, 112. Simms, Kings to Warlords,p.113. 58 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.226. 59 Fergus Kelly deﬁnes this as a ‘legal protection, guarantee, security’: F. Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law (Dublin, 1991), p. 141. 60 Ellis, ‘Gerald FitzGerald, ninth eral of Kildare’, ODNB. 61 MacNiocaill, Crown Surveys, pp. 270–1. 62 C. Carpenter, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and Constitution in England, c. 1437–1509 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 47–66; E. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society: Criminal Justice in the Reign of Henry V (Oxford, 1989), pp. 88–90. 63 C. Carpenter, ‘Bastard feudalism in England in the fourteenth century’ in S. Boardman and J. Goodare (eds), Kings, Lords and Men in Scotland and Britain, 1300–1625: Essays in Honour of Jenny Wormald (Edinburgh, 2014), esp. pp. 61–81;Powell,Kingship, Law and Society,pp.95–112;K.B. 188 Irish Customs in the Four Shires in colonial and Gaelic Ireland also encompassed the provision of justice through established legal avenues, it was often exercised in ways that did not follow the procedures of, or even directly contravened the dictates of, the colonial government. This is more unusual, though not unique, in the 64 English polity. Although lordship and maintenance of one’s ‘affinity’ might influence the course of justice, and contemporaries in England complained that ‘law goeth as lordship biddeth’, such pressure generally took the form of gifts, threats, and supplications to justices or the crown, or similar actions that sought to manipulate, not entirely ignore or 65 circumvent royal provisions for justice. Ellis has drawn parallels between Ireland and other borderlands under the English crown, especially the north of England, and convincingly argued that robust local lordly power and protections of their affinity from central justice were 66 results of the frontier context, not the Irish one. In northern England in 1453, for example, the tenants of the Percy earls of Northumberland held that ‘no sheriff or other royal official could make an arrest or execute an order within the Percy lordship of Topcliffe or any other of 67 Northumberland’s estates’. Thus, and like other ‘Irish’ customs, the ideas that underpinned grith and comrick and ‘slatynaght’ were by no means uniquely Irish, but these practices took their names from the Irish language and, in the latter case, drew on Irish conventions about payment for injuries. The English of the four shires also embraced Irish types of soldiery, weaponry, and styles of warfare. Both privately and when acting as officers 68 of the colonial administration, they employed kerns and galloglasses. As already noted, kerns were foot soldiers, usually unarmoured and equipped with short swords, small shields and javelins, while galloglasses were heavily armoured Scottish soldiers, often from families of the Gaelic west of

MacFarlane, ‘Bastard Feudalism’ in England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays by K. B. MacFarlane (London, 1981), pp. 42–3;H.Castor,The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster (Oxford, 2000), pp. 17–18, 175–6;J.Rose,‘The law of maintenance and the obligations of lordship: A case study’, Social Science Research Network (2013), pp. 5–6.[http://papers.ssrn .com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262007]. 64 B. Kane, ‘Making the Irish European: Gaelic honour politics and its continental contexts’, Renaissance Quarterly, 61:4 (2008), 1156–9. 65 MacFarlane, ‘Bastard Feudalism’, pp. 42–3; E. Powell, ‘Law and justice’ in R. Horrox, Fifteenth- Century Attitudes,p.38; Castor, The King, the Crown, and the Duchy of Lancaster, pp. 17–18, 175–6; Rose, ‘The law of maintenance’, pp. 5–6. 66 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, chapters 3, 4, 5. 67 R. Griﬃths, ‘Local rivalries and national politics: the Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–55’, Speculum, 43:4 (1968), 592; Ellis, ‘Crisis of the aristocracy?’, pp. 330–9; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, chapters 3, 4, 5. 68 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 203, 269, 329, 377; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.31. Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 529–33; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.73. 189 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Scotland that had originally come to Ireland as mercenaries in the employ 69 of Irish families. Chief governors from England also employed these soldiers, who were particularly suited to Irish terrain and styles of warfare. Moreover, some of the English of Ireland used weaponry associated with the Irish in preference to the English bow. Parliaments in 1460, 1465, 1472–3,and1495 encouraged the employment of archers and the use of bows by the English (and the anglicized Irish in the four counties), but this apparently did not solve the problem since the anonymous ‘state of Ireland’ complained in 1515 that the English had given up their English weapons in 70 favour of inferior Irish ones. This use of Irish weapons may have been linked to cultural exchange and close military ties between many marchers and the Irish but it was also related to availability: there was a scarcity of English (long) bows in the colony and locally manufactured weapons 71 would have been easier to acquire. Fifteenth-century parliamentary legislation and early and mid-sixteenth century tracts posited links between archery and cultural Englishness and presented the importation and provision of bows, as well as regular archery practice, as essential to the colony’s 72 recovery. But the neglect of archery practice was not a problem only in the colony. Similar legislative enjoinments to practise archery and forego football and other games were issued both in England and Scotland in the 73 fifteenth century. Their crowns and legislative bodies were well aware of the effectiveness of well-trained archers in combat and also cognizant of the fact that ordinary people were keen to play other sports rather than practise at the butts. What differs in the Irish case is the attribution of archery’s decline to the pernicious influence of Irish customs and, whatever the true factors behind the shortage of bowmen in the colony, members of the four shires community presented it as a problem caused or exacerbated by 74 cultural exchange. Similarly, cattle-raiding was not an exclusively Irish

69 Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 120–7;S.Duffy, ‘The prehistory of the galloglass’ in Duffy, The World of the Galloglass, pp. 1–3; Nicholls, ‘Scottish mercenary kindreds’,p.86. 70 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.649; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 293, 715–19;Conway,Henry VII’s Relations, pp. 4, 123; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.12;MaginnandEllis,Tudor Discovery, pp. 135–7. 71 A shortage of bows is suggested by repeated legislation ordering merchants to import bows to the colony from England and prosecutions of merchants who did not do so: Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 99–101; Griffiths, Calendar of Inquisitions, pp. 20–45. 72 Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’,p.93; State Papers Henry VIII, ii, 309–11; Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 92–3, 101, 105. 73 F. P. Magoun, ‘Football in medieval England and in middle-English literature’, AHR, 25:1 (1929), 38, 42, 45; F. P. Magoun, ‘Scottish popular football, 1424–1815’, AHR, 37:1 (1931), 1–2. 74 By the time Galway’s city council called for archery practice in 1527, there may have been an ethnic motivation at play, since ‘the great foote balle’ was allowed in the city, while the Irish game of hurling and, the possibly Irish game of handball, were forbidden: Gilbert, ‘Statute book of Galway’, 10th Report,p.409. 190 Irish Customs in the Four Shires custom, although it was a particularly important facet of Irish warfare, but the terminology used for such raiding in sources from the colony borrowed from Irish usage. The Irish parliament, for example, issued regulations concerning the ‘creaghts’ (from the Irish caoruigheacht and meaning a large 75 herd of cattle) seized and held by colonists in the four shires. Another outcome of Irish influence in the four shires may be the development of extended kin groups among the English of Ireland, both inside and outside the four counties. The growth of lineages among the colonists certainly has parallels in northern England and 76 Scotland, but in the colony it was associated with Irish influence. These extended family groups treated themselves, and were treated by the colonial government, as political and military units, with the head of 77 the family called ‘captain of his nation’. These ‘nations’ were organized patrilineally and, as in Scotland or the northern borders of England, a shared surname was used as an identifier for members of each lineage. The Savages of Ulster, Burkes of Connacht, Powers of Waterford, and Roches of Cork are well-known settler lineages but several families of 78 the four counties also occasionally organized themselves in this manner. Successive governors of Ireland had sought to exploit kin-based political structures to their own ends and in 1278 accepted the Irish concept of cin comfhocuis, whereby the senior male member of a kin group was responsible for any crimes committed by his kin and would have to make 79 restitution for them or ensure that the offender did so. This principle came into use some centuries later on the northern English borders and it is possible that it was inspired by the experience of English officials in 80 Ireland or in Wales, where native law also stipulated kin liability.

75 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.35; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.224; CARD,i,p.272; Clarke, ‘Angliores ipsis Anglis’,p.57. The seizure of livestock and produce was a common tactic in medieval warfare (as in other periods), but cattle-raiding in particular also characterized Anglo- Scottish border warfare by the sixteenth century, and indeed, probably by the fourteenth: P. Slavin, ‘Warfare and ecological destruction in early fourteenth-century British Isles’, Environmental History, 19 (2014), 536–9; P. J. Bradley, ‘Social banditry on the Anglo-Scottish border during the later Middle Ages’, Scotia, 12 (1988), 27–43. Creaghts may have arisen or increased in number as levels of pastoralism rose after the Black Death, in response to the lower population of agricultural workers: K. Simms, ‘Origins of the creaght: Farming system or social unit?’ in M. Murphy and M. Stout (eds), Agriculture and Settlement in Ireland (Dublin, 2015), pp. 101–18. 76 For more detailed discussion of the Scottish and English parallels, see below, pp. 194–5. 77 For uses of the term ‘nation’ in medieval Ireland, see Lydon, ‘The middle nation’, pp. 3–5. 78 Sir John Davies, ‘A Discovery of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued (1612)’, (ed.) J. Barry (Dublin, 1969), p. 182; Frame, ‘Power and society’, 19. 79 O’Byrne, ‘Cultures in contact’,p.124.In1310 and 1351 the parliament reiterated this principle of kin liability: Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 265–7, 378. 80 R. R. Davies, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000), p. 133, n. 84. The earliest example of kin liability in action on the northern borders cited by 191 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland English criminal law assumed individual responsibility (once the age of majority was reached) and even married women, who were not fully legally competent in civil contexts, were, in theory and usually in practice, treated as 81 responsible persons for criminal purposes. Although the heads of families may have been considered responsible for their household informally, they were not legally responsible for crimes committed by members of their household or family under English common law; in this, practice in Ireland, Wales, and, later, the north of England differed from norms of lowland England. At first, kin liability may have applied only to Irish lineages that wished to become crown subjects but by 1306 the head of a settler family, Philip Christofre, was ordered by the justiciar to arrest ‘those of his 82 race whom he should find malefactors’. In the fourteenth century, a number of four shires families were treated, at one time or another, as lineages that were subject to kin liability: the Leinster Geraldines, the Berminghams, and the Verdons of Louth, the Tuites of Meath, Archbolds 83 of south Dublin, and Teelings of Meath and Louth. In 1455,anenactment implementing kin liability was re-issued with the added proviso: because that every chieftain will say that they cannot chastise their lineage and their hired men, the said Statute is defrauded and not put in execution: Wherefore it is ordained and agreed by authority of the said great council that 84 every man answer for his sons and his hired men. This narrowed the remit of a ‘chieftain’, as captains of their nation were termed here, providing that they be responsible only for their sons and

Ellis date from 1527, in which a ‘cheiﬀ of his name’, Robert Colingwod, delivered his kinsman for judgement. However, the close involvement of the extended kin group in legal disputes involving their kin is documented some hundred years earlier: Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 62–4; J. Armstrong, ‘Violence and peacemaking in the English marches towards Scotland, c. 1425–1440’ in L. Clark (ed.), Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 53–72. 81 Married women were legal individuals in criminal law, although their position of subordination to their husbands was sometimes used to exempt them from blame if they committed crimes jointly. There are examples of such leniency from England in the medieval and early modern periods and from Ireland in the late thirteenth century: Butler, Divorce in Medieval England,p.12; M. Caswell, ‘Coverture and criminal law in England, 1640–1760’ in T. Stretton and K. Kesselring (eds), Married Women and the Law: Coverture in England and the Common Law World (Montreal, 2012), p. 88; CJR,i,p.34; D. Hall, ‘Women and violence in late medieval Ireland’ in C. Meek and C. Lawless (eds), Pawns or Players?: Studies on Medieval and Early Modern Women (Dublin, 2003), p. 139. For leniency to female criminals and female criminality more generally, see B. Hanawalt, Crime and Conﬂict in English Communities, 1300–1348 (Cambridge, MA, 1979), pp. 115–25, esp. 117. 82 CJR, ii, p. 252. 83 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 307–9, 379; Frame, ‘Power and society’, 21; Frame, English Lordship, pp. 27–33; Curtis, ‘The clan system’, pp. 116–20; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Ireland in the 1350s: Sir Thomas Rokeby and his successors’, JRSAI, 97:1 (1967), 47–8; Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, pp. 124–5; Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.189. 84 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 448–50; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 339–41. 192 Irish Customs in the Four Shires those directly in their employ, rather than for all of their paternal relatives. This reduced, modified model of kin liability was re-affirmed in parlia- 85 ments of 1456 and 1462, and was applied in Dublin, Meath, and Louth. At this point, any connection with the Irish principle of cin comfhocuis may have been obscured, since the practice had changed significantly since its implementation in the late thirteenth century. And yet, the language used in 1455 to describe kin liability and lineages – like ‘Cheifteyne’–suggests that the Irish associations of these practices persisted within the colony. A version of kin liability was therefore in use in the four shires in the fifteenth century, but which families were subject to it? Men might frequently ally with their kin without perceiving themselves as, or being perceived as, part of a lineal political and legal unit, so the most secure way to determine which families were considered lineages, and when, is to look at the terminology. The terms ‘nation’, ‘captain’, and ‘captain of his nation’ signalled that a family was seen as a lineage and a number of men of English descent and resident in the four counties were called ‘captain of their nation’ in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Latin, French, and English terms natio, naciun/nacion and nation had multiple, linked meanings but the specific sense of a politically unified kin-group was intended in 1399, when the Irish council called the Geraldines, Berminghams, Daltons, and Dillons, among others, English nations (les nacions Engleis) ‘who will not obey the law nor submit to justice’.Inc. 1416 the Geraldines and several English Munster lineages 86 were again called ‘nations’. Heads of the families of Dalton, Delamare, 87 88 89 90 Bermingham, Walshe, Wolfe, and Fitzgerald were termed ‘captains of their nation’ in the second half of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Dalton and Dillon leaders were included in a list of ‘captains of thEnglyshe noble folke that folowyth the same Iryshe ordre and kepeth 91 the same rule’ in 1515, as were the Tyrrells and Delamares. Despite the administration’s willingness to devolve punishment to the heads of

85 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.447; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 15–7. It was also applied in Kilkenny, by the city council in 1500, but there is no evidence from the relatively extensive Dublin materials that it was enforced by municipal statute there: Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus Kilkenniensis, pp. 125–6. 86 Lydon, ‘Middle nation’, pp. 3–4; A Roll of the Proceedings of the King’s Council in Ireland for a Portion of the Sixteenth Year of the Reign of Richard II, 1392–3, ed. J. Graves (London, 1877), p. 264; Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances, ii, pp. 49–50. 87 88 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.287. Alen’s Reg.,p.242. 89 N. White (ed.), The ‘Dignitas Decani’ of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin (Dublin, 1957), p. 110. P. MacCotter, ‘The surname Woulfe/Wolfe in Ireland’, http://home.alphalink.com.au/~data tree/wolf-his.htm (2012). 90 Alen’s Reg.,p.242. 91 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 6–7; Gilbert, ‘Manuscripts of Duke of Leinster’,p.274; MacNiocaill, Crown Surveys, pp. 235, 258; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.637; Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII, pp. 121–5. 193 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland lineages and its occasional use of the term ‘captain of his nation’ as an honorific, sources from the colony often used ‘nation’ to apply to families, both English and Irish, that were in conflict with the administration and the term often had negative and Irish connotations, as the mention of ‘Iryshe ordre’ in 1515 demonstrates. Historians from Edmund Curtis to (more recently) Kenneth Nicholls and Seán Duffy have seen the growth of these lineal family groups as, primarily but not exclusively, evidence of cultural exchange whereby 92 settler families aped the familio-political structure of the Irish. Robin Frame and Steven Ellis, however, have argued that organization along familial lines was most of all a reasonable response to unsettled political conditions. Both have identified the similar lineages which arose in the later Middle Ages on the Anglo-Scottish border and argued that they were an outgrowth of the militarized conditions and weakness of royal power in the area, rather of than any cultural exchange with Scottish 93 clans. Northern English lineages, often called ‘Surnames’, were usually of lower status than those in Ireland, and not composed of, or closely related to, local elites, as they were in Ireland, but they organized themselves in a similar manner, with the ‘chief of their name’ accepting responsibility for their kin and even using similar naming patterns with 94 descriptive and patronymic nicknames. Recent work by Ciarán Parker and Christopher Maginn has tended to agree that the formation of these family groups in the colony must not be seen purely as a result of Gaelic influence although they, like Frame and Ellis, do not entirely discount Irish influence and note that those families who most often organized 95 themselves in this manner do often display some signs of gaelicization. Of the families who acted as lineages in the four shires, the Delamares, Daltons, and Dillons resided on the western marches of the medieval county of Meath, while the Tyrells, Walshes, FitzGeralds, and Wolfes were based in the marches of south Dublin and Kildare. Thus, as in northern England and southern Scotland, the lineal method of political organization was most common in the marches, where there were high

92 E. Curtis, ‘The clan system among English settlers in Ireland’, EHR, 25:97 (1910), 116–20; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.13;Duﬀy, ‘The problem of degeneracy’, pp. 103–6. 93 Frame, ‘Power and society’, 19–20; Ellis ‘Nationalist historiography’, 5. 94 Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pp. 60–74; Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and parentela’, 109; C. Etty, ‘Neighbours from Hell? Living with Tynedale and Redesdale, 1489–1547’ in Prestwich, Liberties and Identities, pp. 120–2, 136. These descriptive nicknames arose perhaps to diﬀerentiate the many men in these large family groups with the same name: J. Armstrong, ‘Concepts of kinship in Lancastrian Westmorland’ in B. Thompson and J. Watts (eds), Political Society in Later Medieval England: A Festschrift for Christine Carpenter (Woodbridge, 2015), pp. 151–2. 95 Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and parentela’, 105, 109; Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 125; Frame, ‘Power and society’, 25–6. 194 Irish Customs in the Four Shires levels of endemic instability but also high levels of gaelicization. Unpicking which factor was most relevant in the formation of lineages may therefore not be possible but, whatever the cause of settler lineages and their ‘captains’ or ‘chieftains’, they were described in the colony using the same terms as those used for Irish lineages and they were associated with Irish culture. As is the case with so many of the ‘Irish’ customs present in the colony, the names and associations of lineages are much more convincingly Irish than their origins. Kin liability, as adopted by the Irish parliament in the thirteenth century, was a borrowing from Irish law, and the major Irish magnates like the earls of Ormond, Desmond, and Kildare, used march law on at least some of the lands under their control. The founders of the English colony in Ireland had brought with them English law and it remained dominant throughout the four shires in the later Middle Ages; march law is a hybrid legal system that incorporated elements of English and native 96 law, as well as generating its own innovations. Thus, not everything about march law that deviated from contemporary English law was inspired by Irish practice. Some of it was prompted by the specific problems of the frontier or by the survival of older common law or customary law practice in the colony. Davies’ characterization of march law in Wales applies well to the Irish case. He described it as ‘an unwritten body of custom whose keepers were the will of the lord, the precedents of the court and the collective memory of the folk. It was never articulated into a systematic corpus of law’ and the ‘local community might be called 97 on to declare what the local custom was’. Through march law in the colony (though not routinely in the four shires), English legal practice 98 influenced Irish law, perhaps significantly more than the reverse. The use of the terms Brehon law and march law was imprecise in the colony and they seem often to have been used, inaccurately, as synonyms. This imprecision testifies to the same dualistic mindset in the colony that tended to class as Irish all departures from English norms. Parliamentary enactments of the 1350s and 1360s complained that march and Brehon law were ‘not law nor ought to be called law’ but were just ‘bad custom’ and prohibited colonists from using them in disputes with other people ‘of English birth’. At this point in the mid- fourteenth century, the use of march law was acceptable if one of the parties to a dispute was Irish but whether this principal persisted is uncertain. It certainly does not seem to have been in general operation

96 Hand, English Law in Ireland, chapters 1–6; CJR; Connolly, Medieval Record Sources, pp. 25–6; Dryburgh and Smith, Handbook, pp. 230–41. 97 Davies, ‘Law of the march’, 7–8. 98 MacNiocaill, ‘The contact of Irish and common law’, 19. 195 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 99 in the four shires in the fifteenth century. One area in which Irish law and English law differed most was the punishment for homicide, which was often a capital crime under English law but was resolved by fines 100 under Irish law. Some of the English of Ireland apparently used this alternative system of punishment for murder, for in 1476–7, 1493, and 1495 the Irish parliament banned colonists from taking or giving ‘sautes’. This was a name for the fines paid by a killer to the family or ‘friends’ of 101 the murdered person. The concept of a ‘saute’/‘saut’/‘sawt’ mirrors Irish practice, and the word itself is almost certainly Irish, although its etymology is obscure; these fines were also called ‘erick’ from the Irish 102 éiric or éaraic. While in the early and high Middle Ages, this fine was generally paid to the family of the deceased, in the fifteenth and sixteenth 103 centuries it was often paid to the lord of the murdered person. Sautes could be demanded not just from the killer but from ‘all such persons as been of the same name [i.e. surname] that he is of’, and could be paid to ‘any as beareth the name of him that is slain’. Thus, they resolved homicides using a familial legal model much like cin comfocuis and in 104 accordance with Irish procedures for restitution. The use of monetary compensation for death or injury was familiar on other English frontiers, 105 and had been a major feature of Anglo-Saxon law. Indeed Musson and Crooks both note that it remained an important element of legal practice even within England, via the use of arbitration, throughout the medieval 106 period. And yet, in documents from Ireland, it was usually linked to the Irish and with Irish or march law.

99 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 389, 437; Smith, ‘Keeping the Peace’,p.62; CIRCLE, Close Roll 34 Edward III, no. 1. 100 The difference in these laws pertaining to homicide had been considered problematic for a century or more, and the Irish parliament declared in 1321 that free Irish and English people must use the same law as it pertained to life and limb, so that Irish people would be subject to corporal penalties rather than financial payments for homicide, but this law was not in place by the fifteenth century: Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.292; Frame, ‘Immediate effect of the 1331 ordinance’, 112. Punishment under English law depended on the state of mind and provocation of the killer: Baker, Introduction to English Legal History, pp. 529–31. 101 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 529–31; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, pp. 90, 93. Friend in this context may have the specific meaning of extended family and affinity: friend, n., OED. 102 Saute may related to sáith and other linked Irish terms signifying satisfaction – it is a satisfaction for a death: eDIL; Saut, n., OED. 103 Simms, Kings to Warlords, pp. 90–1; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.61; Kelly, Guide to Early Irish Law, pp. 125–7. A standard fine that was often applied was five marks and forty pence: G. MacNiocaill, ‘The interaction of laws’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland,p.111. 104 Statutes at Large passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland, 21 vols (Dublin, 1786–1804), i, p. 50. 105 Crooks, ‘Factions, feuds, and noble power’, 436. 106 A. Musson, ‘Crime and the compensation culture in medieval England’, Crime and Retribution Lecture Series, Museum of London (2009)[www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures+events]; Crooks, ‘Factions, feuds, and noble power’, 450. 196 Irish Customs in the Four Shires Some of the English people in Ireland who used this system of payment in compensation for wrongful deaths did not do so of their own accord 107 but were coerced by threats of robbery and violence. Others may have benefited from this system. Lords would have seen the financial benefit in demanding sautes when their tenants were killed and killers may have 108 sought to avoid the harsher punishments of English law. Parliamentary complaints about Brehon and march law do not indicate where in the colony they were employed and there is specific evidence that Brehon law was used opportunistically by the earls of Desmond and Ormond, and 109 in much of Waterford, Kilkenny, and Tipperary. A Kilkenny municipal ordinance from 1500 prohibited the taking of payment rather than criminal punishment for deaths, injuries, or theft, and the fact that such an ordinance was necessary suggests that making amends for crimes by 110 payment was relatively common in the franchise of the city. Given their prevalence elsewhere in the colony, it is likely that the taking of sautes was not unknown on the marches of the four counties but specific instances where Brehon or march law practices were used in Meath, Dublin, Louth, and Kildare are rarely preserved in the surviving sources. A possible exception comes from 1458, when John FitzRichard was accused of seizing the lands and goods of Alice Talbot, widow of Lancelot FitzRichard, ‘by Brehon law and without any proceeding of the King’s 111 law’. Alice’s lands, which were settled on her for life through a trust arranged by her husband, were located in ‘Kylsclatrie’(?), Glaspistol, Baggotstown, and Priorstown on the eastern seaboard of Louth, north 112 of Drogheda. The records of the Irish parliament use the term ‘Brehon law’ infrequently in the fifteenth century, so this is not just a disparaging comment about the lawlessness of John FitzRichard but in all probability indicates that he actually claimed the lands by appealing to Irish customs of inheritance. In Irish methods of succession, family land did not necessarily descend via the principle of primogeniture, but could be claimed by

107 108 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.531. MacNiocaill, ‘Interaction of laws’,p.112. 109 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.561; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.504; Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, 141; CIRCLE, Close Roll 5 Richard II, no. 167; Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties,p.112; Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the White Earl’, pp. 163–4; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.54;O’Rahilly, ‘Irish poets, historians, and judges’, 114; K. Waters, ‘The earls of Desmond and the Irish of south-western Munster’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 59. 110 Otway-Ruthven, Liber Primus Kilkenniensis,p.125. 111 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 545–7; Reg. Mey, pp. 97, 307, 337–41; Dowdall Deeds,p.159. 112 Trusts became a common way of providing dower settlements by the ﬁfteenth century. In the colony dower was set at a third of the husband’s lands if the couple had surviving children and a half if they did not. This was the custom in some regions of England and indeed in London, but not in English royal courts, which nevertheless accepted the colony’s right to slightly diﬀerent inheritance customs: Simms, ‘Women in Norman Ireland’, pp. 14–15; Hanawalt, ‘The Widow’s Mite’,p.24; CJR.,i,p.363. 197 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 113 the most powerful male in the extended family group. John may not have been Lancelot’s heir; if that were the case, he would have had no right to any of Lancelot’s lands under English law and thus may have been tempted to appeal to Irish practice. Alternatively, it may be that he was heir to the half or two-thirds of Lancelot’s lands remaining after Alice’s dower settlement but that he also seized her dower lands. This would contravene English law, but would be in accordance with Irish 114 practice, which generally did not allow women to hold family lands. FitzRichard had the support of Thomas Talbot, the prior of St John’s, Kilmainham outside Dublin, and the backing of this influential prior may be one reason that he was able to keep control of these lands for several years, despite Alice’s protestations and parliamentary orders mandating their return. The dispute was still alive in 1463, when Alice Talbot once again appealed to parliament to force the restoration of her lands. It duly ordered that John FitzRichard relinquish them. The order of 1463 did not mention Brehon law but the opposition between English and Irish law is implied in the order’s command that John must proceed by ‘common law’: it thrice repeated that he could not hold the lands ‘without any 115 action sued against her [Talbot] at common law’. This suggests that John continued to maintain his claim in accordance with Irish law. The FitzRichard family to which John belonged was of long tenure in Louth and in the fourteenth century was based in the west of the county near Louth town, where Simon FitzRichard had been granted lands in 116 1337. This prominent FitzRichard progenitor was justice of the common Bench in 1331 and 1337 and served in other legal roles in the 117 colonial administration. John FitzRichard is not as well-documented but he may be the John, son of Henry FitzRichard, who was summoned alongside several family members to appear at Dublin Castle to account 118 for his crimes in 1447. Members of the FitzRichard family, particularly this John, his brother Richard, his son Richard and a Simon and Esmund FitzRichard, were subject to such summons several times in the mid- fifteenth century and acts against them were issued and annulled by the 119 Irish parliament with some frequency in the 1440s and 1450s. Such a

113 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland, pp. 64–77. 114 Simms, ‘Women in Norman Ireland’, pp. 14–15, 19; Kenny, ‘Anglo-Irish and Gaelic marriage laws’, 36. 115 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 171–3. 116 Calendar Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1334–8, 16 vols (London, 1893–1916), iii, p. 540. 117 Smith, Colonisation and Conquest, pp. 108, 128, 130, 144; F. E. Ball, The Judges in Ireland, 1221– 1921, 2 vols (New York, 1927), i, pp. 33, 41. 118 Reg. Mey, pp. cx, 337–41. 119 I have not been able to reconstruct a complete family tree of the FitzRichards, but these individuals were closely related, and they all seem to be brothers, nephews, or great-nephews 198 Irish Customs in the Four Shires record of summons and subsequent pardons was not unusual among settlers in the four counties and does not relate, necessarily, to gaelicization or the use of Brehon law. However, that John even thought to attempt a seizure of Alice’s lands according to Irish inheritance practices suggests a reasonably high level of knowledge about and experience with them, as well as, perhaps, an assumption that other settlers might find justifications by Irish law convincing. The ninth earl of Kildare was also accused of using Brehon law. Like comments on the use of coyne and livery, much that was written about the use of Irish law by the earl and his father was written by their detractors, particularly in the anti-Kildare atmosphere of some circles in 120 the Pale from c. 1515 to the fall of the house in 1534. Yet the cultural flexibility of the earls is well-attested, and the accusation that the ninth earl ‘used two lawes, our prince’s lawes and brehens lawes, which he 121 thought most beneficiall, as the case did require’ may well be accurate. David Sutton wrote these words in his ‘presentment’ of 1537–8, and although he, like many Palesmen, may have resented the earl’s power, it is 122 likely that his accusations contained at least a grain of truth. Like the earls of Ormond, who employed brehons and incorporated elements of Irish legal practice into their seigniorial ordinances, the earls of Kildare had extensive legal powers within their liberty of Kildare and their courts may have provided scope for interpretation and innovation under the influence of Irish law, particularly if that is what litigants in the liberty 123 expected or wished for. March law and practices taken from Brehon law, particularly sautes, were in use in parts of the colony in this period but, aside from the centrally approved practice of cin comfhocuis, there is little concrete

of one another: Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 95, 371, 413–5, 535–9; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 191–3, 289, 445, 505; Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.721. 120 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 30–3, 73. One such detractor was Patrick Finglas: Finglas, ‘Decay of Ireland’,p.3; Patrick Finglas, ‘Breviate of Ireland’ in ed. Walter Harris, Hibernica: Or, Some Antient Pieces Relating to Ireland (Dublin, 1747), p. 84. These are versions of Finglas’s work which was revised into four different versions, three of which survive. For the relationship between and chronology of these versions, see Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 27–34. 121 See above and below, pp. 162–3, 174–5, 184–7, 227–8; Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties,p.162. 122 Lyons, Church and Society,p.50; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers,p.110; MacNiocaill, ‘The interaction of laws’,p.110. 123 The law was responsive to local understandings, particularly at a manorial court level, and the earl’s manorial courts in outlying areas may have implemented Brehon law practices, though they did not do so to any great extent in Maynooth and Lucan, two of the major manors in the maghery: Hyams, ‘Edwardian Villagers’, pp. 80, 85; L. Bonfield, ‘What did English Villagers mean by ‘Customary Law?’’ in Razi and Smith, Medieval Society, pp. 108, 111–12; Bonfield, ‘The nature of customary law’, 525, 528, 530, 531; Smith and Dryburgh, Handbook, pp. 230–41. 199 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 124 evidence for their use in the four shires. The earls of Kildare and John FitzRichard were familiar with Brehon law and seem to have applied it in some of their dealings and, given the incomplete nature of the source material, we might assume that others in the four shires also did so. Nonetheless, on the whole, the English and many of the Irish inhabitants of the four counties used English courts, and English rather than Irish legal principles and procedures. Indeed, law seems to have been one of the areas in which the English of Ireland were least willing to adapt. There are several possible reasons for this relative rigidity, which is in contrast to the hybrid legal system accepted by English settlers in Wales and the march 125 law used on the Anglo-Scottish border. The absence of an official march law system of the type seen in Wales and northern England has been attributed in part to the comparatively late date of the English invasion of Ireland and to the dissimilarity of common and Brehon law, 126 which made it difficult to combine the two. Frame also posits that the use of the rhetoric of Irish savagery as a central justification for the conquest militated against legal flexibility and openness to the use of 127 Irish law. The Welsh conquest was also more thorough than the Irish, where the conquest remained partial, and this vulnerability may have 128 made the colonial administration less likely to compromise. Structurally, liberty courts, like that of the earl of Kildare, were ‘subject to the royal writ of error’, and according to Steven Ellis, this ensured that ‘the law and custom of the liberty could not diverge from the common 129 law, as was the case in marcher lordships of Wales’. Verdicts from central courts in the colony could also be appealed in royal courts in England and were often staffed with justices trained in England and this 130 too made them resistant to Irish interpolations. The prestige afforded to English law in the colony, its place in identity-building for the colonists and its capacity to exclude many Irish litigants and so maintain the privileged position of the colonists may also have contributed to its dominance. The English of the four shires, therefore, adapted a range of Irish political, familial, and legal practices, borrowing least extensively with

124 A civic enactment from Galway in 1519, for example, banned representation by Brehon lawyers. This suggests that some citizens had even tried to use Brehon lawyers or judges to represent them in the town’s hundredcourt: Gilbert, ‘Statute book of Galway’, 10th Report,p.398. 125 B. Smith, ‘Keeping the peace’ in Lydon, Law and Disorder, pp. 61–2; C. J. Neville, ‘Keeping the peace on the northern marches in the later Middle Ages’, EHR, 109:430 (1994), 1–15. 126 Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland,p.188; Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 86; Smith, ‘Keeping the peace’,p.63. 127 128 Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.125. Davies, ‘Frontier arrangements’,p.82. 129 Ellis, ‘Destruction of the liberties’, 151. 130 Appeals to English royal courts; see above, pp. 16–17. 200 Irish Customs in the Four Shires regard to law and perhaps most extensively in terms of seigniorial relations, with a range of exactions, duties, and protections offered and demanded by lords that were adopted from Irish models. Another borrowing from Irish culture that related, somewhat tangentially, to seigniorial relations, was the employment of bardic poets. Bardic poets were, like brehons, members of the high-status learned classes in Irish culture and they were important figures in the retinues of English and Irish elites, where they signalled and reinforced their patron’s prestige. In 1435–6 the colonial administration displayed its antipathy to the Irish poets active in the colony by appointing William Lawless as ‘marshal of the English liege mimers’ with powers to arrest Irish entertainers like ‘Clarsaghours, Tympanours, Crowthores, Keragheres, Rymours, 131 Skelaghes and Bards’. The ‘mimers’ that Lawless protected were described as English lieges and were presumably entertainers of English descent (the word mimer here denotes entertainers generally, including poets and musicians), who were competing for employment with Irish musicians, poets, and other entertainers. Given that the Lawless family was based in south county Dublin and Kildare, it is likely that Lawless’ 132 remit was wholly or in part the four shires. In a statute of 1474, the Irish parliament accepted that English elites in Kildare would employ poets – and the earls of Kildare, the county’s leading figures, certainly did so – but it sought to regulate them by ensuring that each poet was licensed and 133 attached to a particular household and retinue. In Meath a member of the Plunkett family, perhaps John Plunkett, the baron of Dunsany, and the Nugent barons of Delvin also employed poets, and two well-known bardic families of late medieval Ireland, the Uí Dhálaigh, and Uí 134 Chobhthaigh, originated in western parts of the county. The early sixteenth-century ‘Ordynau[n]ces and provisions for this land of Ireland’ complained that ‘Irishe mynistrelles rymours shannaghes ... 135 [and] ...bardes’ sent messengers to order payment from Palesmen. This suggests that bardic poets, Irish musicians, and historians/storytellers were employed in the Pale at this date and that at least some elements within the 136 colonial administration remained hostile to them. Documents preserved

131 Rawlinson B 502,f.18r, Bodleian Library, Oxford; C. McNeill, ‘Rawlinson manuscripts (Class B)’, Analecta Hibernica, 1 (1930), 168. 132 For the Lawless family, see below pp. 238. 133 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.215; Lyons, Church and Society,p.49. 134 E. Matthew, ‘Richard Nugent, ﬁrst Baron Delvin and baron of Delvin (d. 1475)’, ODNB; Simms, ‘Bards and barons’,p.180. For more detail on the patronage of poets by the earls of Kildare and barons of Delvin, see below, pp. 202–3, 228–9. 135 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.106. 136 B. Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language in the early modern period’, NHI, iii, pp 520–1. For seanchaidh, see K. Simms, Medieval Gaelic Sources (Dublin, 2009), p. 9. 201 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland in the state papers from 1534 and 1537 confirm that bardic poets were still seeking employment in the ‘Englishry’–this term could be applied to any English area in Ireland but by this date most often referred to the four 137 counties. One of these poets was Tege O’Rono (Tadhg Ó Rónáin), a poet to whom the ninth earl of Kildare rented lands in the close Dublin suburb of Crumlin in 1523. Other poets were resident in Kildare and 138 southern medieval Dublin (modern co. Wicklow) in 1549. By the sixteenth century, there were, therefore, bardic poets in Dublin but they seem to have been rarer there and in Louth than in Meath and Kildare. This may have been because more extensive urbanization in Dublin and Louth meant that these counties were dominated by mercantile elites and home to fewer wealthy landed magnates, who were the traditional patrons for poets. Dublin city and the large towns of Louth were also largely English- 139 speaking. Bardic patrons from the four shires, men like the baron of Delvin and the earl of Kildare, were among the leading figures within colonial society and their patronage of bardic poets reveals a great deal about the attitudes 140 of four shires landed elites. Bardic poems were expensive to purchase and they were intended to be performed publicly, to glorify the poet’s 141 patron. As such, they were only of value in a milieu which accepted them as markers of prestige. As Simms has noted, these poems could have been intended solely for the Irish affiliates of colonial elites, as ‘a somewhat cynical exercise in public relations, designed to make the lord’s 142 authority more acceptable in the eyes of his native Irish subjects’. She rejects this interpretation, however, and argues that some poems were tailored to an English audience and incorporated tropes designed to 143 appeal to the English of Ireland. This suggests that many of the English of the four counties, those who attended the feasts of settler magnates where these poems were performed, accepted bardic poetry as an indicator of prestige and thus made it a worthwhile purchase. Appreciation of bardic poets must thus have been relatively widespread in the region or at least in Kildare and Meath. Indeed, several members of

137 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 215, 508. 138 Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 49–50;O’Rahilly, ‘Irish poets, historians, and judges’, 87; MacNiocaill, Crown Surveys,p.253. 139 Simms, ‘The Poet’s Tale’ in S. Booker and C. N. Peters (eds), Tales of Medieval Dublin (Dublin, 2014), pp. 165–70. 140 Simms, ‘Bards and barons’,p.180. 141 K. Simms, ‘Bardic poetry as a historical source’ in T. Dunne (ed.), The Writer as Witness: Literature as Historical Evidence (Cork, 1987), pp. 66, 69. 142 Steven Ellis favours this interpretation and wrote that Kildare required an Irish retinue to ‘cut a ﬁgure in Gaelic society, acquire[d] native clients and inﬂuence[d] well-disposed chiefs to visit him in the expectation of entertainment and favour’: Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.110. 143 Simms, ‘Bards and barons’, pp. 181–2. 202 Irish Customs in the Four Shires the English community of the region openly demonstrated their respect for bardic poets in the first half of the fifteenth century, when the English- born lieutenants John Stanley and Richard Talbot conducted a campaign of harassment against them. In 1414, for example, Henry Dalton restored the goods stolen from the poet Niall Ó hUiginn by Stanley. The English of the four shires might also defend poets against Irish aggressors, and in 1447 Richard Nugent, the baron of Delvin, imprisoned the grandson of Art Ó Maoilsheachlainn in retaliation for the killing of the head of the Ó 144 Cobhthaigh bardic family of Meath. A significant segment of the English population of the four counties, including some of its most powerful nobles, evidently respected bardic poets and afforded them and their work the same value they were given within Irish culture. A single reference from Dublin in 1462 may indicate that another Irish custom – keening – was present in the four counties and on a significant enough scale that it was necessary to legislate against it. Unlike the largely elite customs discussed above, it was practised more widely across Irish society, perhaps primarily by women. A civic ordinance of the Dublin city council from 1462 ruled that ‘that no maner of woman cry wythin the wallys of the citte in tym of wer, apon the peyn of iii.s iiii.d and also to les 145 hyr clothys that ys abowt her’. This ban may refer to keening at funerals and imply that women were grieving for those killed in ‘the time of war’. Ritualized weeping and wailing is not exclusively Irish and can be found 146 in both medieval and modern contexts across Europe and elsewhere. It was not a significant aspect of late medieval English funeral rites, however, and English commentators in Ireland perceived it as an Irish 147 practice. The Dublin city council may have disapproved of this custom because of its Irish associations or perhaps because such lamentation was considered bad for morale or simply unbecoming for the city’s 148 inhabitants. The wording ‘also to les hyr clothys that ys abowt her’ suggests that authorities may have confiscated garments associated with mourning, perhaps the rags or ripped clothing that are mentioned in some 149 descriptions of keening. As there were Irish inhabitants of Dublin, it may be that only Irishwomen keened within the walls of the city,

144 145 Simms, ‘Bards and barons’,p.186. CARD,i,p.311. 146 R. Bartlett, ‘Symbolic meanings of hair in the Middle Ages’, TRHS, sixth series, 4 (1994), 54–6. 147 Gerald of Wales stated that ‘the Irish and Spaniards, and some other nations, mix plaintive music with their funereal wailings, giving poignancy to their present grief’: Topography,p.72. For keening in early modern Ireland, see C. Tait, Death, Burial and Commemoration in Ireland, 1550– 1650 (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 35–8. 148 Regulating mourning and making it ‘seemly’ was a concern of medieval sumptuary legislation elsewhere, and in Ireland by the seventeenth century: C. Kovesi Killerby, Sumptuary Law in Italy, 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 39, 79; Tait, Death, Burial and Commemoration,p.36. 149 Lyons, ‘Lay female piety’,p.59. 203 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland although, given the extent to which the English adopted other Irish customs, there is no reason to suppose that some women of English descent did not also participate. The brevity and vagueness of this ordinance and the fact that it is the only surviving of its kind limits how much we can say about who was keening in Dublin, or even if this fascinating reference does refer to that funereal custom. The English of the four shires, particularly those on the marches, adopted and adapted a wide range of Irish customs and some even came to look like their Irish neighbours, wearing Irish clothing and hairstyles. It seems that the general trend was for the English of Ireland to use these styles increasingly as their tenure in the colony lengthened, but some 150 individual Englishmen adopted Irish styles after only a short time. Significant sartorial assimilation within the colonial community was underway by 1297, when the Irish parliament prohibited Englishmen 151 from sporting a cúlán, so that they would not be mistaken for Irishmen. The cúlán was a distinctive high-status Irish male hairstyle in which the hair was shaved at the front and grew long in the back and at the sides over 152 the ears. In 1366 the use of Irish fashions, apparel, and mode of riding by the English was prohibited and these statutes were frequently re-issued 153 in the fifteenth century. There are fifteenth-century references to specific Englishmen of the four counties using Irish apparel or ‘habit’; for example, Richard Bellewe of Roche in north-western Louth was forgiven his non-attendance at parliament and other infractions in 1458, 154 provided he maintain good behaviour and ‘English habit’ in the future. In the same year John Haddesors of Louth (who had seized Alice Talbot’s lands ‘by Brehon law’) promised before parliament to ‘be of good rule and conduct’ and to wear only ‘English dress’ in the future. His promise demonstrates the link in the eyes of the colonial administration between 155 appearance and behaviour. In 1467–8 Henry Walshe of Carrickmines was accused of usurping the role of water bailiff of Dalkey (south county Dublin) and of using the ‘Irish habit’ and an ‘Irish disposition’, which rendered him so frightening that ‘merchants and mariners fear to come to 156 the port of Dalkey’. The rightfully appointed water bailiff was an absentee and the archbishop of Dublin was ordered to provide a deputy

150 R. R. Davies, ‘Roger Mortimer, (VII), fourth earl of March and sixth earl of Ulster (1374–1398)’, ODNB. 151 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.211. 152 P. Connolly, ‘The enactments of the 1297 parliament’ in Lydon, Law and Disorder,p.159;Duﬀy, ‘Problem of degeneracy’,p.88; Bartlett, ‘Symbolic meanings of hair’, 46; Sayers, ‘Early Irish attitudes’, 157, 164–5. 153 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 433–5; Crooks, ‘“Hobbes”, “Dogs” and politics’, n. 18, 121. 154 155 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 561–5. Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 531–5. 156 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 461–3. 204 Irish Customs in the Four Shires who was ‘of English rule and good conversation, using the English habit and not the Irish’ to replace Walshe. Walshe was several times summoned to Dublin Castle to answer for crimes and trespasses but he was also, in Christopher Maginn’s words, ‘the government’s principal agent in the 157 march’ and protected English interests in south Dublin. According to William Darcy c. 1515, marchers were not the only colonists who wore Irish clothing and he alleged that ‘all the King’s subjects of the said four shires be near hand Irish, and wear their habits’. Darcy claimed that ‘gowns’ in the English style were almost entirely absent from the four shires and linked this lack of English dress to a 158 growing use of the Irish language and Irish law. Darcy may have exaggerated when he wrote that all of the ‘King’s subjects’ wore Irish clothing but legislative material shows that several Irish fashions were 159 popular in the four shires and elsewhere in the colony. These were the Irish mantle, the saffron-coloured shirt and kerchief, the moustache and the cúlán. The Irish mantle, a large, rough, waterproof, woollen garment, worn over the head and extending over the whole body, was ideal for travelling in Irish weather and its utility ensured that it was exported to 160 England and the continent from the early Middle Ages onwards. Given how often mantles were mentioned in legislation, it is clear that they were worn regularly by settlers. There is evidence that members of Kildare settler families from the Maynooth area wore them in the 1470s, while they were reasonably common in Dublin, since the city council ruled in 1466 that the mantle should not be worn as a daily garment by citizens, with a fine of six pence for each offence. The mantle was allowed on an occasional basis, presumably for travelling, since its utility for travel and 161 campaigning was widely accepted. The council ordinance of 1466 does not say that the mantle was banned because of its association with the Irish and it is possible that the council worried about its use as a disguise – a 162 danger Fynes Moryson identified in the late sixteenth century.

157 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI, pp. 441, 557–61, 757, 767–9. For his career see Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 128–9;O’Byrne, ‘Carrickmines Castle and Gaelic Leinster’, 13–15; McCabe, ‘Carrickmines’, 71–2. 158 William Darcy, ‘Decay of Ireland’ in Cal. Carew v, p. 8; Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 92–3. 159 J. T. Gilbert, ‘Municipal Archives of Waterford’ and ‘Statute Book of the town of Galway 1485–1710’ in 10th Report, pp. 307, 312–3, 322, 400. 160 B. T. Hudson, ‘The changing economy of the Irish sea province AD 900–1300’ in B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999), p. 53;O’Neill, Merchants and Mariners, pp. 66–9. 161 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 173–9. Barberstown is just south of Maynooth: Otway-Ruthven, ‘The medieval county of Kildare’, map; CARD,i,p.326. The 1536–7 act against mantles included an exception for people on journeys or hostings: Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII, pp. 236–44. 162 Moryson, Shakespeare’s Europe,p.212. 205 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland However, when the mantle was again banned in 1536–7 in ‘thact for thenglishe ordre habit and langage’, it was named explicitly as an ‘Irish fashion’. Other garments associated with the Irish were banned by the Irish parliament in this year, including a coat or kirtle embroidered with silk or laid with usker ‘after the Irish fashion’ and the saffron shirt and 163 kerchief for women. There is some disagreement about whether these shirts, which were consistently called ‘saffron’ in the sources, were in fact dyed with saffron, 164 which was an expensive, imported dye. It may be that a range of plants 165 were used to create these yellow garments. In any event, so called ‘saffron’ clothes may have been banned as early as 1447 by the Irish parliament but were certainly prohibited by the Dublin city council in 1466, when it ruled that no woman, whatsoever condicion that she be, dwellyng with in the fraunches, use to werre safyrred smokes ne safyrred kewrchyes after the post semble, upon 166 the peyne of vi.d. as ofte as she can be take therwithe. Some of the women who were targeted in this ordinance of 1466 may have been of enfranchised Irish descent but others were presumably English, as other references to saffron shirts make it clear that members of the colonial population wore these yellow garments. Although the parliamentary enactment of 1536–7, which banned saffron shirts, mantles, and other Irish fashions, did not specify that saffron shirts were a female

163 Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII, pp. 235–44. ‘Usker’ is defined as an ornament or jewel in the OED, and this reference is the only one to the term given. Its etymology is given as Irish: OED. Uscar in Irish means an ornament or jewel, so this ban presumably refers to garments with jewels sewn onto them: Compact Dictionary of the Irish Language (Dublin, 1998), p. 630. 164 H. F. McClintock, Old Irish and Highland Dress (Dundalk, 1949), pp. 69–72; L. Mitchell (ed.), Irish Spinning, Dyeing and Weaving: An Anthology from Original Documents (Dundalk, 1978), pp. 22– 3; B. Mahon, ‘Traditional dyestuffs in Ireland’ in A. Gailey and D. Ó hÓgáin (eds), Gold under the Furze: Studies in Folk Tradition (Dublin, 1982), pp. 118–9; C. P. Biggam, ‘Saffron in Anglo-Saxon England’, Dyes in History and Archaeology, 14 (1995), 19–32; D. McManus, ‘A chronology of Latin loan words from early Irish’, Ériu, 34 (1983), 41; S. Flavin and E. T. Jones, Bristol’s Trade with Ireland and the Continent, 1503–1601 (Dublin, 2009), pp. 156, 183, 187, 200, 227, 231, 232, 141, 254, 272–3. 165 Weld may be the native plant most often used for yellow dye: Mahon, ‘Traditional dyestuffs’, p. 118. 166 CARD,i,p.326. George Steevens claimed that a 1446 parliament in Trim banned saffron shirts: Samuel Johnson and George Steevens (eds), The Plays of William Shakespeare in Ten Volumes, 10 vols (London, 1778), iv, p. 123; Joseph C. Walker, A Historical Essay on the Dress of the Ancient and Modern Irish (Dublin, 1788), pp. 42–3; A. Sherbo, ‘George Steevens’, ODNB. This purported 1446 parliament does not appear in Richardson and Sayles’ list of Irish parliaments and councils, but a parliament was convened at Trim on 13th January 1447. This was in the twenty-fifth regnal year of Henry IV, which spanned 1446 and 1447, so it would be possible to mistake the year: Richardson and Sayles, The Irish Parliament, 355; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 25 Henry VI, nos 10–12, Close Roll 25 Henry VI, nos 3–4. 206 Irish Customs in the Four Shires item of clothing, and one early sixteenth-century commentator wrote that they were worn by both men and women, the Dublin ordinance and a range of sixteenth-century sources suggest that women wore them most 167 often. The association of this fashion with women and the widespread connection in Europe between yellow clothing and prostitution provides another possible motive for bans on saffron garments. However, the ethnic association seems to have been the primary reason for their 168 prohibition in Ireland. Moustaches appear to have been one of the most problematic Irish fashions in the colony or perhaps the most widely adopted, since they were subject to the most frequent legislation in the fifteenth century. A parliamentary enactment of 1447 provided a rationale for the prohibition of moustaches, stating inasmuch as there is no difference in apparel between the English marchers and Irish Enemies, and so by colour of English marchers the Irish enemies come from day to day into English counties as English marchers, and rob and pillage by the high roads ... it is ordained and agreed that no manner of man who will be accounted for an Englishman have any beard above the mouth, that is to say, that he have no hair upon his upper lip, so that the said lip be at least shaven within two weeks, or of equal growth with the nether lip; and if any man be found amongst the English contrary hereunto, that then it may be lawful for every man to take them and their goods, as Irish enemies, and ransom them as Irish 169 enemies. This justification was practical: English adoption of moustaches meant that people could not tell the difference between Englishmen and Irishmen. This put the colony in danger because it allowed Irishmen to enter ‘English counties’ and ‘rob and pillage by the high roads’. Accordingly, the enactment prescribed a harsh punishment for disobedience. If an Englishman wore a moustache, he lost his legal protections from robbery and capture. Ten years later, the city council of Dublin mandated that no Irish men, men with moustaches (‘bardys [beards] above the mowth’), or their horses or

167 M. Purcell, ‘St Patrick’s purgatory: Francesco Chieracati’s letter to Isabella d’Este’, Seanchas Ardmhacha, 12:2 (1987), 9; Laurent Vital, ‘Archduke Ferdinand’s Visit to Kinsale in Ireland, an extract from Le Premier Voyage de Charles-Quint en Espagne, de 1517 à 1518’, ed. D. Convery (2012), CELT, 284–6; Richard Stanihurst, De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis, eds John Barry and Hiram Morgan (Cork, 2013), 121; H. Morgan, ‘Sunday 6 June 1518 – the day the Renaissance came to Ireland’, HI, 20:3 (2012), 18–21; Fynes Moryson, ‘The description of Ireland’, 226; McClintock, Old Irish and Highland Dress, pl. 19. 168 McClintock, Old Irish and Highland Dress,p.11; M. Dunlevy, Dress in Ireland (London, 1989), p. 47. See M. Pastoureau, ‘Formes et couleurs du désordre: le jaune avec le vert’, Médiévales, 4 (1983), 62–73; J. Munro, ‘The Anti-red shift – to the dark side: Colour changes in Flemish luxury woollens, 1300–1500’, Clothing and Textiles, 3 (Woodbridge, 2007), 89–90. 169 Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.89. 207 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 170 horsemen were to be housed inside the Dublin city walls. In this ordinance, as in the parliamentary statute, moustaches were directly linked to the Irish and anyone who was Irish, or who was English but wore a moustache was subject to the same discrimination. When English efforts to ‘reform’ the colony in the early and mid- sixteenth century led to a flurry of writing and comment on the problems caused by the adoption of Irish customs, some colonists of the four shires were still wearing moustaches, mantles, and Irish hairstyles. These mous- 171 taches were sometimes called ‘crommell’ from the Irish croiméal. The ‘Ordinances for Ireland’ created by Thomas Cromwell and the king’s council in 1534 suggested that a law be passed whereby ‘no gentyll man of landes weare over lipp commonly called a crummell, ne Yryshe hoode 172 [mantle], uppon peyne of forfayture of an 100s’. This was a sizeable fine, although it was not as harsh as the exclusion from English law suggested for men with moustaches in 1447. The same concerns about marchers and the Irish being outwardly indistinguishable, however, were expressed in the 1530s, and John Alen, master of the rolls of the Irish chancery, complained that Irishmen entered the Pale unimpeded because 173 they looked like marchers. ‘Thact for thenglishe ordre’, mentioned above and passed in 1536–7, explicitly linked English appearance with obedience to English law and again sought to deal with the problem of 174 ‘the kinges subjects’ sporting moustaches. This statute mandated that noo persone ne persons the kinges subjects within this londe ...shalbe shorne or shawen [shaved] above the eares or use the wearing of any heare uppon their heddes like unto longe lockes callid glibbis or have or use any heare growing on 175 their upper lippes callid or named a crommeall. This sought not only to ensure that colonists (and perhaps loyal Irishmen) did not have moustaches, therefore, but also banned Irish hairstyles, in particular the cúlán and glibs. Unlike earlier enactments of 1297 and 1447, no practical military, legal, or political reasons were given for these bans in the body of the legislation, although we know from Alen’s complaints that legislators were still aware of the practical problems caused by sartorial assimilation. Sixteenth-century enactments, however, generally assumed

170 CARD,i,p.298. 171 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.100; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.508. 172 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.215. For more on the ‘Ordinances’ see S. G. Ellis, ‘Thomas Cromwell and Ireland, 1532–40’, The Historical Journal, 23:3 (1980), 502–3. 173 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.482. 174 Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’,p.141. Irish men who submitted to English law were often expected to conform in terms of dress: Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 95; State Papers Henry VIII, iii, p. 266. 175 Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen.VIII, pp. 236–44. 208 Irish Customs in the Four Shires that the undesirability of colonists adopting Irish fashions required no explanation or justification. The reference in 1536–7 to Englishmen ‘lett[ing] theire heare growe’ presumably refers to the shaved front part of the cúlán or the shaved back part of glibs. Hairstyles and moustaches seem to have been among the most powerful visual symbols of Irish identity, perhaps in part because, unlike clothing, they could not be changed quickly and thus adapted day-to-day in different circumstances. The glibs prohibited in 1536–7 were a long fringe over the forehead with short hair at the back of the head and depictions of Irish men with long fringes survive from the sixteenth to 176 seventeenth centuries. Although the 1536–7 legislation indicates that some English people in the colony wore Irish hairstyles at that point, there are no direct references to the cúlán or glibs being worn in the four shires and it is possible that they were rare in the region. Thus, Englishmen and women of the four counties adopted a variety of Irish fashions, most notably the moustache, the saffron shirt, and the mantle as well as, possibly, though less often, Irish hairstyles, but the scattered evidence cannot tell us what proportion of colonists used these styles or where in the four counties they were most prevalent. It is reasonable to suspect they were common on the marches and complaints about the difficulty of distinguishing marchers from Irishmen support this notion. However, women wore saffron shirts and kerchiefs within Dublin city, and men wore mantles and moustaches, so Irish fashions were clearly found in the cities of the four counties as well. Moreover, they were prevalent enough that the city council felt moved to legislate against them. Other visual markers associated with the Irish were prohibited for only small segments of the colonial population. The Irish style of riding horses bareback was prohibited for wealthy colonists by the statutes of Kilkenny, with their injunction that Englishmen with holdings worth 100 shillings or 177 more must use ‘the English mode of riding’, with a saddle. In 1498–9 parliament ruled that ‘every Lord spirituall and temporall havinge liveli- hoode or benefice to the yerly value of xx marks within the precincte of the Englishe pale doe ride in a saddle after the englishe guise uppon peine of 178 forfeiture of their horse and harness’. The values stipulated in each statute, first 100 shillings (5l.), then 20 marks (13l. 6s. 8d.), are sizeable, and the second enactment applied specifically to lords, both lay and ecclesiastical, and to the Pale. This may have been because parliament knew these men of substance could afford saddles or because they felt it

176 McClintock, Old Irish and Highland Dress, pp. 26, 31, 35, 55. 177 178 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V,p.435. Quinn, ‘Bill and statutes’,p.96. 209 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 179 most necessary that elites maintained an English appearance. Regulations mandating saddles were suspended in times of war which suggests that the military utility of saddles, if at all relevant in motivating these bans, was not particularly so, and early sixteenth-century comments about settlers failing to use saddles emphasized their ethnic implications, 180 linking them to English apparel. A small proportion of laws regarding appearance in the colony had nothing at all to do with ethnicity or visual signals of identity; others were concerned only with signalling Englishness and prestige, like acts enjoining 181 lords of parliament to wear robes like their English counterparts. In general, however, legislation concerning appearance was most often framed in ethnic terms and motivated by a desire to differentiate ethnicity visually. Laws regulating attire and outward appearance swelled in the later Middle Ages across Europe, but few other regions generated laws that evince so 182 much concern with distinguishing between ethnic groups. Even other frontier areas like the north of England, and areas of ethnic interaction like Wales, eastern Europe, and the Iberian peninsula, devoted a much smaller proportion of their laws regarding attire to ethnic and/or religious 183 differentiation. The signalling of social status and moralistic or economic concerns were major motivations for laws regarding appearance across

179 The exact influence of the stirrup in warfare has been debated, as has the effectiveness of mounted warfare in Irish conditions: B. Bachrach, ‘Charles Martel, mounted shock combat, the stirrup, and feudalism’ in J. France and K. DeVries (eds), Warfare in the Dark Ages (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 221–47. 180 State Papers Henry VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 22, 216, 483. 181 There was no danger that lords would be mistaken for Irishmen while they were sitting in parliament, but their failure to dress in robes like the lords in England was ‘to their own great dishonor, and the rebuke of all the whole land’. That the lack of robes flouted English custom, even though not in an Irish manner, was considered problematic: Quinn, ‘Bills and Statutes’, 92–3, 101; Statutes of the Realm,i,51–3. 182 K. Phillips, ‘Masculinities and the medieval English sumptuary laws’, Gender and History, 19:1 (2007), 23. 183 S. M. Newton, Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, a Study of the Years 1340–1365 (Woodbridge, 1980), 131–2;Anon,‘A thirteenth-century Castilian sumptuary law’, The Business History Review, 37:1–2 (1963), 98–100;N.Roth,Conversos, Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 2nd edn (Madison, 2002), p. 75. Unfortunately, the available English historiography on central eastern Europe rarely addresses sumptuary law and it appears that ethnic distinctions by dress may not have been prescribed in German towns of the region. German historians of sumptuary law have focused on what is now modern Germany, Austria and Switzerland, rather than German settlements farther east: J. Miller, Urban Society in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700 (Aldershot, 2008); A. V. Murray (ed.), The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier (Farnham, 2009), especially P. Knoll, ‘The Polish-German frontier’, 151–74.Littleworkhas been completed on Welsh sumptuary law. Laws passed in England were in force in Wales but some of the few surviving borough ordinances from Wales, those of Cowbridge (which parallel those from Kenfig and Neath closely) and English statutes drafted specifically for Wales contain no sumptuary law. This was the case even in the years following Glyndŵr’s rebellion, when anti-Welsh sentiment was at its height, R. R. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales (Oxford, 1978), 137; The Borough Ordinances of Cowbridge, ed. P. Moore (Glamorgan, 1986); 210 Irish Customs in the Four Shires Europe but were addressed in only a handful of Irish laws, which, in their 184 focus on ethnicity, were unusually single-minded. This sustained concern with visual ethnic signalling indicates the prevalence of some Irish fashions in the colony and demonstrates just how uncomfortable this made the colonial administration. The penalties for settlers who wore Irish rather than English clothing and hairstyles were very harsh, particularly before the sixteenth century. The Irish parliaments mandated in 1465 that if thieves came to the four counties to rob or steal, ‘having no faithful men of good name and fame in their company, in English apparel’, they could be killed 185 and have their heads cut off with impunity. This harshness is explicable in light of the practical problems caused by unclear visual markers of ethnicity. In 1297 the cúlán was blamed for precipitating feuding when colonists mistakenly killed Englishmen, believing them to be Irish. In 1447 Irishmen with moustaches were taken for English marchers and allowed 186 into the colony, where they caused havoc, pillaging and robbing. There were also less tangible problems caused by sartorial assimilation. Fashion remained a powerful (though not fundamental) marker of ethnic identity in the colony; the loyalty of colonists who looked Irish was called into question. Hence, marchers who sought pardons from the Irish parliament were enjoined to wear English dress, in order to signal their identity, their alliances and loyalties outwardly. Much has been said about anxieties concerning disguise and false appearance across Europe in the wake of social flux and instability following the Black Death but the desire for outward appearance to match status and identity is apparent throughout the Middle Ages in Ireland and is linked to concerns about spying and deception by the 187 Irish. The close links between the colonists and the Irish within and without the colony encouraged the adoption of a wide range of Irish and hybrid customs in the region. As we have seen, these included politico-military customs that related to the duties owed by lords and tenants to one another. The most widespread of these was coyne (coinnmheadh) and livery, which was common in the marches, and exacted, on occasion, in the maghery. English marchers also demanded foyes (foighdhe) and cuddies (cuid oidhche), methods by which clients provided food for their lords and their retinues. In exchange, some marcher lords provided

Statutes of Wales, 32–45. Many thanks to Professor Ralph Griﬃths and Dr Matthew Stevens for their comments on the Welsh material. 184 J. Bradley (ed.), Treasures of Kilkenny, Charters and Civic Records of Kilkenny City (Kilkenny, 2003), pp. 22, 24; Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.91. 185 186 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 289–91. Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.89. 187 J. Brundage, ‘Sumptuary laws and prostitution in late medieval Italy’, JMH, 13:4 (1987), 352–3; Cohn, ‘After the Black Death’, 480–1. 211 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland protection called grith and comrick or sláinte/slánuigheacht for their clients and gave them horses, which may represent tuarastal, the ceremonial gifts given to clients or subordinates by Irish lords. Some English families began to organize themselves politically as lineal family groups, called ‘nations’, and were led by ‘captains of their nation’. All of these practices were adapted by the English for their own particular circumstances and it was the case, as has often been argued, that they were pragmatic accommodations to frontier conditions and not purely dictated by Irish 188 exemplars. Elite gift-exchanges, protection of one’s affinity, both physically and from prosecution, organization of one’s family as a political unit – none of these were uniquely Irish and all can be found elsewhere in the English polity. And yet the contemporary terms used for these practices – coyne and livery, grith and comrick, slatynaght, cuddies, sautes – were taken, at least in part, from the Irish language. The colonists adapted to their sometimes difficult circumstances using Irish terms and often Irish models. It is also relevant that, whatever the actual origin of each of these various practices, as well as practices like riding without a saddle and using spears rather than bows, they were all associated with the Irish in sources from the colony. Frame and Ellis, as well as others, have rightly been critical of the historiographical tendency to see all departures from English (lowland) norms in the colony as ‘Irish’ in origin and yet this dualistic mindset also permeated the contemporary records of the colonial 189 administration. This tendency to classify practices as either Irish or English was omnipresent in colonial sources and influenced the administration’s attitude to these various ‘Irish customs’, some of which might have otherwise passed into use in the four shires with little comment. The Irish origins of other practices found in the four shires are more certain, like the employment of bardic poets. That they lived and worked in the four shires confirms that the influence of Irish culture on the region was both deep and wide, and enough of the four shires community had imbibed Irish attitudes of respect towards these high-status entertainers that it was worthwhile to employ them in the region. A flexible and assimilative approach to Irish practice only rarely extended into the legal sphere. Though there are a handful of examples of Brehon or march law being used in the four counties, English law was clearly dominant. In contrast, Irish fashions like the mantle, the saffron shirt, and moustaches, were readily adopted by the English of the four counties. These fashions

188 Ellis’ and Frame’s arguments on this score are noted above and in the following footnote, but Goodman has advanced similar arguments about similarities on either side of the Anglo-Scottish border: Goodman, ‘The Anglo-Scottish marches’,p.19. 189 Frame, ‘Power and society’, 19–20; Ellis ‘Nationalist historiography’, 5; Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and parentela’, 105, 109; Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 125. 212 Irish Customs in the Four Shires were prevalent enough among the inhabitants of Dublin that the city council legislated against them and the Irish parliament also repeatedly banned the English of Ireland from adopting them. Moreover, there are few obvious pragmatic reasons for the English to have adopted Irish fashions; the mantle was celebrated as the best garment for the wet, cold Irish weather, but a moustache or a yellow shirt has little inherent practical value. That colonists wore them regardless, and in the face of prohibitions, is powerful evidence of the depth of influence of Irish culture in the four shires. The sheer variety and prevalence of Irish practices in the four shires reveals how great the influence of Irish culture was even on the English heart of the colony: that the Englishness of those who used these practices was unquestioned reveals the dwindling place of customs and outward appearance in late medieval understandings of ethnicity in the region.

213 Chapter 6

THE IRISH LANGUAGE AND THE ENGLISH COMMUNITY

In 1919 the influential Irish medievalist Edmund Curtis asserted that Norman-Irish gentlemen, even in the Pale, wrote exquisite verses duly preserved by the poets and copyists of the native race; nor were these mere literary tours de force, for by 1400 Gaelic was the language which came most instinctively and 1 affectionately to the lips of the old-English. His claim that Irish was the preferred vernacular of the English of Ireland has been both challenged and reasserted many times in the century since Curtis wrote these words. There are a number of reasons that this debate has been hotly contested. The first is the close link in many conceptions of identity between language and ethnicity or even nationality; this link remains influential in many nationalist movements, including those in Ireland and other regions of the so-called ‘Celtic Fringe’. For Curtis and other historians with nationalist sympathies, language was a vital element of Irishness and efforts to understand the eventual integration of the Old English into the broader Irish Catholic community in the early modern period began with an examination of assimilation, particularly linguistic assimilation, in the later Middle Ages. To argue about language use, therefore, is to argue about ethnic identities. Despite the rise of revisionism, much of which has attempted to distance Irish historiography from the political and cultural nationalism that has long influenced it, issues of 2 language are still imbued with emotional and national significance. A second key reason that the question of language use among the colonists remains unresolved is the problematic source material. The extent to which the Irish language was spoken in the colonial community is difficult to assess since so many of the surviving contemporary sources are written in Latin or archaic Law French rather than in the vernacular.

1 Curtis, ‘The spoken languages’, 251. 2 Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, 1–18; B. Bradshaw, ‘Nationalism and historical scholarship in modern Ireland’, IHS, 26:104 (1989), 329–51. See pp. 4–6 above. 214 The Irish Language and the English Community Historians have relied in large measure on later sixteenth-century commentators like Richard Stanihurst and Edmund Spenser, among others, and on the legislation of the Irish parliament to gauge the use of Irish. The former are late chronologically and permeated by political agendas that distort their comments on language use. The latter are limited by their nature as legislative enactments: they are very general and it is difficult to know how closely they reflect life on the ground. We know little about their enforcement and they rarely deal with named persons but, rather, contain sweeping indictments of settlers who spoke Irish. No wonder, then, that the debate about colonists’ use of and relationship with the Irish language continues. There are a number of sources and approaches, however, that have less often been used to shed light on the debate, and these provide a more detailed picture of language use in the four shires. These include Irish words in marginal glosses and transcribed testimony from defamation cases, references to members of the colonial community acting as interpreters, and evidence that settler magnates had Irish books in their libraries and used Irish rallying cries and family mottos. Most significantly, the use of Irish names, particularly nicknames, by members of the English community of the four shires reveals that these men and women, along with their close associates, were almost certainly Irish-speaking. Some measure of linguistic assimilation is a feature of many colonial societies, and the prevalence of Irish among the colonists can be most usefully compared to that of Welsh among the English of Wales, a region that was also marked by extensive linguistic and onomastic exchange in this 3 period. Furthermore, the bilingualism and sometimes multilingualism of the settler community fits well with recent work emphasizing the flexibility 4 of language use in communities across later medieval Britain and Europe. Before discussing the use of the Irish language by the English of the four shires, some comment on a related phenomenon is necessary: the use of Irish by the Irish of the area. As we have seen, there was a large and growing Irish population in the four shires and many of the newer arrivals, perhaps particularly clerics in Louth and clerics and laity in Kildare and Meath, bore 5 unanglicized names. This is not to say that new migrants, many from Irish- held regions of Ulster or the midlands, did not anglicize in many ways but

3 M. Leiberman, The March of Wales, 1067–3012: A Borderland of Medieval Britain (Cardiff, 2008), pp. 59–61. Linguistic exchange was common on medieval frontiers, but the level of such exchange did vary significantly in different regions: D. Abulafia, ‘Introduction: seven types of ambiguity, c. 1100–c. 1500’ in D. Abulafia and N. Berend (eds), Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 20–4. 4 Jefferson and Putter, Multilingualism in Medieval Britain, xi; Kleinhenz and Busby, Medieval Multilingualism. For direct evidence of multilingualism in Kinsale, co. Cork, see the descriptions of townspeople speaking English, Irish, and French in Vital, Archduke Ferdinand’s Visit, pp. 284–6. 5 See above, pp. 51–2, 57–9. 215 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland their use of Irish personal names and nicknames and the Ó, Mac, and, most of all, iníon Uí patronymics, reveals that most of these Irish people remained Irish-speaking, although many also probably spoke English. Furthermore, it is likely that Irish had always been spoken among the lower levels of society in the four shires but that it became more widely used as some long- resident Irish people rose in status and an influx of new Irish tenants flowed into the region. Overall the onomastic evidence, particularly from rentals and the lists of juries convened during the dissolution of the monasteries, suggests that Patrick Duffy’s assertion that ‘even in the Pale ...the mass of the peasantry spoke Irish’ was largely accurate by the end of the fifteenth 6 century. A letter in the state papers from 1515 corroborates this, for it complained that only half of Louth, Meath, Dublin, Kildare, and Wexford followed the king’slawsand‘all the comyn peoplle of the said half countryes that obeyeth the Kinges lawes, for the more parte ben of 7 Iryshe byrthe, Iryshe habyte, and of langage’. Importantly, many of these Irish speakers of Irish birth ‘obeyeth the Kinges lawes’: political and cultural anglicization were not always directly related. It is more difficult to determine the extent to which the English of the four shires used Irish as either a first or a second language. Nicholls and Lydon have agreed in the main with Curtis’s assessment that Irish was the first language of many of the settlers. Nicholls argues that, even within the Pale, English/Irish bilingualism was ‘probably nearly universal’ by the late 8 sixteenth century. Most early modernists, perhaps influenced by sixteenth-century writers like Stanihurst and Fynes Moryson, have also accepted the idea that many or most of the English of Ireland spoke Irish more readily than English although some note that this was less the case in 9 the Pale. Ellis, on the other hand, asserted that, while some settlers knew and spoke Irish, ‘where the peasantry was mainly of English descent – in the Pale maghery, south Wexford, and parts of Kilkenny and Tipperary – the countryside remained predominately English-speaking (despite suggestions to the contrary), as were the towns and cities’, though his stance on this has 10 softened in more recent years. Linguistic analysis of late medieval English and Irish supports the picture of extensive bilingualism and most linguists

6 Duﬀy, ‘Nature of the medieval frontier’, 29; see above pp. 57–9. 7 State Papers, Henry VIII, iii, no. 2,p.8. 8 Nicholls, ‘Worlds apart?’, 23; Lydon, ‘Nation and race’, pp. 103–24. 9 V. Carey, ‘Neither good English nor good Irish: Bi-lingualism and identity formation in sixteenth-century Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 46–7, 50; C. Lennon, Sixteenth-Century Ireland: The Incomplete Conquest (Dublin, 2005), p. 193; Bradshaw, The Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 23, 25–6. 10 Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.33; Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, 11; S. G. Ellis, ‘Crown, community and government in the English territories 1450–1575’, History, 71 (1986), 187–204. 216 The Irish Language and the English Community agree that Irish was spoken throughout the colony. Brian Ó Cuív, philol- ogist and historian, has described English as in ‘almost total eclipse’ by the 11 mid-sixteenth century. Raymond Hickey has suggested that in the late Middle Ages there was ‘extensive bilingualism among the Anglo-Normans’ and that English in Ireland was strongly influenced by the Irish language. For example, Hiberno-English often used the letter ‘h’ when it was not needed, 12 or omitted it when it was, substituted ‘w’ for ‘v’, and confused ‘t’ and ‘th’. Terence Dolan argues that Forth and Bargy in Wexford and Fingal in north co. Dublin retained Chaucerian English, as Stanihurst had claimed, but notes that Fingal, in the heart of the four shires, had a greater prevalence of 13 Irish loan words than Wexford. These Irish loan words in Fingalian Hiberno-EnglishsuggestthatIrishwasusedbyEnglishspeakersinFingal; whether these people were of Irish or English descent is impossible to know. Bliss, one of the most influential linguists of medieval Hiberno-English, argues that there was ‘rapid gaelicization’ and that neither English nor 14 French were widely spoken outside towns. Thedebateabouttheuseof Irish is therefore one in which the four shires, especially the region’s inner reaches and towns and cities, have been presented as particularly resistant to the encroachment of Irish culture and the region has therefore assumed a special position in debates about linguistic assimilation and the enduring cultural Englishness of the colonial community. It is accordingly necessary to look more closely and attempt to get a fuller picture of the extent to which, and the ways in which, the settlers of the region used the Irish language. Although historians and linguists have not always reached the same conclusions, they have often consulted the same historical sources to support their arguments. Linguists analyse the vocabulary, spelling, and syntax of English and Irish to determine the relationship between the languages but bolster their findings with historical evidence, most often direct references to language use in English and colonial administrative sources and comments from late sixteenth- and early seventeenth- century authors. Legislation of the Irish parliament is often cited to support the argument that many of the English of Ireland spoke Irish and 15 it does indeed provide convincing evidence that this was the case. There are a number of direct references to the use of Irish by the English

11 Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language’,p.546. 12 R. Hickey, ‘Assessing the relative status of languages in medieval Ireland’ in J. Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics (Berlin, 1997), pp. 196–8. 13 T. Dolan, ‘The literature of Norman Ireland’ in S. Deane (ed.), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing (Derry, 1991), pp. 143–4. 14 A. J. Bliss, ‘The emergence of modern English dialects in Ireland’ in D. Ó Muirithe (ed.), The English Language in Ireland (Dublin, 1985), p. 7. 15 Bliss, ‘Modern English dialects’,p.7; Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language’,p.509. 217 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland in legislation from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. A letter from Edward III to the sheriff of Kilkenny and seneschal of the liberty of Kilkenny in 1360 alleged that ‘menoftheEnglishraceinthesaidland [Ireland] teach and speak in the language of the Irish and they foster their children among the Irish in order that they use the Irish language 16 [also]’. To halt this use of fosterage for deliberate linguistic exchange, the crown administration ordered that no one of the English race, under the penalty of the loss of English liberty, after the next feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, speak in the Irish language with other English people, but each Englishman teach the English 17 tongue, nor foster their young children among the Irish after the aforesaid feast. Similar complaints appeared in the statutes of Kilkenny of 1366, which stated that ‘many English of the said land, forsaking the English language, manners, mode of riding, laws and usages, live and govern themselves according to the manners, fashion, and language of the Irish enemies’.To combat this, the Irish parliament ordered that every English man do use the English language, and be named by an English name, leaving off entirely the manner of naming used by the Irish ...and if any English, or Irish living among the English, use the Irish language amongst themselves, contrary to this ordinance, and thereof be attaint, that his lands and 18 tenements, if he have any, be seized into the hands of his immediate lord. Like Edward III’sordersof1359–60, the statutes of Kilkenny were concerned with preventing the English from speaking Irish among themselves, rather than preventing them from speaking Irish altogether. The parliament presumably accepted that knowledge of Irish was of practical benefit and did not seek to eradicate bilingualism. Rather, these statutes sought to ensure that Irish did not supersede English and become the first language of the colonists. The concerns expressed in the Kilkenny Statutes clearly remained relevant throughout the fifteenth century, since they were recited and re-issued in almost every decade between 1366 and 1495,and 19 often several times within a decade. Their last recital in 1495 omitted the clause prohibiting the use of the Irish language by the English. This has been taken to indicate that Irish was so widespread by this point that parliament

16 ‘homines de genere Anglicano in dicta terra idioma Hibernicum erudiunt et loquuntur et infantes suos inter Hibernicos nutriendos, ut lingua Hibernicana utantur’: 10th Report, pp. 260–1. For fosterage see above, pp. 170–5. 17 ‘Ordinavimus insuper quod nullus de genere Anglicano, sub pena perdendi libertatem Anglicanam, post festum Nativitatis Sancti Johannis Baptiste proximo futurum, idioma Hibernicum cum aliis Anglicis loquantur, sed interim quilibet Anglicus lingua Anglicana erudiat, nec infantes suos inter Hibernicos habeat nutriendos post festum predictum sub pena predicta’: 10th Report, pp. 260–1. 18 Stat. Ire., John to Hen. V, pp. 430–32, 435. 19 Crooks, ‘“Hobbes”, “Dogs” and politics’, 120–1, n. 18. 218 The Irish Language and the English Community felt it was useless to outlaw it, and this is plausible given the other evidence we have for the increasing strength of the language over the fifteenth 20 century. Unfortunately, while parliamentary material indicates that some segment of the English population in the colony routinely spoke Irish, it is not geographically specific. The legislation applied to the colony as a whole and it is clear that Irish was preferred by many colonists outside the four shires, including the Burkes of Connacht, the Geraldines of Desmond, and 21 perhapstheButlersofOrmond. Within Louth, Meath, Dublin, and Kildare, the picture that the sources present is less clear and the Kilkenny Statutes do little to clarify the issue. Likewise, deputy Sentleger’s account of the announcement of Henry VIII as king rather than lord of Ireland in 1541, which is often cited as evidence for the use of Irish by the English of Ireland, is geographically imprecise. It suggests that not all members of the Irish parliament knew English well enough to understand the proclamation, and so it was duly translated into Irish by the earl of Ormond. Irish secular and ecclesiastical elites were present at the parliament as well as English nobles from Munster, so perhaps it was these men, rather than anyone from the 22 four shires, who did not understand English. Happily, there are more direct references in administrative sources to language use in the four shires. A grant of 1466 from the Dublin city council suggests that some marchers did not speak English: John Bouland was given lands in Dublin for his lifetime for a set rent and a promise that he would ‘allso to make all myssyvve lettres in lattyne to Irishe enemyes, marchowres [marchers] and others in strange landes that undrestandith not Englys, as ofte as he shalbe requirit or desyrit bi the Mayre and 23 Baliffes’. Given that the mayor and city council was most likely to correspond with marchers who lived nearest the city, like those of south county Dublin, it is probable that many of Bouland’s letters were intended for these marchers from the four shires. Christopher Maginn has argued that county Dublin’s marcher lineages, in particular the Harolds, Lawlesses, Howels, Archbolds, and Walshes, were significantly gaelicized: the onomastic evidence for these families suggests that they were Irish 24 speakers. It is interesting that fluency in Latin was assumed for these marchers and that an Irish-speaking scribe and translator was not chosen,

20 Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language’,p.509; Ó h-Innse, ‘Fosterage in Ireland’,p.166. 21 L. McKenna, Aithdioghluim Dána (Dublin, 1940), nos. 36–40, 47–8; B. Cunningham, ‘Loss and gain: attitudes towards the English language in early modern Ireland’ in B. Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–1700: Colonisation and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin, 2011), p. 165; Simms, ‘Bards and barons’, pp. 177–97; K. Simms, ‘Literacy and the Irish bards’ in H. Pryce (ed.), Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies (Cambridge, 1998), p. 249; Smith, ‘Waterford and Bristol’, 565. 22 23 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 3,p.304. CARD,i,p.323. 24 Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 128. 219 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland and it may be that the council was unwilling to conduct its official correspondence in Irish. Although some marchers in the four shires evidently spoke only Irish, many were bilingual. Lord Leonard Grey, deputy lieutenant of Ireland from 1536 to 1540, claimed in a letter of 1537 that marchers spoke Irish when they were on the marches but spoke English and changed into English attire when they attended colonial assemblies in the towns of the Pale. He wrote that ‘all the Englyshe marche borderes, aslong they byde upon the borders, use Iryshe apparel, and the Iryshe tounge, and all ther servauntes in lykewyse, aswell in warre as in peace, and for the moste parte use lyke, being oute of the marche in thEnglyshe pale, oneles they come to 25 Parlyament or Counsayll’. This use of different languages as appropriate for different situations makes a great deal of sense in a frontier environment and there is other evidence for cultural and linguistic flexibility among those who moved between English and Irish spheres. The walled towns of the Pale, particularly Dublin, seem to have retained many English speakers and there is evidence that English remained the primary vernacular there. This is in contrast to Waterford, 26 a major port and the colony’s second city for much of the Middle Ages. Waterford’s city council struggled to ensure that English remained the dominant language in the town in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Enactments encouraging the use of English in the town by mandating that apprentices and constables be English-speaking are not 27 paralleled in Dublin’s city council records from the same period. By 1492 the Waterford council allowed litigants to speak in Irish in the municipal court if they were ‘of the countrie’, rather than the town, though it held that, otherwise, litigants would have to employ an English speaker to speak for them. The council continued in its efforts to preserve English – some thirty years later it mandated that only those who could 28 ‘speche the Englishe tonge’ could be made freemen. Similarly, towns in Wales also struggled with the problem of non-English speaking litigants and the use of Welsh was prohibited in courts in Welshpool in 1406 in the 29 wake of Glyndŵr’s rebellion. In fifteenth-century Dublin, and perhaps also Drogheda and other towns of the four shires, by contrast, it seems such regulations were not needed since they do not appear in the surviving municipal records. That English remained dominant in these cities is also suggested by a treatise that seems to have originated with a delegation from the colony, perhaps led by Archbishop Kite of Armagh, and presented to

25 26 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.478. Lydon, ‘The city of Waterford’, 5–6, 12. 27 Gilbert, ‘Municipal archives of Waterford’ in 10th Report, pp. 308, 312, 400. 28 Ibid., pp. 323, 400. 29 This prohibition was reactive, and unusual in a Welsh context: Davies, Age of Conquest,p.458. 220 The Irish Language and the English Community 30 Henry VIII’s council in 1515. It proposed that ‘every landelord, greate or small, of every Iryshe countey, subget to the King, put his sonne and heyre to Dublyn, or to Drogheda, or to some other Englyshe towne, to lerne to wryte and rede, and to speak Englyshe, to lerne also the draught and maners 31 of Englyshe men’. In 1533, the suggestion that children of colonists be sent to the walled settlements to learn English was repeated and parliamentary statutes of 1536 also imply that many of the English inhabitants at the centre of four shires region still spoke English, rather than, or perhaps in addition to, Irish.32 Justice Luttrell’s book, a commentary sent by Thomas Luttrell, chief justice of the common pleas in Ireland, to the king’s commissioners in the colony in 1537, gives a different impression of language use in the 33 region. His recommendations for bringing English speech and customs into use throughout the colony indicate that neither was universal in the four shires: to bring up agayne Englyshe ordre, speche, and apparell, it were goode, first the hedde of every howse within thEnglyshe pale to be causide to weare cloke and cappe, and to use the Englyshe ordre in his house, and to have long here; and so, to trayne the same order to the marcheis, when the thing is ones in use fully in the 34 Englyshe pale. A curate could be employed ‘to lerne dayly the said chyldren Englyshe’, Luttrell suggested, if the head of the house did not know English well enough to teach it. One explanation that Luttrell offered for the growth of the Irish language in the four shires – specifically in Kildare – was that coyne and livery had driven English ‘husbondmen’ from Kildare into Dublin and 35 Meath and that they were replaced by Irish tenants. As a result, Luttrell argued, ‘nowe the said countye, which was more parte Englyshe ther is not one husbondman, in effect that spekeith Englyshe, ne useith any English sort ne maner, and ther gentyllmen be after the same sort; all by reason of 36 coyne’. It is possible that Luttrell exaggerated the use of the Irish language in Kildare to bolster his criticism of coyne and livery and of the earl of Kildare, who he claimed had imposed the exaction. On the other hand, Luttrell was a member of the established settler community of the four shires and this fact may have restrained him from any such exaggeration. He would have been well aware of the damage done to his community by accusations of degeneracy made by newer arrivals from England.

30 31 Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery, pp. 141–2. State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.30. 32 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.167; Stat. Ire., RIII to Hen. VIII, pp. 236–44. 33 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.486. For Luttrell see J. Barry, ‘Thomas Luttrell’, DIB. 34 35 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2,p.508. See above, pp. 178–80. 36 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 502–3. 221 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Accordingly, we should not discount his assertion that English ‘speche’ was not ‘in use fully in the Englyshe pale’, although his comments about husbandmen suggest that Kildare was the county worst affected by the 37 erosion of the English language. Overall, the records of the municipal and colonial administrations suggest that Irish, as well as English, was spoken by many English inhabitants of the four shires though English remained dominant in the walled towns, particularly Dublin. The work of Richard Stanihurst and his contemporaries in the later sixteenth century, from both England and the colony in Ireland, has been 38 mined extensively for information about late medieval language use. These works post-date the period under discussion, and we must be wary of assuming that the state of the vernacular languages in the four shires in the 1570s was the same as it was in 1400, or indeed in 1500. The evidence suggests, in fact, that Irish became increasingly widespread in the later fifteenth century and it may have continued to grow in strength over the 39 sixteenth century. These later sources do, however, provide more detailed commentary than legislative sources and, when balanced with contemporary evidence, they can be of value. Language use was an important point of contention between the Old English and the New English and these later sources have a tendency to exaggerate in order to justify the stance of their authors’ respective interest groups. These groups engaged in a bitter struggle over control of the colony and each sought to discredit the other in the eyes of the English monarch. A common insult employed to discredit the Old English was the charge that they had, in 40 Spenser’s words, ‘degenerated and grown almost mere Irish’. Richard Stanihurst is the most famous Old Englishman who responded to these claims but Christopher St Lawrence and Rowland White, among others, 41 also wrote to defend their community. Thus Stanihurst and his fellows were defensive about the ‘Englishness’ of the English of Ireland and keen 42 to refute accusations of assimilation. In his chronicle of Ireland, Stanihurst held that ‘all the ciuities and towns in Ireland, with Fingall, the king his land, Meth, the countie of 43 Kildare, Louth, Weisford, speake to this daie English’. However, he later contradicted himself and admitted that ‘the Irish language was free

37 For the Old English community and their conﬂict with the New English see Canny, Formation of the Old English Elite; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 121–43. 38 Curtis, ‘The spoken languages of medieval Ireland’,p.245; Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language’, pp. 512– 13; Dolan, ‘The literature of Norman Ireland’,p.144; Bliss, ‘Modern English dialects’,p.8. 39 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 502–3; Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’, pp. 13–14. 40 Spenser, ‘View of the present state of Ireland’,p.80; Moryson, ‘Itinerary’ in Shakespeare’s Europe. 41 McGowan-Doyle, The Book of Howth; Rowland White, ‘Discors touching Ireland (1569)’, ed. N. Canny, IHS, 20:80 (1977), 439–63. 42 43 Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’, pp. 112, 145. Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’,p.6. 222 The Irish Language and the English Community denizened in the English Pale’ and that, outside the cities, the English of 44 Ireland spoke Irish. Despite his disdain for the ‘canker’ of the Irish language, as he termed it, Stanihurst had some limited familiarity with 45 it. He provided an accurate Irish etymology of the word ‘bater’ used by the English of Fingal, north county Dublin, and gave a translation for Irish words supposedly spoken by Silken Thomas, son of the ninth earl of 46 Kildare. In his De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis, written in 1584 while he was a religious exile on the continent, Stanihurst celebrated the settlers’ use of English laws and customs but again admitted that ‘they speak English as well as Irish, on account of daily business which they conduct with their 47 Irish neighbours’. Thus, Stanihurst accepted that Irish was used extensively by the settlers, even in the four shires, although this did not suit his political agenda. He did portray the spread of Irish as a relatively recent development and maintained that the towns in the four shires remained 48 English-speaking. Stanihurst’s contemporaries from England recorded extensive use of Irish by the English of Ireland, even in the four shires, and many presented it as part and parcel of the degeneracy that, they argued, made the 49 colonists unfit to rule Ireland. Lord Chancellor Gerrard provided one of the most hostile assessments when he observed in 1578 that ‘all English, and for the most part with delight, even in Dublin, speak Irish, and greatly 50 are spotted in manner, habit, and conditions with Irish stains’. Edmund Spenser, in his View of the Present State of Ireland (1596), wrote that the English of Ireland spoke Irish rather than their mother tongue. Such men could not be truly loyal, he thought, as ‘the speech being Irish, the hart must needes be Irishe; for out of the aboundance of the hart, the tonge 51 speaketh’. Fynes Moryson, who came to Ireland in 1598 in the service of Lord Mountjoy, wrote that the ‘Irish English altogether used the Irish tounge, forgetting or never learning the English’, although he excepted Dublin from this criticism and mentioned that, in Cork and Waterford, English townspeople could speak English well enough but preferred to

44 Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’, pp. 13–14. 45 He provides some accurate and some quite inaccurate Irish etymologies and was lambasted for this by Geoﬀrey Keating: Foras Feasa ar Éirinn/The History of Ireland, trans. Rev. P. Dinneen, 4 vols (London, 1908; reprinted 1987), i, pp. 31–43. 46 Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’, pp. 13–14, 269. 47 Stanihurst, De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis,p.109. 48 Carey suggests that Irish was so widespread that Stanihurst had no choice but to admit, reluctantly, that it had taken hold in the Pale: Carey, ‘Bilingualism’, pp. 46–7. 49 N. Canny, ‘Identity formation in Ireland: the emergence of the Anglo-Irish’ in N. Canny and A. Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World 1500–1800 (Princeton, 1987), pp. 159–212; Lennon, ‘Stanihurst and Old English identity’, 121–43. 50 Ó Cuív, ‘The Irish language’,p.512; Cal. State Papers Ire., ii, p. 130. 51 Spenser, ‘View of the present state of Ireland’, pp. 109–10. 223 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 52 speak Irish. But, while Moryson adds weight to the impression that in Dublin city English was still spoken, this does not preclude the use of Irish as well: he indicates that bilingualism was the norm in Munster towns and the prevalence of bilingualism would reconcile the evidence of his and Gerrard’s accounts. A tract written in c. 1599 by an author named only as H. C., a servant of Sir Richard Bingham, echoes these accounts in suggesting that bilingualism in the Pale was widespread, but also relatively recent, and in linking the spread of the Irish language to trade and familial connections. This tract may have been inspired by Spenser and other New English authors, but it claims to have drawn its information on language use from conversations with ‘an Old 53 Palesman’. If this Palesman is anything more than a literary conceit, his comments may express views about language use common among Pale elites, but if the tract is cribbed from Spenser and others, it may 54 offer little in the way of new information. Despite the importance of language to the ‘degeneracy’ debate, colonists like Stanihurst and New Englishmen like Moryson, Spenser, Gerrard, and H. C. give similar overall impressions of the position of the Irish language in English Ireland. They agree that Irish was spoken widely by the English of Ireland throughout the colony, including the four shires, by the mid- to-late sixteenth century, thoughtheydonotagreeontheextentto which Irish was spoken in Dublin. It may be significant that there is no evidence in the towns or cities of the four shires for the kind of support shown for bardic poets in Welsh border towns like Oswestry, where the poet Owain Waed Da was made a burgess in return for a poem glorify- 55 ing the town. This may suggest that Irish was not pervasive enough in the region’s cities to allow patronage of bardic poetry and, as we have seen, bardic poets were largely confined to the marches, but colonial prohibitions of bards may also have discouraged poets from living in the 56 urban centres of the four shires.

52 Moryson, ‘Itinerary’ in Shakespeare’s Europe,p.213. 53 This document is PRO, S.P. 63/203/119; Fitzsimons, ‘Fosterage and gossipred’, pp. 138–40, 145–6. 54 Bingham ﬁrst came to Ireland to quash an Old English, Desmond rebellion and in his capacity as president of Connacht was aligned with the crown’s centralising campaign in Ireland: B. Cunningham, ‘Sir Richard Bingham (1527/8–1599)’, ODNB; Fitzsimons, ‘Fosterage and gossipred’,pp.140–1; D. Edwards, ‘Ideology and experience: Spenser’s View and martial law in Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), p. 149. 55 Lyons, Church and Society, pp. 49–50;O’Rahilly, ‘Irish poets, historians, and judges’, 87. Owain Waed Da was referenced in the work of Guto’r Glyn, who wrote in the mid-ﬁfteenth century, so he must have been made a burgess before this time: D. Johnston, ‘Towns in medieval Welsh poetry’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales, pp. 97, 103–4; M. Richards, ‘The population of the Welsh border’, THSC, 1 (1970), 88; E. A. Rees, A Life of Guto’r Glyn (Talybont, 2008), p. 102. 56 Simms, ‘The Poet’s Tale’, pp. 163–4. See above, pp. 201–3. 224 The Irish Language and the English Community Aside from these relatively well-known sources, there is a variety of other evidence that can provide insight into language use in the four shires. The papal registers reveal that Irish was the dominant vernacular in a number of parishes in the region. It was papal policy that parochial clergy be able to speak the language of their parishioners and the curia removed clerics who did not fulfil this requirement. As we have seen, such depriva- tions occurred in the four shires, as in Wales and elsewhere, several times in the fifteenth century, as English clerics were accused of not carrying out 57 their pastoral duties because of their inability to speak Irish. In 1400 John Tathe was deprived of the rectory of Castlerickard, co. Meath, in the heart of the four shires, because he did ‘not well understand and intelligibly speak 58 the language of the majority of the parishioners’. Thomas Carpentere gave up his position in Lynaghstown, co. Meath in 1400 because he could 59 not speak Irish and assumed he would be deprived by the bishop. Lynaghstown is just north of Maynooth and well within the maghery. On the marches, Richard Whytehacre, the vicar of Killucan, adjacent to Rathwire in modern co. Westmeath, was accused of many inadequacies in 1441, one of which was that he ‘neither understands nor can intelligibly 60 speak the language spoken by the parishioners’. An Irish priest replaced an 61 English one in Rathwire in 1400 for the same reason. These petitions sought to deprive clerics of their benefice and ensure it was awarded elsewhere (usually to the petitioner), so we have reason to suspect them; justifications for disqualification could have been fabricated in the battle over a benefice. Nevertheless, the assumption that there was an Irish- speaking laity in parishes in the four shires was clearly believable not only to the papal administration, but, as in Thomas Carpenter’s case, to the bishop of Meath, who would have been in a better position to know the linguistic situation on the ground. This ecclesiastical material demonstrates that there were clerics of English descent who did not speak Irish, even those from long-established families like Taaffe and Whiteacre, but also that Irish was the dominant language for parishioners in many areas of the four shires, including parts of the Meath maghery. There were some English clerks who could speak Irish, even if there were not sufficient numbers who were both adequately fluent and willing to serve 62 in Irish areas. The majority of English clerics who held benefices in Irish- speaking areas were never accused of being unable to speak Irish; some of

57 L. Beverly Smith, ‘The Welsh language before 1536’ in G. H. Jenkins (ed.), The Welsh Language before the Industrial Revolution (Cardiﬀ, 1997), p. 17. See above, pp. 129–30. 58 59 CPL, v, pp. 364–5. CPL,v,p.284. 60 CPL, ix, p. 195. The Whiteacre family was associated with Meath and Louth as early as the 1300s: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.299. 61 62 Walsh, ‘The clerical estate’,p.365; CPL,v,p.452. Stat. Ire., RIII-Hen. VIII,p.63. 225 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland these may have been lucky enough not to have any rivals vying for their benefice but presumably others were able to minister to their parishioners in Irish. The record of two such men has survived. In 1406 John Possewyk sought an appointment to the church of Columba in Clonmore, north-east 63 of Dunleer, co. Louth. The curial clerks noted that ‘John, whose parents were English, says he understands the tongue spoken by the parishioners and 64 can speak it intelligibly’. We do not know the circumstances under which Possewyk learned Irish. It is possible that he was brought up speaking the 65 language since his family had long been resident in the colony. Alternatively, Possewyk may have learned Irish later in life, perhaps to improve his chances of being awarded a benefice in an Irish-speaking area. An undated entry in Primate Swayne’sregisterrecordsthatHenry Mannyng, canon of Cork Cathedral and rector of Dysart in Louth, was recommended to the see of Ardagh. He was described as ‘sufficiently expert intheEnglishandIrishlanguagesandworthybyhismanners,knowledge and the merits of his virtues’, but this bilingualism andvirtuewereappar- ently not sufficient since he did not secure the bishopric. Mannyng came from an established four shires family and was presumably resident in Louth 66 by 1430, when he acted as subsidy collector for Drogheda. Clerics may have been unusually mobile and linguistically flexible, as Thompson has argued was the case for Scottish clerics who, like their Irish counterparts, were often educated abroad and were more widely travelled than their lay 67 contemporaries. Irish clerics seem often to have been bilingual in order to 68 communicate with their English and Irish parishioners and fellow clerics. Furthermore, the existence of ecclesiastical texts which contain a mix of English and Irish, as well as Latin, confirms that some clerics preached in 69 both vernaculars. The records of Possewyk and Mannyng provide specific evidence for Irish being spoken by Englishmen from the four shires in the early fifteenth

63 The place name Clonmore is a common one, but the reference to St Columba makes it likely that this is Clonmore in Louth, where Columba founded a monastery c. 551:L.P.Murray,‘St Columba in Louth’, JCLAHS, 2:4 (1911), 337–46. 64 CPL, vi, p. 88. 65 The Possewyks were attested in Kildare and Dublin in the late thirteenth century: E. St John Brooks (ed.), Register of the Hospital of St John the Baptist (Dublin, 1936), pp. 217–8, 319; CDI, iii, pp. 60, 398, 503; CPL, v, pp. 80, 173, 578–7. 66 Reg. Swayne, pp. 120, 207. Mannings were resident in Dublin, Meath, and Kildare as well as Cork and Tipperary: CJR, i, pp. 201, 206, 280, 371; CJR, ii, pp. 129, 185, 235, 291–2, 337, 359, 475; CJR, iii, pp. 75, 83, 147, 175, 254; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.208. 67 Thompson, ‘Scots in England’, 8. 68 A. Fletcher, ‘Preaching in late medieval Ireland: the English and the Latin tradition’ in A. Fletcher and R. Gillespie (eds), Irish Preaching 700–1700 (Dublin, 2001), pp. 56–80; Booker, ‘Irish clergy’, 179–209. 69 Bartlett, Making of Medieval Europe,p.223. 226 The Irish Language and the English Community century and we know of others who spoke Irish in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The eighth, or ‘great’,earlofKildare(1478–1513) and the ninth earl of Kildare (1513–1534) are among the best-known 70 examples. Their close and sustained engagement with the Irish and with Irish culture, detailed in the foregoing chapters, entailed speaking 71 and reading the Irish language. The earls even appreciated the complex 72 Irish of bardic poetry and employed the Mac an Bháird bardic family. A catalogue of the library of the ninth earl from c. 1525 contains nineteen items in Irish, along with seven in English, twenty-one in Latin and eleven 73 in French. The high number of Irish works in the earl’slibrarysuggests that he and members of his household may particularly have enjoyed reading Irish texts but he was also literate in English, French, and Latin. Further evidence about the earls’ use of Irish comes from the Kildare Rental. It contains two agreements written in Irish. One of these was between the eighth earl and Mac Eochacáin of western Meath at the end of the fifteenth century and the other was between the ninth earl and Mac 74 Ragnaill, an Irish chief of the north midlands (modern co. Leitrim). Even if professional interpreters were used, something we have little evidence for in this period, and copies drawn up in different languages, the copy kept in the earls’ own records would have been in a language that they could understand. That Irish was the primary language of the earls’ household is suggested by the fact that the ninth earl’s English-born wife, Elizabeth Zouche, felt it necessary to learn Irish when she married the earl in 1503 and their son, the ill-fated Silken Thomas, seems also to have been an Irish- speaker.75 It is thus no surprise that the Kildare rallying cry, ‘Cromabo’, may have been taken from the Irish language. This cry means ‘Up Croom’,in reference to a Fitzgerald manor in co. Limerick. There is some disagreement about the origin of abó or abú. David Greene has argued that abú originally came from a middle-English form of ‘above’ but Fergus Kelly 76 states that it was an onomatopoeic Irish word. The word was certainly

70 Lyons, Church and Society,p.50; C. Lennon, ‘The Fitzgeralds of Kildare and the building of a dynastic image, 1500–1630’ in T. Nolan and T. McGrath (eds), Kildare History and Society (Dublin, 2006), p. 197; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.110. 71 See above, pp. 162–3, 184–8. 72 Lennon, ‘The Fitzgeralds of Kildare’,p.197. There were famous Mac an Bháird (meaning ‘son of the bard’) bardic families in Galway and Sligo/Donegal, but the poets employed by the Kildares were those described as ‘of Oirghialla’ (which at this point was largely conﬁned to modern co. Monaghan): AFM, iv, pp. 1165, 1247. 73 D. Bryan, Gerald FitzGerald, the Great Earl of Kildare (Dublin, 1933), pp. 268–9. 74 MacNiocaill, Crown Survey,p.272. 75 Carey, ‘Bilingualism’, pp. 51–2; Stanihurst, ‘Description of Ireland’, pp. 265–7. 76 D. Greene, ‘The Irish war-cry’, Ériu, 22 (1971), 167–73; F. Kelly, ‘Onomatopoeic interjections in early Irish’, Celtica, 25 (2007), 105. 227 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland associated with the Irish from an early period and its first attestation comes from 1312 when the Uí Thuathail rallying cry, ‘Fennok-abo’,was 77 described in a case before the justiciar’s court. The Fitzgeralds were using their cry by 1494–5, when it was banned by the Irish parliament, along with the corresponding ‘Butlerabo’ cry of the rival house of 78 Ormond. The eighth earl’s tomb was inscribed with the motto, as were a number of buildings and monuments associated with the earls in the 79 sixteenth century. The ‘Poeragh-aboo’ battle cry of the FitzEustace barons of Portlester, who were based in county Kildare, suggests that 80 they and their families may have spoken Irish as well. As is the case with the Kildare cry, we do not know precisely when the FitzEustaces adopted ‘Poeragh-aboo’, but these abú constructions seem to have been 81 most common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Irish was also spoken by members of the English elite of county Meath: the Nugent barons of Delvin, Sir William Darcy of Platten, and Patrick Bermingham, the chief justice of the king’s bench, were Irish speakers, as may have been the Fleming barons of Slane. The Nugents of Delvin and Flemings of Slane had abú war cries which were recorded in the late 82 sixteenth century: ‘Fynsheag Aboe’ and ‘Barnearegan Aboe’ respectively. It is possible that some settler families adopted abú cries to ape the most powerful settler houses of Ormond and Kildare, rather than because they spoke Irish, but much other evidence exists for the Nugent’sfamiliarity with the language. They were patrons of the Ó Cobhthaigh family of bardic poets from at least the mid-fifteenth century on, and a duanaire,or ‘poem-book’, survives, containing bardic praise poems for members of the 83 Nugent family. In 1528, the third baron of Delvin was held hostage by Ó Conchobhair Failghe of Offaly because he neglected to pay him blackrent while acting as deputy for the chief governor, the earl of Kildare. Blackrent was, essentially, protection money that was paid to particularly threatening Irish lords in exchange for assurances not to attack the colony. When James

77 78 CJR, iii, p. 244. Quinn, ‘Bills and statutes’, 94. 79 Bryan, Gerald FitzGerald,p.6; Greene, ‘Irish war-cry’,p.170; W. Fitzgerald, ‘Incidents in the life of Garrett More, eighth earl of Kildare’, JCKAS, 2 (1896–9), 116, 123; W. Fitzgerald, ‘Kilkea Castle’ JCKAS, 2 (1896–9), 13. 80 The ‘Poeragh’ aspect of this cry suggests that the FitzEustaces were related to the le Poer or Power family of Waterford, perhaps descended from one of the many Eustaces of that family: Hore and Graves, Southern and Eastern Counties,p.163. 81 McNeill, ‘Rawlinson manuscripts’, 129. 82 Cal. State Papers Ire.,x,p.683. Hanmer wrote to inform William Cecil that he was collecting these notes in 1594: A. Ford, ‘Meredith Hanmer (1543–1604)’, ODNB. 83 Simms, ‘Bards and barons’,p.180; É. Ó Tuathail, ‘Nugentiana’, Eígse, 2 (1940), 4–5;P.Ó Macháin, ‘Two Nugent manuscripts: the Nugent Duanaire and Queen Elizabeth’s Primer’, RnM, 23 (2012), 127; www.isos.dias.ie/english/index.html; B. Ó Cuív, The Irish Bardic Duanaire or ‘Poem-book’, the R. I. Best Memorial Lecture (Dublin, 1973), pp. 11–14. 228 The Irish Language and the English Community Butler, son of the earl of Ormond, visited Nugent in captivity, the two were permitted to speak in Irish only, so that Ó Conchobhair could 84 understand what they were saying. Further evidence of the Nugents’ engagement with the Irish language comes from the later sixteenth century and Christopher, the fifth baron, produced a primer in Irish for Queen 85 Elizabeth in 1564. In it, intriguingly, he called Irish ‘the language of your 86 people [in Ireland]’. Delvin, the family seat of the Nugents, was on the outlying edge of English Meath by the later fifteenth century. Ellis describes the third baron as ‘a key figure in the defence of the Meath Englishry’,a ‘border baron’ who defended the north-western frontier of the four shires 87 and acted as chief governor of the colony. Speaking Irish was clearly not reserved to non-elites or to the politically marginalized but it was more common among the marcher elite than among those within the maghery. As noted already, Sir William Darcy of Platten and chief justice Patrick Bermingham were also fluent Irish-speakers and acted as translators for Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, when he came to the colony in 1520 as 88 King Henry VIII’s lieutenant. Bermingham served not only as chief justice but also in a ‘secret council’ of three men who acted jointly as 89 deputy lieutenant for the colony in 1529–30. He held lands in Johnstown and Dardistown in eastern Meath and he married Katharine 90 Preston, of the established Meath settler family. The service of some of the most influential men of the four shires as translators was not a new development in the sixteenth century, and local elites of Louth translated 91 for Richard II in his negotiations with Irish lords in 1395. And yet in 1515, Darcy had bemoaned the spread of Irish tongue as evidence of the 92 decay of the colony. That Darcy and others reconciled their Irish- speaking with loyalty and service to the crown and staunch military opposition to the Irish confirms that these did not appear contradictory to them. Bilingualism was not, it seems, seen as a challenge to Englishness in the colony, but a failure to know and speak English seems to have been

84 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 130–1; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, pp. 129–30. 85 O. Bergin, Irish Bardic Poetry (Dublin, 1970), pp. 139–41, 276–7; G. Murphy, ‘Poems of exile by Uilliam Mac Barúin Dealbhna’, Éigse, 6 (1948–52), 8–15; D. Casey, The Nugents of Westmeath and Queen Elizabeth’s Irish Primer (Dublin, 2016). 86 Of course, after the implementation of surrender and regrant under Henry VIII, the English crown had many Irish subjects, who could be described as the queen’s ‘people in Ireland’. Whether Nugent would have considered them as such is more uncertain: C. Lennon, ‘Christopher Nugent, ﬁfth Baron Delvin (1544–1602)’, ODNB; Carey, ‘Bi-lingualism’,p.54. 87 S. G. Ellis, ‘Richard Nugent, third Baron Delvin (d. 1538)’, ODNB. 88 State Papers Hen. VIII, iii, no. 2, pp. 36, 42–5. 89 D. B. Quinn, ‘English policy in Irish aﬀairs’, NHI, ii, p. 678. 90 Ball, Judges in Ireland, pp. 192–3; J. H. Baker, ‘Patrick Bermingham (c. 1460–1532)’, ODNB. For the Berminghams, see p. 235. 91 92 Smith, Crisis and Survival,p.209. Maginn and Ellis, Tudor Discovery,p.93. 229 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland suspect and was singled out as problematic in sixteenth-century commentaries. Other families of Meath who seem to have been bilingual include the Plunketts of Dunsany and perhaps some of the Barnewalls of Dublin. A manuscript written in part for John Plunkett, the third baron of Dunsany, and his wife Katharine Hussey in the late fifteenth century contains a large amount of Irish material, including a bardic poem for a member of the Plunkett family, grail legends translated into Irish and 93 anecdotes about Irish saints. The commission of such a manuscript suggests that at least some of the Plunketts were literate in Irish, and, although the ownership of the manuscript by the Barnewalls in the 1570s does not prove conclusively that members of that family were also able to read Irish, this too is likely. A defamation case from the archbishop of Armagh’s court gives us a rare window into the vernacular used by non-elites in the English community of the four shires. In 1441 a woman named Elena Oweyn of Termonfeckin, co. Louth was charged with defaming two of her neighbours. Elena bore a Welsh surname, used by descendants of Welshmen who had come to Ireland in the company of Strongbow, and thus, in the dichotomous ethnic classification of late medieval Ireland, would have been considered English. The register of the archbishop of Armagh, John Mey, diligently records the words that Elena was accused of using to insult her neighbour Agnes Rogan: ‘foule oold caylagh, trate, and heigge’. The word ‘caylagh’ is a rendition of the Irish cailleach meaning ‘hag’, and both ‘trate (trot)’ and ‘heigge (hag)’ connote much the same 94 thing. Litigants and witnesses claimed in defamation cases to report actual speech but eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Nevertheless, whether Elena actually used this slur or not, this account demonstrates that her opponents (Agnes and her husband), who included these insults in their plea, knew this Irish word and presumably expected the consistory court officials to know it and understand its insulting nature. Either these litigants were familiar with Irish or some Irish words had crept into English usage in the towns of the Louth maghery. Most of Elena’s tirade against Agnes was in English, however, and the reported speech in the handful of other surviving defamation cases from 95 fifteenth-century Louth towns is all English. This mirrors defamations 96 cases from Wales, where the use of Welsh is uncommon. A play from

93 The manuscript is MS Rawl. B 512: B. Ó Cuív, Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Oxford College Libraries (Dublin, 2001), pp. 223–54; K. Simms, Bardic Poetry Database, www.bardic.celt.dias.ie;W.O’Sullivan, ‘Medieval Meath manuscripts’, RnM, 7:4 (1985–6), 15. 94 Reg. Mey, pp. 73–4; Cosgrove, ‘The Armagh registers’, 316. 95 Reg. Mey, pp. 53, 73–4, 93, 142; Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 644. 96 Smith, ‘The Welsh language’,p.35. 230 The Irish Language and the English Community the very end of the sixteenth century suggests that some settlers from towns of Louth had a more thorough knowledge of Irish by that time. The play was entitled Captain Thomas Stukeley and it was printed in Ireland in 1605 but performed earlier, perhaps in 1596. The play survives in two versions, one of which is written in a Hiberno-English dialect that, according to Alan Bliss, probably represents the English spoken in Dundalk and other towns in Louth. Irish words and phrases appear in the play frequently and, importantly, were used correctly, which implies that the playwright was conversant enough in Irish to manipulate words and phrases with grammatical accuracy. Irish words that appear in the play are written phonetically, without any apparent knowledge of Irish spelling, suggesting that, although it is likely that the playwright spoke 97 Irish relatively well, he may not have been literate in the language. Although this evidence is late, the playwright would have been born no later than the 1570s and his grammatically correct use of the Irish language indicates that some English inhabitants of Louth were well acquainted with Irish by that time. The evidence overall suggests that some Irish was knowninLouth’s towns by the mid-fifteenth century, and it may have become more prevalent by the mid-to-late sixteenth century but it is unlikely that Irish ever became dominant in these towns. The influence of the Irish language is discernible in other Latin and English sources from the four shires. It is likely that some of the Irish words, marginalia in Irish or Irish spellings found in documents from the region were in fact written by Irish scribes, not by English ones, although it is 98 unlikely that this was the case in every instance. All the same, we rarely know the name or ethnicity of particular scribes and it is not productive to locate all examples of Irish marginalia in manuscripts from the four shires. Nevertheless, a few manuscripts that were owned by settler families of the four shires are worth mentioning. TCD 77, a mid-fifteenth century manuscript, has several Irish entries that are mostly later additions and a small chronicle written in Latin sometime in the later sixteenth century that contains Irish spellings for family names. The families that the chronicle discusses, the Bellews, Nugents, and Plunketts, hailed from Louth and Meath, so it was probably written for someone from those families and with interests in those counties. The chronicle mentions ‘Iohannes Bellew’ and his wife, ‘Isma Nuindseand [i.e. Nugent]’ and records the death of Patrick Plunkett, baron of Louth, in 1578 at the hands of the sons of 99 ‘Bernardi mhegmhathghamhna’. These spellings of Nugent and Mac

97 98 Bliss, ‘Modern English dialects’, pp. 7–19. O’Sullivan, ‘Medieval Meath manuscripts’, 10. 99 This refers to John Bellew and his wife Ismay Nugent, who lived in Castletown, co. Louth in the second half of the sixteenth century. 231 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Mathghamhna mirrors the Irish spellings closely, unlike the phonetic renderings often seen in English and Latin documents written by monoglot English speakers. Whether the scribe was of English or Irish descent is unknown but members of both the Plunkett and the Nugent families spoke Irish, so there is no reason to think that their local English scribes would not 100 also have done so. Melville Richards has used similar evidence in his discussion of the Welsh borders, and notes that most English documents ‘mangled Welsh names’ while family papers from the Welsh borders have a ‘high standard of accuracy in the representation of Welsh names’.He argues that this indicates ‘a state of real bilingualism along the [Welsh] 101 Border during the Middle Ages’. This Irish manuscript material, combined with our other evidence, indicates that the same was the case for parts of the four shires. The Irish language even influenced the records of the colonial administration. The patent rolls of Henry IV record that ‘John Oraly alias dicito 102 Oragillich’ was pardoned and given English status. The first spelling is the usual phonetic attempt at transcription, while the second is much closer to the Irish spelling of Ó Raghallaigh, which suggests that the scribe knew the Irish version. A close letter confirming the dower settlement of Anastacia Wogan in 1418 contains Irish words, demonstrating either that the scribe knew Irish, or that these words had crept into English use. Michael Devitt and, more recently, Peter Crooks have identified Irish words in the document describing Wogan’s dower: ‘clyth’ meaning cladh or ditch, ‘cnaphit’ meaning cnapach or rough and hillocky, ‘bathyr’ meaning bóthar or road, ‘feigh’ meaning fiodh, a wood, and cnoc, meaning hill.103 Other words that appear often in sources from the colony – alterage, caples (from capaill – horse), maghery, and others – were taken from the Irish language, but determining precisely when or where this linguistic transfer occurred is not possible. In general, these disparate sources give the impression that Irish was spoken by many members of the English community of the four shires, and that the language was sufficiently widespread that it had an impact on the English spoken and written in the region. We can pinpoint members of that community who spoke Irish – the clerics John Possewyk and Henry Mannyng, Elena Oweyn, and many marcher families – but, overall, the evidence is occasional and most of it concerns political elites. However, there is another avenue that can reveal a great deal about language use – the study of names.

100 O Cuív, ‘The Irish language’,p.511; Lennon, ‘Christopher Nugent’. 101 Richards, ‘Population of the Welsh border’, 90–1. 102 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 49. 103 Rev. M. Devitt, ‘Dame Anastasia Wogan’s dower’, JCKAS, 3:1 (1899), 88; CIRCLE, Close Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 3. 232 The Irish Language and the English Community Historians have often used the study of names to learn about the interaction between cultures, as the adoption of names from an outside community generally implies sustained and close contact with that 104 community. The English of Ireland were not immune to this form of assimilation. According to Sir John Davies in 1610, they ‘did not only forget the English language and scorn the use thereof, but grew to be ashamed of their very English names ... and took Irish Sirnames and 105 Nick-names’. As Davies implied, names are intimately linked with identity but they also reveal a great deal about language use. David Postles argues that, although ‘names are not exclusively linguistic’, they ‘did have linguistic value and thus were embedded in the language and language use 106 of the speech community’. This is particularly true of nicknames, which historians of medieval Ireland have used as evidence of Irish language use, though none has addressed the adoption of Irish names by 107 settlers in the later Middle Ages in any depth. Conchubhar Ó Crualaoich has examined this phenomenon in the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Wexford, in an area which bears many similarities to the four shires and has been termed ‘the second Pale’. Looking at the nicknames, personal names, and family names used by members of settler families from the area, he determined that a number of these 108 families were Irish-speaking by the early modern period. Similarly, Ciarán Parker, who analysed names in county Waterford in the fourteenth century, argues that descriptive Irish nicknames were ‘the results of 109 the use of Irish either as a vernacular or in some creolised form’. Nicknames were apt to arise in an individual’s lifetime and in the course of conversation, rather than being chosen formally. This indicates that the people who bore these Irish nicknames lived in an Irish-speaking, perhaps bilingual, milieu. Irish surnames and personal names, which were used by the English on a much smaller scale, often relate to the use of the Irish language but they were more likely to be fossilized within a family. This means that they are not as useful for determining the language that people spoke at any given time. For example, an Englishman given the Irish

104 B. Ó Cúiv, ‘Personal names as an indicator of relations between native Irish and settlers in the Viking period’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society, pp. 79–88;Verstraten,‘Naming practices’, 43–53. 105 Davies, ‘Discovery of the true causes’,p.182. 106 D. Postles, The North through its Names: A Phenomenology of the Medieval and Early-Modern Northern England, English surnames Survey, 8 (Oxford, 2007), p. 27. 107 Smith, ‘Late medieval Ireland and the English connection’, 548. 108 C. Ó Crualaoich, ‘Some evidence in Tudor “Fiants, Calendar of Patent Rolls” and “Inquisitions” for Irish among families of Anglo-Norman descent in county Wexford between 1540 and 1640’, The Past: The Organ of the Uí Cinsealaigh Historical Society, 26 (2005), 80–102. 109 Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and parentela’,p.105. 233 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland name Diarmait by his parents may have been named thus in honour of an English godparent or family member by that name, who had in turn been named after an Irishman. For surnames which were passed down from generation to generation, determining when an Irish name form began to 110 be used is even more problematic. Nicknames were by far the most common type of Irish name adopted by the English of the four shires and indeed by those elsewhere in the 111 colony. The Irish routinely bore descriptive nicknames, which usually appear in the sources as a middle name, between the personal and family names. Many Irish families were conservative in their choice of personal names and there might be several men with the same personal and family name living simultaneously, so these nicknames distinguished between 112 individuals. Nicknames based on hair colour (e.g. dubh – black or buidhe – yellow), age (óg – young/junior and mór – old/big/senior), and physical features (e.g. ballach – pockmarked or ciotach – left-handed or clumsy) were most common and these nicknames were also used by the English when they adopted or were given Irish epithets. The nicknames discussed below were not ephemeral but were widely accepted and probably used by the people who bore them, since they appear in 113 administrative records which were careful to record names accurately. Importantly, they are all found in sources written in Latin, French, or English, demonstrating that they were not translations of non-Irish nicknames into Irish, as nicknames recorded in Irish language source could be. These nicknames were used within the settler community, and many were probably coined by settlers. They are very suggestive, albeit not definitive, evidence of Irish-speaking, but definitive evidence is rare for any but the most prominent figures in the colony. These nicknames can tell us something about language use among those further down the social ladder in colonial society. A member of a marcher family, the Daltons of the Meath marches (modern co. Westmeath), used the Irish nickname bacach, meaning lame, at the turn of the fourteenth century. In 1402, William Darditz was given permission to marry Matilda, an Irish woman who was the widow of 114 Richard Batagh/Bagagh Dalton. Dalton thus had both an Irish nickname and an Irish wife (who on his death married another man of English descent). Many of the families who bore Irish nicknames and seem to

110 F. Edmonds, ‘Personal names and the cult of Patrick in eleventh-century Strathclyde and Northumbria’ in S. Boardman, J. R. Davies, and E. Williamson (eds), Saints Cults in the Celtic World (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 46. 111 112 Ó Crualaoich, ‘Some evidence for Irish’,p.83. Verstraten, ‘Naming practices’,p.44. 113 Holt, What’s in a Name?,p.6. See above, p. 89,n.276. 114 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 4 Henry IV, nos 27, 311. 234 The Irish Language and the English Community have been Irish-speaking also entered into marriages with Irish people, and it is reasonable to suppose that in many cases the two went hand in hand. Davies has linked intermarriage in Wales to ‘linguistically mon- grel names for children’ and there is reason to suspect that many 115 children of mixed marriages would have been bilingual. Other families that used Irish nicknames, like the Berminghams, displayed further markers of gaelicization. Remund Leynagh Bermingham, a landowner in county Meath, was mentioned in chancery documents of 1423. His nickname was used by both the Irish and English and 116 means ‘from Leinster’. William FitzJohn, alias William Shanesson Bermingham, was pardoned by Henry VI in 1425;his‘Shanesson’ nickname is an English/Irish hybrid form of the Norman 117 ‘FitzJohn’. Members of this county Kildare marcher family had some adopted Irish customs by the early fourteenth century, as Piers Bermingham, who was responsible for the infamous murder of members of the Ó Conchobhair family in 1305, fostered children of the Uí 118 Chonchobhair before his change of heart. John Bermingham, earl of Louth, was surrounded by a retinue that included Irish poets and learned men when he was murdered at Braganstown in 1329.Indeed itmayhavebeeninsomepartBermingham’s adoption of Irish customs, particularly his billeting of kerns on the town of Ardee, which occa- 119 sioned animosity against him and led eventually to his death. Although they adopted Irish customs and language, the family was not alienated from the English crown – Robin Frame has used the Berminghams as an example of the high level of ‘acclimatisation’ that could be reached without threatening the ties of English settlers in Ireland to England and to the 120 colonial government. Three men with English surnames and Irish nicknames were accused of attacking and burning settlements in Meath and north county Dublin in 1447: Walter Ryagh Cruys, Remon Carragh Cruys, and Shan Boy 121 Sprynghan. These two members of the north Dublin and Meath Cruise family bore the descriptive nicknames ‘ryagh’ or riabhach meaning swarthy, and ‘carragh’ or carrach meaningscabby.TheCruisefamilyhada long history of close contact with the Irish and marital links with the Uí 122 Ragallaigh family in the fourteenth century. Thethirdmaninthislisthad

115 Davies, Age of Conquest, pp. 442–5; Davies, ‘Race relations’, 52, 54. 116 117 CIRCLE, Patent Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 40. CIRCLE, Patent Roll 3 Henry VI, no. 10. 118 Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.207; Cosgrove, ‘Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis’,p.10. 119 J. Lydon, ‘The Braganstown massacre’, JCLAHS, 19:1 (1977), 10; Smith, Colonisation and Conquest,p.117. 120 121 Frame, ‘Power and society’, 28–9. Stat. Ire., Hen. VI,p.103. 122 Smith, Colonisation and Conquest,p.125. 235 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland a common Irish nickname, buidhe meaning blond, as well as Seán, an Irish form of John. The Springham family was not particularly prominent but was 123 established in Meath and Dublin by the late thirteenth century. In 1465, the Irish parliament published a long list of men from Meath and Kildare who were directed to appear at Dublin Castle to account for various crimes and misdeeds. Several Englishmen appear on this list with Irish nicknames, and it is possible that there are higher proportions of such men on lists of ‘criminals’. The use of Irish names by the English contravened the statutes of Kilkenny and, though it was not the offence for which these men were summoned, in some cases it may have been associated with other beha- viours frowned upon by the Irish parliament, like associating with Irish 124 ‘enemies’. Two members of the Keating family appeared on the 1465 list with Irish nicknames: Thomas Carragh (carrach) Ketyng and Meiler 125 McHenry Ketyng. ‘McHenry’ is not descriptive, like most Irish nicknames, but rather a patronymic in the Irish form, meaning ‘son of Henry’. A patronymic nickname was also used by Richard McShan Bermingham, another settler who appeared on the 1465 list. Like other Berminghams, Richard’s Mac Sheáin patronymic suggests that he lived in an Irish- speaking, probably bilingual, milieu. A man named Thomas Ballagh Hammond was also mentioned on the 1465 list because he was the brother of one Morice Hammond who was also summoned by the parliament. Ballach is a common Irish nickname, used by both the English and Irish, meaning pockmarked or spotted. The provenance of the surname Hammond is more uncertain. As a given name, it was well known in Dublin before the English invasion and was used by members of the 126 Hiberno-Norse Mac Torcaill family. As a surname, however, it was more common for Englishmen, though it came ultimately from the same 127 Norse root. Another Englishman with an Irish nickname appears tangentially, as it were, in the records of the 1465 parliament. Walter Cruys of Morgallion, co. Meath, heir of Jack Bane Cruys, was forgiven his 128 treasons in this year, and his attainder was retracted. Jack’s epithet ‘Bane’ or bán means ‘white’ and may refer to skin or hair colour.

123 124 CJR, iii, p. 399; CJR,i,p.148. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 287–9. 125 The Keatings family is associated with Wexford, but spread into other parts of the colony and these Keatings were based in the four shires: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.171; K. W. Nicholls, ‘The early Keatings’, IG, 5:3 (1976), 286–9. 126 M. V. Ronan, ‘St Patrick’s staﬀ and Christ Church’ in H. B. Clarke (ed.), Medieval Dublin: The Living City (Dublin, 1990), pp. 121–9, 127. 127 St John Brooks, The Register of St John the Baptist,p.157. 128 Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.411. These nicknames may have been descriptive in a straightforward manner, in that Jack may have had white hair or pale skin, but it has also been suggested that they were sometimes ironic, and that a particularly handsome man might be called ‘ugly’, or a short man ‘long’:J.O’Donovan, The Topographical Poems of John O’Dubhagain and Giolla na Naomh O’Huidhrin (Dublin, 1864), p. 20. 236 The Irish Language and the English Community Several men with English family names and Irish nicknames appear on a 129 list of men accused of crimes by the Irish parliament in 1472. The first of these was Thomas Ballaghe Feypow of Hiskinstown, co. Westmeath. The Feypow family had been in Ireland since the late twelfth century, when its progenitor had been given lands in Meath as a reward for his service to 130 Hugh de Lacy. Three other men on this list were probably Fitzgeralds, perhaps younger sons or from cadet branches of this powerful family. Morice Oge [Fitzgerald] and William Oge [Fitzgerald] shared the nickname óg (young/ junior), while Gerrot Bakagh Shanesson used the nickname bacach (lame). Gerrot was a form of Gerald used widely in Ireland, most often bytheFitzgeraldfamily,whileShanesson combined an Irish form of John with an English patronymic suffix -son. Each part of this man’snamewas influenced by the Irish language and shows the composite name-forms that resulted when Irish and English naming conventions were combined. Gerrot Bacagh Shanesson appeared on a similar list again in 1475–6 and on the Kildare rental, which records that the ninth earl gave horses and pigs to a Gerot/Gerald Shanesson [Fitzgerald] and his sons, Gerald and Richard, 131 several times between 1513 and 1525. Shanesson was also occasionally 132 rendered as ‘McShane’, using the Irish patronymic form. Given that Gerald Shanesson was presumably an adult when he was called to Dublin Castle in 1472, it likely that it was his son of the same name who was a ‘close confidant’ of the ninth earl and was still spry enough to escape over 133 Drogheda’scitywallsin1534 during the Kildare rebellion. Esmond Philipson [Fitzgerald] of Allen, co. Kildare also appeared on the 1472 list and, while he did not have an Irish nickname, his wife, Owny nine Shan McThomas (Úna Iníon Sheáin Mhic Thomáis), also possibly a Geraldine, bore the Irish personal name Úna and the Irish patronymic meaning ‘daughter 134 of’. John Ballowe, who took part in the abduction and ransom of William Lokewood in 1409 and was described as a rebel in 1414,isprobablythe nickname of another Geraldine from Allen: John Williamson FitzRobert. His nickname, Ballowe, is either ballach (pockmarked) or a form of balbh, 135 meaning stuttering or dumb. The list of those called to answer for crimes

129 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.125. 130 A. Hogan, The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda in Ireland, 1172–1541 (Dublin, 2008), p. 51;B. Smith, ‘Tenure and locality in north Leinster in the early thirteenth century’ in Colony and Frontier,p.31. 131 Stat. Ire., Edw. IV, 12–22,p.261; MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 320, 341–2. 132 W. Fitzgerald, ‘Fitzgeralds of Ballyshannon (Kildare) and their successors thereat’, JCKAS, 3:7 (1899–1902), 427. 133 134 Ellis, ‘Darcy of Platten’, pp. 38–9. Nicholls, ‘Geraldines of Allen’, 98. 135 The son of a Thomas Caoch (one-eyed) from this family was mentioned in the Annals of the Four Masters in 1415: Nicholls, ‘Geraldines of Allen’, 93; CIRCLE, Patent Roll 10 Henry IV, no. 183; AFM, iv, pp. 820–1. 237 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland at Dublin Castle in 1475–6 included other FitzGeralds with Irish nicknames: Morice Oge FitzThomas and Shane (Seán) Ballowe McGerrot. McGerrot’s first name, nickname, and surname were all influenced by Irish 136 naming conventions. The epithet óg appeared more than once on the 1475–6 list, for James oge Gernon, of the long-established Louth family, 137 was also called by the parliament. In addition to these men called to Dublin Castle, a man of English descent with an Irish nickname, Thomas Lawless Carragh (carrach), appeared in the statute rolls from 1471 to 1472 in a more law-abiding context. Thomas was mentioned in relation to his lease of the lands of 138 Shanganagh in south co. Dublin. The Lawlesses were notably gaelicized; Maginn noted the Irish names that they and their marcher neighbours used and argued that some members of the family may not have been fluent 139 English-speakers. Settlers with Irish nicknames are also recorded in a variety of other sources, unrelated to these criminal lists. John Ryaghe (riabhach) Verdon was mentioned in a testamentary case in the archbishop of Armagh’scourtin1485. He was descended from elite four shires families 140 on both sides since he was the son of John Verdon and Isabella Fleming. Another FitzGerald with the Irish óg nickname, William Oge de Geralduns, was peaceably engaged in land transactions with Henry 141 Wogan in Donore, co. Kildare, in the reign of Henry VIII. The Kildare Rental also contains the names of settlers with Irish nicknames. Many of the families who appear in earlier documents with Irish nicknames also appear with nicknames in the rental in the 1510sand1520s. This includes two members of the Bermingham family, James MacWalter and Nicholas Keaghe/Reighe (riabhach), one of the Keating family, James Rwo (ruadh) Keating, a member of the Dalton family, Gerot Row (ruadh), and 142 many Fitzgeralds. Additionally, the earl gave Richard More (mór) Archbold a horse in 1515. The Archbolds were a family of marchers from south county Dublin, and were originally of either English or

136 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV,p.261. FitzThomas was a patronymic used by branches of the Geraldines, and Morice was a common Geraldine personal name. 137 138 Smith, Colonisation and Conquest,p.48. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.883. 139 There has been some argument about the provenance of the Lawless surname but a Welsh provenance is likely, and Walter Lawless was called ‘an Englishman’ when two Irishmen came before the archbishop of Dublin’s court for his murder in the early thirteenth century: Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’, 115, n. 14, 128; Alen’s Reg., pp. 110–11; Irish Exchequer Payments,p. 545; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.205; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.194. 140 Reg. Octavian, ii, p. 232. The Verdon family’s founder, Bertram de Verdon, came to Ireland in the company of John, lord of Ireland, in 1185, and the family had been sizeable landowners in counties Louth and Meath from that time on: Hagger, Fortunes of a Norman Family; Smith, ‘A county community’, 561–88. 141 Donovan and Edwards, British Sources,p.283. 142 MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 321–1, 324, 337, 339. 238 The Irish Language and the English Community 143 Flemish origin. The Tyrell family of Westmeath may also have appeared in the rental, in the persons of Cayll MacTirrely Vally (Cathal [?] Mac [an] Tirrellaigh Bhallaigh), Caloughe Mac Tirrell Vally (Calbhach Mac [an] Tirrellaigh Bhalliagh), and Geralt Duff (dubh) MacTirrell but this identification is not secure. These name forms are unusually and extremely gaelicized, including even an added ‘Mac’ prefix to the surname, but the most likely Irish name that could be represented by MacTirrell, Mac Toirdealbhaigh, was not local to the four shires, while the Tyrells were, and were notably gaelicized.144 Men named FitzRichard were well represented in the Kildare rental and there is evidence that FitzRichard was a patronymic used by some of the 145 Geraldines. The use of a single patronymic or string of patronymics, sometimes ‘true’ and sometimes fossilized, was a notable feature of 146 Geraldine naming in the later Middle Ages. A fossilized patronymic falls somewhere between a true one, in which an individual is described using their father’s name, and an inherited surname which does not change over time and for which the ancestor may be many generations distant. Because of their mutability, they are treated here alongside nicknames. These patronymics, which often appeared in Irish forms as ‘MacRichard’ or ‘MacThomas’ and frequently went hand in hand with Irish nicknames, may have been used to distinguish between major branches of the large Geraldine lineage. Hobbert MacGerot FitzRichard, Edmund Boy (buiadh) FitzRichard, Richard More (mór) MacRichard, and William MacRichard FitzJames, who all appeared in the rental, were probably Geraldines.147 Given their first names and patronymics, the Gerot MacWilliam and Gerot MacMorrishe (FitzMaurice) who appear as beneficiaries on the rental in 1513 were also probably members of the extended lineage, as was the William MacThomas Oge (óg), who received horses from the ninth earl in 148 1515. A number of Fitzgeralds whose names appear in the Kildare rental used the form ‘MacGerald’ rather than ‘Fitzgerald’.Bothformsofthe surname appear in the rental, suggesting that the scribe did not standardize name forms and, rather, used the form generally employed to refer to the

143 MacNiocall, Crown Survey,p.323; Maginn, ‘English marcher lineages’,p.116, n. 19; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.6. 144 MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 322, 330; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised, pp. 209–10; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.291. 145 MacLysaght, Surnames, pp. 110, 285; NHI, ix, p. 167; Fitzgerald, ‘The Fitzgeralds of Ballyshannon’, 428. 146 Wilson, Means of Naming,p.155. 147 MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 320–2, 323, 325, 326, 329. 148 The name FitzMaurice was used both for descendants of Maurice the fourth earl of Kildare and a branch of the Desmond Fitzgeralds, while the FitzThomas’ may have been descendants of the ﬁfth or eighth earl’s brother (or both): MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 320, 335, 337; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.222. 239 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland 149 person in question. This extensive use of Irish nicknames and patronymic forms contributes to the overall impression that many Geraldines, and others in the earls’ patronage, were Irish-speaking. Thus, there were a significant number of settlers from the four shires who appear in sources from the colony with Irish nicknames and patronymics. These nicknames were generally descriptive (and sometimes offensive), and the particular epithets used by the English were the same as those used by the Irish, which suggests that they shared the same linguistic environment. Marcher families adopted these nicknames most often: the Fitzgeralds and the Berminghams of Kildare, the Daltons and Tyrells of Meath, and the Archbolds and Lawlesses of the Dublin marches. This supports other evidence that most marchers spoke Irish but members of the Gernon, Hammond, Cruise, Feypow, and Keating families also took Irish nicknames. These were not primarily marcher families and, though we do not know precisely where most of the men discussed above lived, the use of nicknames in these families contributes to the impression that the Irish language was used by some of the English of the maghery as well as those of the march. Members of the colonial community in the four shires also adopted Irish surnames and personal names but on a far smaller scale than nicknames. There are a great many people who lived in the four shires and bore Irish first names and occupational or descriptive English surnames, but most were probably not of English descent. Occupational names like Cook, Tailor, and Butcher, descriptive names like Brown, White, and Black, and toponymics like Bray and Carrick were all adopted by the Irish 150 of the colony. Therefore, it is likely that Dermot Taillor, Dermot Carryk, Laughlin Boucher, and Malachy Corryser, all of whom appear in Dublin city records in the second half of the fifteenth century, were of 151 Irish descent. The Irish were less likely to adopt English surnames that were not occupational, toponymic, or descriptive, or the surnames of established settler families in the colony. Accordingly, a person bearing an Irish personal name and an unusual English surname or the name of a local settler family was probably of (at least partly) English parentage, but had taken or been given an Irish first name. One such man was Laghlyn Lawles, labourer, who was given the freedom of the city in 1491. Like 152 other members of the Lawless family, he may have been Irish-speaking. A woman named Finola Walshe was a witness to the will of Joan Stevyn of 153 Crumlin, a royal manor south-west of Dublin city. While her family name was common among the English of Ireland, her given name was the

149 150 MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 320, 323, 329, 334, 338. Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV,p.291. 151 Malachy was a frequent rendering of several Irish names beginning with M: Wills Tregury and Walton, pp. 68, 138; Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.33. 152 153 Dublin City Franchise Roll,p.26. Wills Tregury and Walton,p.159. 240 The Irish Language and the English Community 154 Irish Finnguala. Dermot Cornell, who was admitted to the franchise of Dublin in 1472, may also have been English by descent but his surname is 155 difficult to identify securely. Two tenants of Lord Portlester in Kildare in 1480 seem to have had Irish personal names and English family names. Murgh (Murchadh) Contyn was a tenant of Portlester and had an ostensibly English surname 156 (Condon/de Caunteton) and Irish personal name. Dermot Skolok, another Portlester tenant, may also have been of English descent; his 157 surname is probably the Meath settler name Scurlock/Sherlock. The Kildare Rental, which records so many settlers with Irish nicknames, contains several with Irish personal names, including Donyll Doullour and Mollaghlyn/Malaghlyn Lawless, rent collectors for the earl in 158 1518. Another Lawless mentioned in 1515 bore the Irish/English hybrid name Shane, as did a member of the Tyrell lineage, and a Fitzgerald called Tege MacGerald was given a horse by the earl in 1524 159 or 1525. A Dublin man named Tadhg or Thady Dongan appears in a variety of records in the 1530s and 1540s. He was one of the proctors of St John’s Church, a landholder on Fishamble street, an alderman, and father of John Dongan, who became an exchequer official and keeper of the 160 rolls. Tadhg was among the most popular first names for Irishmen in Dublin in this period, but this man was a member of the Dongan or de Donjon settler family, which came from Normandy, probably Rouen, to 161 Dublin in the thirteenth century. He appears variously as Teyge

154 Ó Corráin and Maguire, Gaelic Personal Names,p.103. 155 Cornell may be a Norman occupational name or a variant of one or several English names. Given that the Irish Uí Chonaill were based in co. Kerry it is very unlikely that this is a version of that name. Additionally, members of the Cornell family appear in the franchise roll in the 1460sand1470sandin the Christ Church deeds, never with a name form close to ÓConaillor with any Irish aliases: Dublin City Franchise Roll, pp. 2, 6, 12; Hanks and Hodges, Dictionary of Surnames,p.123; MacLysaght, Surnames, p. 54; CCD,p.219. Diarmait Cornicer, who appears as a subsidy collector in Santry in 1472 and before the Common Bench in 1479–80, may be the same man, and is also described as ‘Corvisar’, a Norman occupational name meaning ‘hornworker’ or ‘shoeworker’. However, the names are not suﬃciently close to be sure that Diarmait Cornell, Cornicer, and Corvisar are one and the same: Ellis, ‘The Common Bench plea roll’,p.40. With many thanks to Dr Brian Coleman for the subsidy reference and his comments on Cornicer: NAI, RC 8/41,pp.328–9. 156 Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp. 703–11. The family appears with spellings similar to Contyn in the late thirteenth century: CDI, iii, p. 54; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland,p.13; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.53. 157 MacLysaght, Surnames,p.271. It is also possible, but less likely, that it is the Irish for scholar (scolóc): eDIL. 158 MacNiocall, Crown Survey,p.265. Dollard/Dullard was an English and Scottish name found in Dublin and Kildare since the thirteenth century: MacLysaght, Surnames,p.84. 159 MacNiocall, Crown Survey, pp. 320, 321, 324–5. 160 Robinson and Armstrong, ‘Ancient deeds of St John’, 208; CCD, pp. 233, 238, 245, 256. 161 T. P. Dungan, ‘John Dongan of Dublin, an Elizabethan gentleman’, JRSAI, 118 (1988), 101; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.87. 241 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland Dongane, Tade Dungan, Tadey Dungans, Tege Dongan, Teg Dongane, and Thade Dongan. The mix of forms used for his name suggest that he may have used both Irish and anglicized variants – Tadhg and Thady. He may have used an Irish name in certain circumstances and an English one in others. This flexibility in naming and mobilization of alternative names and aliases was a feature of naming in many parts of medieval Europe and 162 among Irish people in the colony. He married an Irish woman named Joan Dowlen (ÓDúnlaing) and, despite his Irish personal name and his Irish wife, Dongan and his son flourished in Dublin society and in the civic and 163 colonial administration. A late, but particularly revealing, use of an Irish first name was that of a cleric named ‘Patrick alias Patrickin Flemyn’, who was responsible for collecting ecclesiastical dues in the deaneries of Slane and Kells in the early 164 1540s. The surname Fleming, originally from Flanders via Wales, was well established in Meath, and the head of the lineage was the baron of Slane. Patrickin was a diminutive nickname for Patrick, created using an Irishdiminutiveform,andtheIrishannalsrecordthenamebeingusedby members of the Roche, Condon, MacMaurice, and Cusack families from 165 the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. As is apparent from the English ancestry of these families, Patrickin was a name that, despite its etymology, seems to have been favoured by the English of Ireland rather than the Irish, who preferred the more traditional versions Giolla Phádraigh and Maol Phádraigh. Patrickin may in effect have been a version of Giolla Phádraigh created by the English of Ireland, and it is thus evidence that they engaged deeply enough with the Irish language to innovate and create new name 166 forms using Irish constructions. A small number of English families of the four shires took surnames from 167 the Irish language or used ‘Mac’ patronymics. As already noted, the

162 F. Verstraten Veach, ‘Men’s names among the Uí Mhórdha of Laoighis, c. 1000–c. 1500’, Ossory, Laois and Leinster, 5 (2012), 200–1;Davies, Age of Conquest,pp.422–5. M. Hammond, ‘A Prosopographical Analysis of Society in East Central Scotland, circa 1100 to 1260,with special reference to ethnicity’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Glasgow (2005), pp. 65–6;C.Rolker,‘Marital economy and female naming practices in late medieval Germany’ in P. Andersen, M. Münster-Swendsen, and H. Vogt (eds), LawandPrivateLifeintheMiddleAges (Copenhagen, 2011), pp. 49–51. 163 Dungan has suggested that this name is Dolan, but it seems more likely that it was Dowling (Ó Dúnlaing): Dungan, ‘John Dongan’, 102; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.89. 164 ‘A Calendar of the register of Primate George Dowdall, commonly called the “Liber Niger” or “Black Book”’, L. P. Murray (ed.), JCLAHS, 6:2 (1926), 97–8. 165 Annals Inisfallen, ed. and trans. S. Mac Airt (Dublin, 1944), s.a. 1309; AFM, iv, s.a. 1489,v,s.a. 1510, 1570, 1582. 166 Pers. comm. Katharine Simms. Condon is described in the annals as both Giolla Phádraigh and Patrickin and the association of gilla- and youth make them plausible synonyms: eDIL. 167 By time of the invasion, the Ó preﬁx was no longer used to generate new surnames in either English or Irish circles: Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedeal is Gall, pp. 15, 19. 242 The Irish Language and the English Community Geraldines used the Irish form of Fitzgerald, ‘MacGerald’, and the Nangle or de Angelo family of Dublin and Kildare sometimes used the Irish 168 surname MacCostello (Mac Oisdealbhaigh). The Dublin Nangles were usually called by the English version of the name but the Kildare branch of the family often used the Irish version and members of the family some- 169 times appear in the sources with both versions of their surname. The names Leynagh (Laighneach) and Moynagh (Muimhneach), meaning from Leinster and from Munster respectively, were used as surnames by the English as well as by the Irish and the surname Gall(e), occasionally used by members of the English Stapleton family, was apparently taken from the 170 Irish word ‘foreigner’. These surnames arose in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and were passed down through the family, which makes them less useful than nicknames as evidence of language use in the fifteenth 171 century. That said, gaelicized surnames were most common among families that adopted a range of Irish cultural practices, and language was probably often among them. A number of historians have noted the relative unwillingness of the English of Ireland to adopt Irish personal and family names in the centuries 172 on either side of the period discussed here. We must not exaggerate this unwillingness, as the above examples show but, though it is difficult to quantify using the sources available to us, the adoption of native personal and family names does seem to have been less a feature of colonial life in 173 Ireland than, for example, in Wales. Comparing Ireland and Wales, Rees Davies concluded that onomastic exchangewaslesscommoninIreland because ‘the formal racial distinctions between English settlers and native Irish were, if anything, being further entrenched in the fourteenth century’ 174 and this militated against linguistic assimilation. There was an increase in the use of Irish nicknames by settlers in the later Middle Ages but, although the adoption of Irish personal and surnames also grew and became apparent even in Dublin by the last decades of the fifteenth century, it remained

168 See above, pp. 89, 153. 169 NAI CB 1/5, fols 3v, 4v, 10r, 11r,12r; CPL, viii, p.112; CCD,p.260; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, iii, p. 35; MacLysaght, Irish Families,p.63. 170 NAI CB 1/5,f5r; Duffy, ‘The problem of degeneracy’,p.102; Stat. Ire., 1–12 Edw. IV, pp. 415– 23; MacLysaght, Surnames,p.120; CIRCLE, Close Roll 1 Henry VI, no. 3. 171 See above, pp. 215, 233–4. 172 Ó Cuív, ‘Personal names’, n. 2,p.86; Verstraten, ‘Naming practices’,p.45; W. Smyth, ‘Excavating, mapping and interrogating ancestral terrains: towards a cultural geography of first names and second names in Ireland’ in H. B. Clarke, J. Prunty, and M. Hennessy (eds), Surveying Ireland’s Past: Multidisciplinary Essays in honour of Anngret Simms (Dublin, 2004), p. 247. 173 Richards, ‘The population of the Welsh border’,p.88; Griffiths, ‘Townsfolk of medieval Wales?’, p. 13; Barrell and Brown, ‘A settler community’, 352. 174 Davies, Age of Conquest, pp. 424–5; Davies, ‘Race relations’, 51–2. 243 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland unusual. This was true in the four shires, and even in colony as a whole. Why was this the case? There is no reason to assume that ethnic division was always upper- most in the colonists’ decision making. There were many different motivations for name choice: and yet in the colony it is likely that 175 ethnicity was a major consideration. Ciarán Parker has suggested thatthescarcityofsettlerswithIrishpersonalnamesisindicativeofa lack of ‘more advanced linguistic acculturation’ but, given the extensive evidence we have for colonists speaking Irish, it seems unlikely that 176 language use was at the heart of the issue. The English of Ireland were familiar with Irish names and name forms but most were unwilling to choose them at the baptismal font. This could be attributed in part to the pan-European trend of Christianization of names, whereby biblical/ saint’s names became more popular from the twelfth century on and local names declined. This was encouraged by the church, particularly 177 after the Council of Florence in 1431–45. However, the Norman names that remained popular among many settlers, like William, Gerald, Maurice, and Richard, are not biblical names and thus would not have been chosen for religious reasons. The formality and delibera- tion associated with choosing a personal name is a key reason for the difference in prevalence of personal names and nicknames. While nicknames are informal and arise in conversation and from the community in which one lives, first names were chosen deliberately by parentsinanefforttoconnectwithfamily, flatter patrons, or express a 178 belief or aspiration for the child and their future. English elites, and indeed Irish ones also, were conservative in their choice of personal names and generally chose names with a long history in their family and this was a barrier to the introduction of new names, Irish or otherwise. This conservative attitude towardsnamesmayhavepertainedparticu- larlytomalechildrenand,sincemenappearmoreofteninoursources than women, we have more of their names available for analysis. It is unfortunate that women’s names appear less in the sources since they

175 Hammond, ‘Prosopographical analysis’,p.65; Verstraten Veach, ‘Uí Mhórdha of Laoighis’, 198; C. Tait,‘Namesakes and nicknames: naming practices in early modern Ireland, 1540–1700’, Continuity and Change, 21:2 (2006), 314, 320–7. 176 Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and parentela’, 105. 177 This council ruled that baptism should happen as soon as possible after birth, and therefore while the infant may still have been unnamed, so baptism might then be more likely to double as a naming ceremony: I. Shagrir, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 2003), p. 8;D. Herlihy, ‘Tuscan names 1200–1500’, Renaissance Quarterly, 41 (1988), 582. 178 Barrell and Brown, ‘A settler community’, 352. 244 The Irish Language and the English Community have been shown in Wales and post-conquest England to have had 179 different assimilative patterns. The use of Irish surnames by the English was even rarer. This makes sense, since surnames, far more than nicknames and more too than first names, are resistant to change. Once they were established, they were generally passed down through the generations of a family with only small modifications. There is some uncertainty about when surnames became fixed and passed down from father to child but it seems that in England, the English colony in Ireland, and much of Europe, surnames were reasonably firmly in place by the fourteenth century; in fact, they devel- 180 oped even earlier among the Irish. Moreover, many of the families which had come from England and Wales to Ireland in the twelfth century were noble and surnames seem to have been established at an 181 earlier date for noble families. These families would have been reluctant to abandon their old, aristocratic names for new Irish ones; the same was true for noble Irish families, which were slow to abandon their Irish 182 names. In addition, the English of late medieval Ireland were deeply aware of their shared history as a community, and often also of their own family histories; they celebrated this history in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by commissioning English-language, and even Irish-language, versions of Gerald of Wales. Thus, they may have been doubly reluctant to lose surnames that had positive associations with the initial conquest of 183 Ireland. The difference in prevalence between Irish nicknames on the one hand and personal and surnames on the other can be explained by reference to many factors: conservatism regarding name choice, the tendency of surnames to remain fixed, and the noble and historical associations of many settlers’ surnames. However, other factors may have discouraged the English from choosing to take Irish names formally. One was their understanding of their own ethnic identity. The English of Ireland were aware of the power of names to shape the social world and the possible danger it presented to align oneself or one’schild with the Irish by means of something as symbolically powerful as one’s name. Parents would, for example, have known that an Irish name

179 Wilson, Means of Naming,p.91; Postles, The North through its Names,p.116; Barrell and Brown, ‘A settler community’, 352. 180 Wilson, Means of Naming,p.117; B. McEvoy, K. Simms, and D. G. Bradley, ‘Genetic investigation of the patrilineal kinship structure of early medieval Ireland’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 136 (2008), 416. 181 182 Wilson, Means of Naming, pp. 115–18. Verstraten, ‘Naming practices’, pp. 52–3. 183 C. Whelan, ‘Translating the Expugnatio Hibernica: transmission of a vernacular history for a late medieval English colony’ in C. Griﬃn and E. Purcell (eds), Migration & Manipulation: Texts, Translation & Transmission (forthcoming). 245 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland might be a handicap in the colony, increasing the chances of legal or 184 social discrimination. Resistance to the adoption of names from subaltern groups by those in the dominant group has been documented in other colonial contexts, while aspirational use of the dominant 185 group’s names is conversely common. Iris Shagrir and others have highlighted the power of naming: Shagrir writes that ‘giving a name (or changing a name) is an act of participation in creating a symbolic system, 186 representing ideas and beliefs; a representation of a world vision’. Given the centrality of the English/Irish dichotomy to this vision and the sometimes fevered protestations of Englishness made by settlers in contemporary documents, it is not surprising that Irish personal and family names did not accord with the colonists’‘world vision’. Moreover, in Ireland, as we have seen, the use of surnames as a badge and proof of ethnicity was overt. Their invocation in court cases testing ethnicity, and in the language of ethnic classification in official documents, demonstrates how central they became to conceptions of identity in the colony. The legal and social divisions based on ethnicity, and the increasing tendency to classify persons by descent, meant that in the four shires surnames were deeply meaningful, both socially and legally, 187 to those who bore them. This discussion of identity raises another key question about language: was a colonist’s English identity called into questions if he or she was Irish-speaking? It seems not, or at least not fundamentally. Robin Frame and James Lydon, as well as others, have noted this disconnect between language and identity among English of Ireland – many of them spoke Irish but felt and were perceived as English ‘by blood’, as well as by law 188 and loyalty. Links between identity and language were complicated by the extensive bilingualism or even multilingualism common in Ireland as 189 elsewhere in the English polity and across Europe. And yet modern preoccupations with language as an ethnic marker, as well as evidence from later medieval Ireland, England, and Europe that contemporary communities did see language as indicative of ethnicity and nationality (though not always fundamental to it) have ensured that language has remained central 190 to arguments about the identity of the English of Ireland. This may also

184 For such discrimination and the importance of names to it, see above pp. 91–4. 185 H. M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and Identity, 1066–c. 1220 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 98–9; Wilson, Means of Naming,p.91. 186 Shagrir, Naming Patterns,p.2; P. Bordieu, Language and Symbolic Power, ed. J. B. Thompson, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson (Cambridge, 1991), p. 105;Herlihy,‘Tuscan names 1200–1500’, 562. 187 See above, pp. 91–4, below pp. 254–8. 188 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 100–1; Lydon, ‘Nation and race’, pp. 108–9. 189 See above, p. 215. 190 Bartlett, ‘Medieval and modern concepts’, 47–50; above, pp. 222–4. 246 The Irish Language and the English Community be due in part to the influence of English historiography, which tracks the growing identification of language with nationality in England in the 191 fourteenth century and over the course of the Hundred Years War. Matthew Hammond has addressed this issue in medieval Scotland, and challenged the assumption that ‘language is a natural characteristic of an 192 ethnic group’. In Wales, historians have also grappled with the links between language and identity, with most concluding that language use was not central to definitions of ethnicity in Wales in the later Middle 193 Ages. Davies opined that language difference was not ‘of necessity a barrier to political unity in the Middle Ages’, while Williams calls language 194 in Wales ‘a secondary token of nationality’. Ruddick has recently questioned the centrality of language to ethnic identity even in fourteenth- century England, and emphasizes the importance of English descent and 195 place of birth in conceptions of Englishness. The evidence from Ireland suggests that the relationship between language and identity in the four shires fits well with these arguments from the Scottish, Welsh, and more recently, the English contexts. The surviving evidence demonstrates that the English of Ireland spoke Irish not only in outlying areas of the colony, but also within the four shires. The Irish language was gaining in strength over this period, buoyed by an influx of Irish tenants from Gaelic areas of the country, and there were more Irish speakers in the region in 1534 than in 1399. Much of the marcher population was Irish-speaking but the language was also used by those in the maghery and to such an extent that some settlers adopted Irish nicknames, used hybrid name forms and brought Irish words and spellings into English usage. Many settlers were bilingual, while some seem to have been monoglot Irish speakers. In Dublin city and the major towns of Louth (and perhaps those of the maghery in Kildare and Meath), English remained the preferred language of the majority of people, although some were also probably bilingual or had at least pidgin Irish. In the four shires then, as elsewhere in the colony,

191 V. H. Galbraith, ‘Nationality and language in medieval England’, TRHS, fourth series, 23 (1941), 121–6; T. Turville-Petre, England the Nation: Language, Literature, and National Identity, 1290–1340 (Oxford, 1996); Davies, ‘Race relations’,p.35. 192 Hammond, ‘Prosopographical analysis’,p.66; Hammond, ‘Ethnicity and writing of Scottish history’, 16. 193 Smith, ‘The Welsh language’,p.38; Fleming, ‘The Welsh diaspora’,p.275; P. Fleming, ‘Identity and belonging: Irish and Welsh in ﬁfteenth-century Bristol’ in L. Clark (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VII (Woodbridge, 2007), p. 192. 194 Davies, ‘Race relations’, 34; G. Williams, ‘Language, literacy and nationality in Wales’ in Religion, Language and Nationality in Wales: Historical Essays by Glanmor Williams (Cardiﬀ, 1979), p. 129. 195 Ruddick, ‘Ethnic identity and political language’,p.23; Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, pp. 155, 158. 247 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland language was not a fundamental determinant of ethnicity. This accords with evidence from later medieval Wales and elsewhere, and with Robert Bartlett’s influential arguments about the mutability and complexity of medieval identity and his contention that language ‘was not always vital in 196 defining the ‘ethnic/nation’’. The necessity of speaking Irish for daily life on the one hand and, on the other, the strength of English institutions in Ireland, the durability of links between the colony and the home country, and the value to the settlers of maintaining legal superiority to the Irish meant that settler identity evolved to use markers of identity other than language as core elements of Englishness in the four shires.

196 Bartlett, ‘Medieval and modern concepts’, pp. 39–56, esp. 48–9; D. Finnegan, ‘Old English views of Gaelic Irish history and the emergence of an Irish Catholic nation, c. 1569–1640’ in B. Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–1700 Colonisation and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin, 2011), p. 195, n. 42.

248 CONCLUSIONS: IDENTITY AND THE LIMITS OF ASSIMILATION

A great variety of sources and approaches have been brought together in this attempt to elucidate the extent and nature of interaction between the English and the Irish of the four shires. Combined, they reveal that the region and its English inhabitants were profoundly influenced by Irish culture and Irish people, who in turn were shaped by their time in the colony. Particular attention has been paid to sources that have been underutilized in the broader historiography and while the preoccupations of political and economic elites are still at the forefront, the integration of material from rentals, testaments, and other sources and the use of onomastic analysis have, it is hoped, allowed the experiences of more humble residents of the four shires to be represented. Many of these residents were of Irish descent and the large Irish population of the four shires swelled with migrants from the Gaelic west and north of Ireland in the fifteenth century. The consequence of this was that there were, in effect, two major elements within the Irish population of the region. One was of long tenure and was frequently anglicized, both onomastically and in other ways less evident in the surviving sources, and the other comprised more recent migrants. These migrants were less anglicized overall, although anglicization could occur quickly and in some instances at the urging of the colonial administration. Many came from Ulster, some via links provided by the ecclesiastical province of Armagh, while others may have used seigniorial avenues of migration, relying on the support of settler magnates to employ them and shield them from anti-Irish enactments. Still others came with no such support, drawn by economic opportunities in the region’s urban centres and in the countryside, especially after the Black Death, and it may be migrants of this kind who were referred to in colonial enactments that sought to expel Irish ‘vagrants’. The Irish were disproportionately represented in the poorer segments of society, but some, particularly the most anglicized, became wealthy. Irish people worked as craftsmen as well as labourers, servants, and 249 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland wetnurses in settler households, while some were retained in higher- status occupations as bardic poets or doctors. The Irish of the region were integral to local business and credit networks and a small proportion joined craft and religious guilds alongside the English. Some even gained the franchise of cities and towns in the colony, despite the anti-Irish prohibitions of municipal and central institutions. These prohibitions were common throughout the later Middle Ages, prompted by general anxieties about the growing Irish population within the region, but were also occasionally responsive to threats from the Irish without: a number seem to have been drafted directly after major Irish attacks. Overall, they were promulgated more consistently, and were less variable and reactive, than similar examples from Wales and the northern borders, although they seem to have increased as the fifteenth century progressed in response to the swelling Irish population of the four shires and attendant anti-Irish paranoia. These enactments were not broadly effective or, indeed, broadly enforced. Rather, they seem most often to have been employed opportunistically by people in disputes or strategically and on an occasional basis by the colonial administration, at least until more concerted efforts were made to enforce some of them uniformly in the 1530s. Regardless of the effect of these prohibitions on life on the ground, their promulgation sheds light on the mentalities of lawmakers and demonstrates how ethnically polarized the outlook of these leading members of four shires society had become. This growing invocation of ethnicity in legislation and as a mark of legal status was complicated by the fact that cultural exchange in both directions made the line between Englishness and Irishness ever more difficult to draw and some proportion of Irishmen and women in the four shires had access to English law. This enabled them to plead in the central courts and, usually, to hold office and land without challenges based on their ethnicity. However, grants of English law were conditional on behaviour and were in any case too expensive for most of the Irish of the region to acquire them. Crucially, despite the considerable anglicization of some Irish inhabitants of the region, and their purchase or inheritance of English law, the memory of their Irish ancestry was usually preserved. We shall return to the implications of this again below. The church in Ireland was an agent for peaceful interaction between the English and Irish. This was apparent at all levels of the church hierarchy, from the parish through to the diocesan leadership and even in the dealings of the papacy with Ireland. The diocesan church provided a forum in which the Irish and English were on an equal footing and where clerics of both ethnicities met and worked side by side to complete church business. Although the archbishops of Dublin and Armagh and 250 Conclusions: Identity and the Limits of Assimilation their suffragans in Meath and Kildare were almost all English by descent in this period, and politically aligned with the colony’s aims, several late medieval archbishops of Armagh expressed their desire for peace between the English and Irish and worked as negotiators to foster that peace. The province of Armagh, of which Meath and Louth were a part, encompassed areas held by the Irish, and service in the administration of the archbishop of Armagh provided an avenue for Irishmen from Gaelic areas to enter into and secure a place within the colony. In this way, the church had a leading role in facilitating the migration and integration of Irish clerics and, through them, of the Irish laity in the four shires. Similar processes occurred in the province of Dublin, though not to such a great extent, and there is evidence that anti-Irish feeling had increased in the archbishop of Dublin’s administration by the early sixteenth century. Although most beneficed clergymen serving in the four counties were English, Irish clerics, especially curates, were common and they administered to Irish and English parishioners throughout the region. Through the sacrament of confession in particular, they had a personal and advisory relationship with English members of their congregation. The international church also had a role to play in inter-ethnic relations and the papacy, on the whole, refused to abide by regulations that excluded the Irish from church offices in the colony. In this way, it helped to encourage the mobility of Irish religious and clerics. Some of the monastic orders were more segregated and it is within the orders that ethnic animosity was most apparent in the ecclesiastical sphere. Even so, some orders, particularly the Augustinian canons and Fratres Cruciferi, had not only Irish monks and brothers but also Irish priors and abbots. Ethnic animosity was therefore not absent in the late medieval Irish church but it was, nevertheless, primarily a force for peace and for assimilation and this was due both to its structure and to the deliberate policy of its leaders. Thus, in both the secular and ecclesiastical spheres, the English and Irish of the four shires were in close and very often amicable contact. This was reflected and fostered by intermarriage, which occurred with some regularity across all strata of society and in all parts of the region, including the towns and cities of the eastern seaboard. English townspeople and small farmers from the maghery married Irish men and women and, particularly before the later fifteenth century, these non-elite intermarriages generally involved anglicized Irish people resident in the four shires. Such intermarriages may have become more common overall from the later fifteenth century onwards, and the Irish people involved in them became notably less anglicized, at least with regard to their names. This trend reflects the overall increase in the unanglicized Irish population of the four shires. At the elite level, intermarriage between the 251 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland English and Irish was most common on the marches and between colonists and Irish men and women from outside the colony. Like other elite marriages, these were generally based on political/strategic or economic considerations. Some English marchers also engaged in fosterage and gossipred with the Irish for these same reasons. Familial ties between the English and Irish encouraged processes of cultural exchange that had been underway since the establishment of the English colony in the later twelfth century. The Irish parliament attempted to lessen the frequency of intermarriage and other familial connections, sometimes using confiscations of land, but enforcement was uneven. Most recorded attempts at enforcement relate to elite intermarriages that presented a particular military threat to the colony; there is evidence that there was social pressure against some non-elite intermarriages, but there appears to have been little official sanction against them. The colonial administration’s fears about the spread of Irish culture in the colony were, at least partially, justified, for there was extensive gaelicization of the English of the four counties, just as there was anglicization of the Irish of the area. Both of these processes were, however, individual and piecemeal and, while some Irish customs – those most useful or attractive to colonists for whatever reason – were adopted widely, others made little headway in the colony. To speak of a colonist as gaelicized, therefore, is only to say that he or she practiced some combinations of Irish customs and practices in some circumstances, not to imply that they adopted all of these practices, used them in all situations or became, in some way, ‘Irish’. Among the most widespread of Irish (or English/Irish hybrid) customs in the four shires were seigniorial practices like coyne and livery, foyes and cuddies. They were most common in the marches but were also found in the maghery, perhaps especially in the early to mid-fifteenth century. The earl of Kildare offered protection – slánuigheacht – and perhaps tuarastal to his clients in the manner of an Irish lord and other English marcher lords may have done the same. Marchers in Meath and Kildare employed bardic poets, a fact which suggests that the milieu that they inhabited was one that accepted the privileged status of poets and respect for their art. It also suggests, of course, that the patrons and intended audiences for these poets were proficient in Irish. The use of these practices reveals how conversant the four shires community was with the conventions governing lord and client relationships in late medieval Irish society but other practices may not have been taken from Irish exemplars. They were nonetheless seen as Irish and the persistent classification of all departures from English norms – like kinship-based political organization or the neglect of archery and riding without a saddle – as Irish, and stemming from 252 Conclusions: Identity and the Limits of Assimilation cultural exchange, reveals how dichotomous and ethnically divided the world view of the colonial elites had become. In addition to seigniorial and military practices, the English also adopted Irish clothing and hairstyles. These fashions were sufficiently widespread that the wearing of saffron shirts and the shaggy Irish mantle were prohibited by parliamentary and municipal statutes, as were the cúlán hairstyle and the moustache – both because of the practical problems that arose from ethnic misidentification and because of the desire that English fashions be preserved. The cúlán mayhavebeenmoreprevalentinthemarches than in the maghery but saffron garments were worn by women in Dublin city and men in Dublin wore the Irish mantle and moustaches. In contrast to this flexibility in sartorial, seigniorial, and military matters, thereislittleevidencethatpractices from Brehon or march law, apart from the principle of kin liability, were employed with any regularity in the four counties. Even though some marchers were familiar with Brehon law practices and even, rarely, tried to implement them when it suited their aims, the four shires were governed almost exclusively by 1 English law. The influx of Irish migrants and extensive interaction with them also meant that the Irish language became more prevalent, and this was reflected in the language use of the colonists. Irish was used extensively in the four shires, alongside English, to the extent that it influenced the English dialect spoken in the region and appears in documents generated there, often interspersed with English. Many of the inhabitants of the area were bilingual and the Irish nicknames used by men from marcher families like the Berminghams, Dillons, Daltons, Cruises, Lawlesses, and Fitzgeralds suggest that they spoke Irish in their day-to-day lives and, probably, as their first language. In the towns of the region, particularly Dublin, English seems to have been the dominant vernacular although here too many people would have been bilingual or at least familiar with Irish, as the use of Irish words in slander cases and other sources demonstrates. This evidence from the four shires fits well with the growing body of work about the prevalence of multilingualism in medieval Europe. Thus, although the four counties were politically English, governed bycommonlawandsubject,inthemain,totheIrishparliamentandthe English crown, they were moulded culturally by the same assimilative pressures at work in other parts of the colony and on other English 2 frontiers. The rhetoric of ethnic division so apparent in documents

1 Empey and Simms, ‘The ordinances of the White Earl’, pp. 161–87. 2 In Wales, however, despite extensive cultural exchange, anti-degeneracy legislation was not issued: Leiberman, March of Wales,p.59. 253 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland from the four shires does not reflect any such neat divisions in reality, and the gaelicization documented among the English of the south and west of Ireland was common among the English of fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare. That this was the case confirms that cultural markers of Englishness on the one hand and political and institutional markers of Englishness, on the other, were not 3 directly and invariably correlated. This point has been made forcefully by others with reference to the earls of Ormond and Kildare, as well as to marchers like Darcy, but the temptation to equate the two remains 4 strong in the historiography. It is clear that a settler from the four shires could speak Irish, wear a moustache and an Irish mantle, ride without a saddle, perhaps in the company of his Irish wife and his bardic poet, and still be considered ‘English’. Although he might incur the displeasure of the colonial administration for all of the above, none of these actions called his ethnicity into question. English cultural attributes were a desideratum, but they were not fundamental to English identity in Ireland. The fundamentals of English identity in the four shires were, instead, 5 political, legal, and familial. The importance of access to and use of English law to English identity in the colony has been convincingly 6 rehearsed. Adherence to English law often went hand in hand with the sense of connection to the colonial administration and the English crown, which was maintained among the nobility and gentry through service in local and central administrative offices, communication with the monarch and his council in England, and, often, attendance at English 7 universities. However, an Irish person could also access English law, serve (albeit rarely) in local offices and swear loyalty to the crown without being considered ‘English’. Conversely, the common terminology of ‘English lieges, English rebels, and Irish enemies’ demonstrates that turning one’s back on the colonial government and crown did not deprive 8 settlers of their ‘Englishness’–it merely made them rebels. We should note further that the historical aspect of English identity had also come to

3 Frame, ‘Barriers to acculturation’,p.141. 4 Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.110; Frame, ‘Power and society’, pp. 27–32; Bradshaw, The Irish Constitutional Revolution, pp. 40–2. 5 Bartlett, ‘Medieval and modern concepts’, pp. 39–56. 6 Frame, ‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’, 87, 97; Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, pp. 10–11. See also above, passim and especially pp. 90–1. 7 Frame, ‘Engleys nées en Irlande’, pp. 97–101; Ellis, ‘Nationalist historiography’, pp. 11–12. The colony did not successfully establish its own university until 1592 and the English of Ireland (and less often the Irish) routinely resorted to Oxford, and less often Cambridge, in the later Middle Ages if they could aﬀord to do so: A. B. Scott, ‘Latin learning and literature in Ireland, 1169–1500’ in NHI, i, pp. 937–47. 8 Ellis, ‘Crown, community and government’, 195–6. 254 Conclusions: Identity and the Limits of Assimilation the fore by the fifteenth century. Copies of Gerald of Wales’ works on Ireland were copied and re-copied in this period and the English of Ireland cited their stalwart defence of the colony to justify their pre- 9 eminent position there. Hand in hand with this waxing interest in the history of the colonial community was an ever-increasing attention to ancestry. A preoccupation with the matter of Irish and English ‘blood’, to use the terminology often used in the sources, has permeated Irish historiography but almost unconsciously so. Historians of the colony have used the word ‘blood’ or, more controversially ‘race’ but rarely give the idea of blood the central place that it deserves in discussions of identity, given its 10 importance in the imaginations of the English of Ireland. Frame wrote that ‘strong signs of gaelicization could mark a man without extinguishing his sense of being “English by blood”’, but places law, a shared history, and loyalty to parliament and crown over bloodline as 11 crucial elements of English identity. Ellis, likewise, has acknowledged the ancestral element of settler self-identification but highlighted law and government, as well as culture, as the most important aspects of their shared identity. He asserts that the English of Ireland ‘shared with Englishmen elsewhere, those of England and Wales, such national characteristics as language and culture, law and government, which set the English apart from other nations. The Gaedhil, or Irish were also readily 12 distinguished by language, law and culture’. Nicholls, in a skirmish with Ellis, countered that ‘one could not become a Gaedheal any more than one could change one’s grandfather. But Gaill [the settlers] could be and were often monoglot Irish speakers, who followed Irish law and Irish 13 lifestyles’. His point was that the ancestral distinction was somehow unimportant – a fossilized, unchangeable circumstance of family history that had little effect on the gaelicized present. But for the settler community of the later Middle Ages, whether one’s ancestors were English or Irish was of paramount, not secondary, importance. The inquisitions discussed in detail in Chapter 3 demonstrate the ways in which ideas of Irishness by birth, blood, and nation/family grew. While in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the accused parties in lawsuits often defended themselves with proof that they had access to English law through an Irish ancestor or by a grant of English law, this was

9 Lydon, ‘Middle nation’,p.23. 10 Lydon, ‘Middle nation’, pp. 19, 26; Frame, English Lordship in Ireland,p.110; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors,p.22; S. G. Ellis, ‘Racial discrimination in later medieval Ireland’ in G. Hálfdanarson (ed.), The Culture and Politics of Discrimination (Pisa, 2003), p. 25. 11 Frame, English Lordship in Ireland,p.134; Frame, ‘Engleys nées en Irlande’, pp. 85–6, 89. 12 13 Ellis, ‘Racial discrimination’, pp. 22–3. Nicholls, ‘Worlds Apart?’, 23. 255 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland not the case from the late fourteenth century onwards. The inquisitions became examinations of parentage and surname as proof of ethnicity and legal status. The attention to blood as a marker of ethnicity was even greater in the colony than in the north of England, a region which contended with similar problems in determining ethnic identity, but tended to resolve them in different ways. In Scotland and the north of England, which had a relatively fixed border dividing two distinct and established kingdoms, place of birth took on primary importance for 14 determining if a person was English or Scottish. In Wales, as in the colony, descent was the key factor in distinguishing between Welsh and English but the ethnicity of a person’s mother as well as his or her father 15 was usually mentioned and considered relevant. Place of birth might be mentioned, as well as cultural attributes, as they were occasionally in the four shires, but examinations and discussions of ethnicity in Wales rarely, if ever, omitted to mention descent and usually on both sides. In English France in the first half of the fifteenth century, ancestry was sometimes used, rather than place of birth, as a sign of ethnicity, and those of French or Flemish ancestry sometimes purchased denizenships, even if they were 16 born in areas under English rule. Thus, English communities in Wales and the marches, the northern borders, France and the English colony in Ireland used a range of determinants for ethnicity and nationality but the 17 relative weight given to each is revealing. In Ireland, the unfixed nature of the borders and the sheer size of the Irish population in the colony meant that place of birth could not be used as proof of status as it was in northern England. Similarly, the language of being born ‘in the allegiance of the king of Scots’ deployed in cases testing Scottish ethnicity was not appropriate in Ireland where there was no one acknowledged Irish king and many of the Irish had submitted to the English crown at one point or another. The reason for the greater attention to maternal descent in Wales than in the colony is not immediately apparent but the flexibility and variability in discussions of ethnicity across the possessions of the English crown demonstrates just how adaptable ideas of ethnicity were to the political and social environment 18 of each region. These findings about the centrality of descent in Ireland and Wales (and increasingly, perhaps, in Lancastrian France) draw on and

14 Ellis, ‘Frontiers and identities in British Isles’,p.77; Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, pp. 102–3, 106–8. 15 Williams, ‘Language, literacy and nationality’,p.129; Davies, Age of Conquest,p.458; Laughton, Chester,p.34; Richards, ‘Population of Welsh border’, 92. 16 17 Grummitt, ‘Calais and the crown’,p.53. Ibid. 18 Ruddick sees more similarity than diﬀerence in the way ‘nationality’ was determined in context of the north of England and of the colony in Ireland, and writes that both were determined by ‘birth’, and she argues that English nationality overall was based on ‘birth’ (usually place of birth), but the 256 Conclusions: Identity and the Limits of Assimilation reinforce the influential theories of Robert Bartlett about the growth of racial discrimination in the later Middle Ages across European frontiers. This was not just in Wales and Ireland, where Davies also identified this trend, but also in the Iberian peninsula and the German colonies of 19 Eastern Europe. Bartlett opined that ‘biological descent replaced cultural identity as the first criterion of race’, but his claims, though well supported by the Irish evidence, have not been fully assimilated into Irish 20 historiography. Away from the frontiers, this racial way of thinking about ethnic difference seems to have been a development of the six- 21 teenth century and later. A possible reason for the precocious attention to bloodline on English and other frontiers, and in the colony in particular, is the unavailability of other methods of differentiation. The English of Ireland maintained that they were different from, and superior to, the Irish and they had a vested interest in perpetuating this distinction and retaining legal and 22 other advantages over them. As the later Middle Ages wore on, more and more Irish people came into the four shires and anglicized onomastically,legally,andinotherways.Atthesametime,moreandmore people of English descent spoke Irish, wore Irish fashions, and became outwardly indistinguishable from the Irish. The colonial community therefore required some element of ‘Englishness’ that was inalienable and unthreatened by such developments: an emphasis on the early history of the settler community and on English ancestry filled this need. And yet, even the ability to identify English ancestry was affected by the interaction between English and Irish. Mixed marriages were common and they threatened the ‘Englishness by blood’ of the settler community. Accordingly, there are indications that, within some elite families of the four shires whose marital histories we can trace, intermarriage was controlled and only occurred in certain circumstances. No earl of Kildare took an Irish wife himself, ensuring that the dominant line of the Kildares remained English on both sides. This pattern is repeated in the ruling line – among the heads of various families and their first sons – of the Fitzgeralds of Allen, the Dillons and the Darcys, as well as in families outside the four shires, like the Butlers of Ormond. Thus, attempts were made to keep the dominant line of families entirely

Irish example does not fit neatly into this scheme, and the difference between place of birth and parentage is a key distinction: Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture,p.181. 19 R. R. Davies has argued that legislation issued in Wales in 1401–2 was ‘specifically racist in character’, and highlights the growth in the use of this type of terminology of ‘blood’ in this period in Wales: Davies, Age of Conquest,p.458. 20 Bartlett, Making of Medieval Europe,p.236. 21 Biller, ‘Proto-racial thought’, pp. 157–180; de Miramon, ‘Noble dogs, noble blood’, pp. 200–16. 22 Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English crown’, pp. 286–7. 257 Cultural Exchange and Identity in Late Medieval Ireland English, even if the remainder of the family engaged in intermarriage. In this way, families were able to take advantage of marital links with the Irish, yet maintain, at least in the dominant line, their English descent. When we discuss the identity of the English community of the four shires, and the colony as a whole, we must take into account their own definitions of ‘Englishness’ and ‘Irishness’. The parameters of these definitions and the ways that they changed can be seen particularly clearly in the four shires, where the settler community was closely engaged with the crown and the colonial administration and yet was also significantly gaelicized and in close contact with many anglicized Irish neighbours. The divisions that the colonial community con- structed and maintained between themselves as ‘loyal English lieges’ and the Irish have rung hollow to some modern ears in light of this extensive assimilation but the English of Ireland did not imagine their ethnicity in these cultural terms. Their sense of Englishness was depen- dent on their access to English law and involvement in the colonial government, their shared history of conquest in Ireland but above all their English parentage and ‘blood’. They crafted this identity from the building blocks of ethnicity available to them as they faced the realities of life on the frontier in the later Middle Ages, and they would soon be forced to reshape it even more radically as the sixteenth century posed new and unprecedented challenges.

258 BIBLIOGRAPHY

manuscripts

National Archives of Ireland CB 1/5–10. RC 8/33–41. J. F. Ferguson’s Repertory of Irish memoranda rolls, 5 vols J. F. Ferguson’s Collection from the Irish memoranda rolls, 4 vols MS 999/184.

Trinity College Dublin MS 78. MS 79. MS 88. MS 175. MS 557 (Register of Archbishop Prene, 2 vols, transcribed by Bishop Reeves.) MS 594. MS 655. MS 667. MS 1212. A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Unpublished calendar of Talbot MSS’ (originals Bodleian library, MSS Talbot c. 90–1, Bodleian Library), courtesy of Peter Crooks.

Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford Rawlinson B 502. Rawlinson B 512.

259 Bibliography printed sources 9th Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, appendix (London, 1883). 10th Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission, appendix v,ed.J.T.Gilbert (London, 1885). The Annals of Inisfallen MS Rawlinson B. 503, ed. and trans. S. Mac Airt (Dublin, 1944). Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. J. O’Donovan, 7 vols (Dublin, 1848–51). The Annals of Loch Cé, RS 54, ed. and trans. W. M. Hennessy, 2 vols (London, 1871). Annála Uladh, Annals of Ulster, eds W. M. Hennessy and B. MacCarthy, 4 vols (Dublin, 1887–1901). Anon., ‘A Treatise for the Reformation of Ireland’, ed. B. Bradshaw, IJ, 16 (1981), 299–315. Betham, W., Dignities, Feudal and Parliamentary and the Constitutional Legislature of the United Kingdom (Dublin, 1830). Betham, W., The Origin and History of the Constitution of England: And of the Early Parliaments of Ireland (Dublin, 1834). The Book of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity, Commonly Called Christ Church, Dublin, ed. J. C. Crosthwaite (Dublin, 1844). The Borough Ordinances of Cowbridge, ed. P. Moore (Glamorgan, 1986). Calendar of Ancient Deeds and Muniments Preserved in the Pembroke Estate Office Dublin (Dublin, 1891). Calendar of the Ancient Records of Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 18 vols (Dublin, 1889). Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s Register, ed. C. MacNeill (Dublin, 1919). Calendar of Carew MSS, eds J. S. Brewer and W. Bullen, 6 vols (London, 1869–73). Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, 14 vols (London, 1910). Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1171–1307, eds H. S. Sweetman and G. F. Handcock, 5 vols (London, 1875–86). Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, eds W. Bliss, J. A. Tremlow, et al., 20 vols (London and Dublin, 1893–2005). Calendar of the Gormanston Register, eds J. Mills and M. J. McEnery (Dublin, 1916). Calendar of Inquisitions Formerly in the Office of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, ed. M. Griffith (Dublin, 1991). Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls of Ireland, eds J. Mills et al., 3 vols (Dublin, 1905–56). The Calendar of Ormond Deeds, 1172–1603, ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols (Dublin, 1932–43). Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 16 vols (London, 1893–1916). Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry V, 2 vols (London, 1910–11). Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Chancery in Ireland in the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, ed. J. Morrin, 2 vols (Dublin, 1861–2). ‘A calendar of the reassembled register of John Bole, Archbishop of Armagh, 1457–71’, ed. A. Lynch, SA, 15:1 (1992), 113–85. ‘A Calendar of the register of Primate George Dowdall, commonly called the “Liber Niger” or “Black Book”’, ed. L. P. Murray, JCLAHS, 6:2 (1926), 90–100; 6:3 (1927), 147–58; 6:4 (1928), 213–8; 7:1 (1929), 78–95; 7:2 (1930), 258–75. Calendar of State Papers Relating to Ireland, 1509–1573, eds H. C. Hamilton, et al., 23 vols (London, 1860–1903). 260 Bibliography Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, Dublin with the Register of Its House at Dunbrody and Annals of Ireland, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols (London, 1884). Christ Church Deeds, eds C. MacNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960). Clyn, Friar John, The Annals of Ireland, ed. B. Williams (Dublin, 2007). Coleman, A. (ed.), ‘Obligationes pro annatis diocesis Dublinensis, 1421–1520’, AH, 2 (1913), 1–37. Crown Survey of Lands 1540–41 with the Kildare Rental begun in 1518, ed. G. MacNiocaill (Dublin, 1994). Darcy, William, ‘Decay of Ireland’ in Cal. Carew, iv, pp. 6–8. Davies, Sir John, ‘A Discovery of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued (1612)’, ed. J. Barry (Dublin, 1969). Dowdall Deeds, eds C. MacNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1960). Dryburgh, P. and B. Smith (eds), Handbook and Select Calendar of Sources for Medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the United Kingdom (Dublin, 2005). Dryburgh, P. and B. Smith (eds), Inquisitions and Extents of Medieval Ireland (Kew, 2007). The Dublin City Franchise Roll, 1468–1512, eds C. Lennon and J. Murray (Dublin, 1998). Egan, P. K. and M. A. Costello (eds), ‘Obligationes pro annatis diocesis Clonfertensis’, AH, 21 (1958), 52–74. Ellis, S. G. (ed.), ‘The Common Bench plea roll of 19 Edward IV (1479–80)’, Analecta Hibernica, 31 (1984), 19, 21–60. Extents of Monastic Possessions, 1540–1, ed. N. B. White (Dublin, 1941). The Fasti of Saint Patrick’sCathedralDublin, ed. H. J. Lawlor (Dundalk, 1930). Finglas, Patrick, ‘The Decay of Ireland’ in Cal. Carew, i, pp. 1–6. Finglas, Patrick, ‘Breviate of Ireland’ in ed. W. Harris, Hibernica: Or, some Antient Pieces Relating to Ireland (Dublin, 1747). Froissart, Jean, Chronicles, ed. and trans. G. Brereton (London, 1978). Gerald of Wales, Itinerary through Wales: And a Description of Wales, ed. W. Llewelyn Williams (London, 1908). Gerald of Wales, Topography of Ireland, ed. and trans. T. Forester, revised by T. Wright (Ontario, 2000). The Grey of Ruthin Valor: The Valor of the English Lands of Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent, Drawn up from Minister’s Accounts of 1467–8, ed. R. I. Jack (Sydney, 1965). Irish Exchequer Payments 1270–1447, ed. P. Connolly (Dublin, 1998). The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns, 4 vols (Dublin, 1994). Keating, Geoffrey, Foras Feasa ar Éirinn/The History of Ireland, trans. Rev. P. Dinneen, 4 vols (London, 1908; reprinted 1987). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, eds J. S. Brewer, et al., 21 vols (London, 1864–1920). The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye: A Poem on the Use of Sea Power, 1436, ed. G. Warner (Oxford, 1926). Liber Primus Kilkenniensis,trans.A.J.Otway-Ruthven(Kilkenny,1961). McNeill, C. (ed.), ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s notes of his report on Ireland’, Analecta Hibernica, 2 (1931), 93–291. Mirk, John, Instructions for Parish Priests, ed. E. Peacock (London, EETS, 1868, revised 1902).

261 Bibliography Moryson, Fynes, ‘Manners and customs of Ireland’ on CELT from Shakespeare’s Europe: Unpublished Chapters of Fynes Moryson’s Itinerary, being a Survey of the Condition of Europe at the End of the 16th Century, ed. Charles Hughes (London, 1903). Moryson, Fynes, ‘The Commonwealth of Ireland’ in C. Litton Falkiner (ed.), Illustrations of Irish History and Topography, Mainly of the Seventeenth Century (London, 1904). Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson, et al. (Woodbridge, 2005), British History Online. Plummer, C., Vitae Sanctorum Hibernici partim Hactenus Ineditae (Oxford, 1910). Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. H. Nicolas, 7 vols (London, 1834). Quinn, D. B. (ed.), ‘The bills and statutes of the Irish parliaments of Henry VII and Henry VIII’, Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 71–169. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert (London, 1889). ‘Register of Archbishop Cromer’, ed. L. P. Murray and A. Gwynn, JCLAHS, 7:4 (1932), 526–24; 8:1 (1933), 38–49; 8:2 (1934), 169–88; 8:3 (1935), 257–74; 8:4 (1936), 322–51; 9:1 (1937), 36–41; 9:3 (1938), 124–30; 10:2 (1942), 116–27; 10:3 (1943), 165–76. The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418–1439, ed. D. A. Chart (Belfast, 1935). The Register of Nicholas Fleming: Archbishop of Armagh, 1404–1416, ed. B. Smith (Dublin, 2003). The Register of Octavian de Palatio, Archbishop of Armagh, 1478–1513, ed. M. A. Sughi, 2 vols (Dublin, 1999). Register of Wills and Inventories of the Diocese of Dublin in the Time of Archbishops Tregury and Walton 1457–1483, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1896–7). Registrum Iohannis Mey, eds W. G. H. Quigley and E. F. D. Roberts (Belfast, 1972). ‘Remonstrance of the Irish chiefs to Pope John XXII’, trans. Edmund Curtis, CELT (originally printed in Irish Historical Documents 1172–1922 [London, 1943]). Robinson, J. L. and E. C. R. Armstrong (eds), ‘On the ancient deeds of the parish of St John Dublin’, PRIA, 33 c(1916–7), 175–224. A Roll of the Proceedings of the King’s Council in Ireland for a Portion of the Sixteenth Year of the Reign of Richard II, 1392–3, ed. J. Graves (London, 1877). Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Calendarium, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin, 1828). Rymer’s Foedera, eds A. Clarke, A. Caley, et al., 4 vols (London, 1816–30, 1869). Sayles, G. O. (ed.), Documents on the Aﬀairs of Ireland before the King’s Council (Dublin, 1979). Spenser, Edmund, ‘View of a present state of Ireland’ in A. Grosart (ed.), The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Edmund Spenser, 9 vols (London, 1882–4). Stanihurst, Richard, ‘Description of Ireland’ in Raphael Holinshed, A Chronicle of Ireland, eds L. Miller and E. Power (Dublin, 1979). Stanihurst, Richard, De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis, eds J. Barry and H. Morgan (Cork, 2013). Statutes at Large Passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland, 21 vols (Dublin, 1786–1804). State Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols (London, 1830–52).

262 Bibliography Statutes, Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland: King John to Henry V, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1907). Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland: King Edward the Fourth, eds H. F. Berry and J. Morrissey, 2 vols (Dublin, 1914–39). Statute Rolls of the Parliament of Ireland, Reign of King Henry VI, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1910). Statute Rolls of the Irish Parliament Richard III to Henry VIII, ed. P. Connolly (Dublin, 2002). The Statutes of Wales, ed. I. Bowen (London, 1908). Vital, Laurent, ‘Archduke Ferdinand’s Visit to Kinsale in Ireland, an extract from Le Premier Voyage de Charles-Quint en Espagne, de 1517 à 1518’, ed. D. Convery (2012), CELT. Walton, J. C. (ed.), The Royal Charters of Waterford (Waterford, 1992). Ware, James, The Works of Sir James Ware Concerning Ireland, ed. W. Harris, 2 vols (Dublin, 1745). White, Rowland, ‘Discors touching Ireland (1569)’, ed. N. Canny, IHS, 20:80 (1977), 439–63. York Civic Records, ed. A. Raine (Wakeﬁeld, 1939).

secondary works Abraham, K., ‘Upward mobility in later medieval Meath’, HI, 5:4 (1997), 15–20. Abulafia, D., ‘Introduction: Seven types of ambiguity, c. 1100–c. 1500’ in D. Abulafia and N. Berend (eds), Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 1–34. Allmand, C., ‘Local reaction to the French reconquest of Normandy: The case of Rouen’ in J. Highfield and R. Jeffs(eds),The Crown and Local Communities in England and France in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1981), pp. 146–61. Allmand, C., Lancastrian Normandy 1415–1450 (Oxford, 1983). Anon., ‘Sir Richard Shee’s Monument: St Mary’s Kilkenny’, Dublin Penny Journal, 2:69 (1833), 132–3. Anon., ‘A thirteenth-century Castilian sumptuary law’, The Business History Review, 37: 1–2 (1963), 98–100. Armstrong, J., ‘Violence and peacemaking in the English marches towards Scotland, c. 1425–1440’ in L. Clark (ed.), Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 53–72. Armstrong, J., ‘Concepts of kinship in Lancastrian Westmorland’ in B. Thompson and J. Watts (eds), Political Society in Later Medieval England: A Festschrift for Christine Carpenter (Woodbridge, 2015), pp. 146–65. Armstrong, J., ‘Centre, periphery, locality, province: England and its far north’ in P. Crooks, D. Green, and W. M. Ormrod (eds), The Plantagenet Empire, 1259– 1453 (Donington, 2016), pp. 248–72. Bachrach, B., ‘Charles Martel, mounted shock combat, the stirrup, and feudalism’ in J. France and K. DeVries (eds), Warfare in the Dark Ages (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 221–47. Bailey, M., Medieval Suffolk: An Economic and Social History, 1200–1500 (Woodbridge, 2007).

263 Bibliography Bailey, M., The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England: From Bondage to Freedom (Woodbridge, 2014). Bairéad, E. C., ‘The bailiffs, provosts and sheriffsofthecityofDublin’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XIV (Dublin, 2015), pp. 210–309. Ball, F. E., A History of the County Dublin, 6 vols (Dublin, 1906). Ball, F. E., The Judges in Ireland, 1221–1921, 2 vols (New York, 1927). Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History (Oxford, 2007). Baker, J. H., ‘Patrick Bermingham (c. 1460–1532)’, ODNB (2008). Bardsley, S., Women’s Roles in the Middle Ages (London, 2007). Barnewall, S. B., ‘The Family of Barnewall (De Berneval) during the Middle Ages’, IG, 3:4 (1959), 124–35. Barnewall, S. B., ‘Seventeenth century Dublin leather merchants’, IG, 5:2 (1975), 181–6. Barnewall, S. B., ‘Barnewall of Kilbrew, co. Meath’, IG, 6:1 (1980),9–17. Barnewall, S. B., ‘Darcy of Platten, co. Meath’, IG, 6:4 (1983), 403–22. Barrell, A. D. M. and M. H. Brown, ‘A settler community in post-conquest rural Wales: The English of Dyffryn Clwyd, 1294–1399’, WHR, 17:3 (1994), 332–55. Barry, T. B., ‘The archaeology of the tower house in late medieval Ireland’ in H. Andersson and J. Wienberg (eds), The Study of Medieval Archaeology (Stockholm, 1993), pp. 211–8. Barry, T. B., R. Frame, and K. Simms (eds), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J.F. Lydon (London, 1995). Barry, J., ‘Thomas Luttrell (c. 1490–1554)’, DIB (2009). Bartlett, R. and A. MacKay (eds), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989). Bartlett, R., The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change (London, 1994). Bartlett, R., ‘Symbolic meanings of hair in the Middle Ages’, TRHS, sixth series, 4 (1994), 45–60. Bartlett, R., ‘Medieval and modern concepts of race and ethnicity’, JMEMS, 31:1 (2001), 39–56. Beattie, C. and M. Stevens (eds), Married Women and the Law in Premodern Northwestern Europe (Woodbridge, 2013). Bennett, J., Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender and Household in Brigstock before the Plague (Oxford, 1987). Beresford, D., ‘William Sherwood (c. 1401–1482)’, DIB (2009). Beresford, D., ‘Walter FitzSimons (c. 1455–1511)’, DIB (2009). Bergin, O., Irish Bardic Poetry (Dublin, 1970). Berry, H. F., ‘The ancient corporation of Barber-Surgeons, or guild of St Mary Magdalene, Dublin’, JRSAI, 33:3 (1903), 217–38. Berry, H. F., ‘The Dublin guild of carpenters, millers, masons, and heliers in the sixteenth century’, JRSAI, 35:4 (1905), 321–37. Berry, H. F., ‘The Merchant Tailors Gild-that of St John the Baptist, Dublin 1418– 1841’, JRSAI, 8:1 (1918), 19–64. Beverly Smith, J., ‘Crown and community in the principality of north Wales in the reign of Henry Tudor’, WHR, 3:2 (1966), 165–71. Beverley Smith, J., ‘Distinction and diversity: The common lawyers and the law of Wales’ in Pryce and Watts, Power and Identity (2007), pp. 139–52.

264 Bibliography Beverly Smith, L., ‘Fosterage, adoption and godparenthood: Ritual and fictive kinship in medieval Wales’, WHR, 16:1 (1992), 1–35. Beverly Smith, L., ‘The Welsh language before 1536’ in G. H. Jenkins (ed.), The Welsh Language before the Industrial Revolution (Cardiff, 1997), pp. 15–44. Beverly Smith, L., ‘In search of an urban identity: aspects of urban society in late medieval Wales’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (2012), pp. 19–50. Biggam, C. P., ‘Saffron in Anglo-Saxon England’, Dyes in History and Archaeology, 14 (1995), 19–32. Biller, P., ‘Proto-racial thought in medieval science’ in M. Eliav-Feldon, B. Isaac, and J. Ziegler (eds), The Origins of Racism in the West (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 157–80. Bliss, A. J., ‘The emergence of modern English dialects in Ireland’ in D. Ó Muirithe (ed.), The English Language in Ireland (Dublin, 1985), pp. 7–19. Boardman, S., ‘The cult of St George in Scotland’ in S. Boardman, J. R. Davies, and E. Williamson (eds), Saints’ Cults in the Celtic World (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 146–59. Bolton, J. L., ‘Irish migration to England in the late Middle Ages: The evidence of 1394 and 1440’, IHS, 32:125 (2000), 1–21. Bonfield, L., ‘The nature of customary law in the manor courts of medieval England’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31:3 (1989),515–34. Bonfield, L., ‘What did English villagers mean by “Customary Law?”’ in Z. Razi and R. Smith (eds), Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford, 1996), pp. 103–16. Booker, S., ‘An English city? Gaelicization and cultural exchange in late medieval Dublin’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin X (Dublin, 2010), pp. 287–98. Booker, S., ‘Intermarriage in fifteenth-century Ireland: The English and Irish in the “four obedient shires”’, PRIA, 113 c(2013), 219–50. Booker, S., ‘Irish clergy and the diocesan church in the “four obedient shires” of Ireland, c. 1400–c. 1540’, IHS, 39:154 (2014), 179–209. Booker, S., ‘The Geraldines and the Irish: Intermarriage, ecclesiastical patronage and status’ in P. Crooks and S. Duffy (eds), The Geraldines and Medieval Ireland: The Making of a Myth (Dublin, 2016), pp. 292–324. Bordieu, P., Language and Symbolic Power, ed. J. B. Thompson, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson (Cambridge, 1991). Bottigheimer, K., ‘The new new Irish history’, Journal of British Studies, 27:1 (1988), 72–9. Bradley, J. (ed.), Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland: Studies Presented to F.X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1988). Bradley, J. (ed.), Treasures of Kilkenny, Charters and Civic Records of Kilkenny City (Kilkenny, 2003). Bradley, P. J., ‘Social banditry on the Anglo-Scottish border during the later Middle Ages’, Scotia, 12 (1988), 27–43. Bradshaw, B., The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1979). Bradshaw, B., ‘The reformation in the cities: Cork, Limerick and Galway 1534–1603’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society (1988), pp. 445–76. Bradshaw, B., ‘Nationalism and historical scholarship in modern Ireland’, IHS, 26:104 (1989), 329–51.

265 Bibliography Brady, C., The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland (Cambridge, 1994). Brady, J., ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, RnM, 2:3 (1961), 38–45. Brand, P., ‘The early history of the legal profession of the lordship of Ireland, 1250–1350’ in D. Hogan and W. N. Osborough (eds), Brehons, Serjeants and Attorneys: Studies in the History of the Irish Legal Profession (Dublin, 1990), pp. 15–50. Brand, P., ‘The birth and early development of a colonial judiciary: the judges of the lordship of Ireland, 1210–1377’ in W. N. Osborough (ed.), Explorations in Law and History: Irish Legal History Society Discourses, 1988–1994 (Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 1995), pp. 1–48. Brand, P., ‘Irish law students and lawyers in late medieval England’, IHS, 32:126 (2000), 161–73. Briggs, C., ‘Seignorial control of villagers’ litigation beyond the manor in later medieval England’, Historical Resesarch, 81:301 (2008), 399–422. Brooke, R. and C., Popular Religion in the Middle Ages: Western Europe 1000–1300 (London, 1984). Brooke, C., The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford, 1989). Brooks, C. W., Law, Politics and Society in Early Modern England (New York, 2008). Browne, M. and C. Ó Clabaigh (eds), The Irish Benedictines: A History (Dublin, 2005). Brundage, J., Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987). Brundage, J., ‘Sumptuary laws and prostitution in late medieval Italy’, JMH, 13:4 (1987), 343–55. Brundage, J., ‘Domestic violence in classical canon law’ in R. Kaueper (ed.), Violence in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 183–97. Bryan, D., Gerald FitzGerald, the Great Earl of Kildare (Dublin, 1933). Buckley, A., ‘Music in Ireland to c. 1500’ in NHI,i(2005), pp. 744–813. Buldorini, C., ‘The Mayors, provosts and bailiﬀs of Drogheda in the thirteenth century’, JCLAHS, 27:1 (2009), 26–38. Burroughs, M., ‘Fifteenth-century Irish provincial legislation and pastoral care’ in W. J. Shields and D. Wood (eds), Studies in Church History 45: The Churches, Ireland and the Irish (Oxford, 1989), pp. 55–67. Burt, C., ‘The demise of the general eyre in the reign of Edward I’, EHR, 120:485 (2005), 1–14. Burton, J., Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain, 1000–1300 (Cambridge, 1994). Butler, R., Trim Castle (Tara, co. Meath, 1978). Butler, S., The Language of Abuse: Marital Violence in the Later Medieval England (Leiden, 2007). Butler, S., Divorce in Medieval England: from One Person to Two Persons in Law (New York, 2013). Byrne, F. J., ‘MacNeill the historian’ in F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (eds), The Scholar Revolutionary: Eoin MacNeill, 1867–1945 and the Making of the New Ireland (Shannon, 1973), pp. 17–36. Campbell, B., ‘Benchmarking medieval economic development: England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, c. 1290’, Economic History Review, 61:4 (2008), 896–945. Canny, N., The Formation of the Old English Élite in Ireland: the O’Donnell Lecture (Dublin, 1975).

266 Bibliography Canny, N., ‘Identity formation in Ireland: The emergence of the Anglo-Irish’ in N. Canny and A. Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World 1500–1800 (Princeton, 1987), pp. 159–212. Casey, D., The Nugents of Westmeath and Queen Elizabeth’sIrishPrimer(Dublin, 2016). Castor, H., The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster (Oxford, 2000). Caswell, M., ‘Coverture and criminal law in England, 1640–1760’ in T. Stretton and K. Kesselring (eds), Married Women and the Law: Coverture in England and the Common Law World (Montreal, 2012), pp. 88–112. Carey, V., ‘Neither good English nor good Irish: Bi-lingualism and identity formation in sixteenth-century Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 45–61. Carpenter, C., ‘Gentry and community in medieval England’, Journal of British Studies, 33:4 (1994), 340–80. Carpenter, C., The Wars of the Roses: Politics and Constitution in England, c. 1437–1509 (Cambridge, 1997). Carpenter, C., ‘Bastard feudalism in England in the fourteenth century’ in S. Boardman and J. Goodare (eds), Kings, Lords and Men in Scotland and Britain, 1300–1625: Essays in Honour of Jenny Wormald (Edinburgh, 2014), pp. 59–93. Caulﬁeld, R., ‘Early charters relating to Youghal’, The Gentleman’s Magazine (August, 1864), 2, 191–4. Cavill, P. R., ‘The problem of labour and the parliament of 1495’ in L. Clark (ed.), Of Mice and Men: Image, Belief and Regulation in Late Medieval England. The Fifteenth Century, vol. 5 (Woodbridge, 2005) pp. 143–55. Childs, W., ‘Ireland’s trade with England in the later Middle Ages’, Irish Economic and Social History, 19 (1982), 5–33. Clare, L., On the Edge of the Pale: The Rise and Decline of an Anglo-Irish Community in County Meath, 1170–1530 (Dublin, 2006). Clark, M. and R. Refaussé (eds), Directory of Historic Dublin Guilds (Dublin, 1993). Clarke, H. B., ‘Angliores ipsis Anglis: the place of medieval Dubliners in English history’ in H. B. Clarke, J. Prunty, and M. Hennessy (eds), Surveying Ireland’sPast: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Anngret Simms (Dublin, 2004), pp. 41–72. Cochrane, R., ‘Notes on the ecclesiastical antiquities in the parish of Howth, county of Dublin’, JRSAI, 3:4 (1893), 386–96. Cohn, S., ‘After the Black Death: Labour legislation and attitudes towards labour in late medieval western Europe’, The Economic History Review, 60:3 (2007), 457–85. Cohn, S., Popular Protest in Late Medieval English Towns (Cambridge, 2013). Cohen, J. J. (ed.), The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York, 2000). Coleman, B., ‘Urban elite: The county and civic elite of later medieval Dublin’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XV (Dublin, 2016), pp. 293–304. Colker, M. (ed.), Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts of Trinity College Dublin, 2 vols (Dublin, 1991). Fr. Columcille, ‘Seven documents from the old Abbey of Mellifont’, JCLAHS, 13: 1 (1953), 35–67. Compact Dictionary of the Irish Language (Dublin, 1998).

267 Bibliography Connolly, P., ‘The enactments of the 1297 parliament’ in Lydon, Law and Disorder (1997), pp. 148–61. Connolly, P., Medieval Record Sources (Dublin, 2002). Conway, A., Henry VIII’s Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–1498 (New York, 1971). Cosgrove, A., ‘Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis’ in A. Cosgrove and D. McCarthy (eds), Studies in Irish History Presented to R. Dudley Edwards (Dublin, 1979), pp. 1–14. Cosgrove, A., ‘Parliament and the Anglo-Irish community: The declaration of 1460’ in A. Cosgrove and J. I. McGuire (eds), Parliament and Community: Historical Studies XIV (Belfast, 1983), pp. 25–41. Cosgrove, A., ‘Marriage in medieval Ireland’ in A. Cosgrove (ed.), Marriage in Ireland (Dublin, 1985), pp. 25–50. Cosgrove, A., ‘The Armagh registers: An underexplored source for late medieval Ireland’, Peritia, 6–7 (1987–8), 307–20. Cosgrove, A., ‘Consent, consummation and indissolubility: some evidence from medieval ecclesiastical courts’, Downside Review, 109:375 (1991), 94–104. Cosgrove, A., ‘The emergence of the Pale, 1399–1447’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 533–56. Cosgrove, A., ‘Marriage and marriage litigation in medieval Ireland’ in P. Reynolds and J. White (eds), To Have and to Hold: Marrying and its Documentation in Western Christendom, 400–1600 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 332–59. Cox, C., The Parish Registers of England (2nd edn, Totowa, NJ, 1974). Cox, L., ‘The Dillon lords of Kilkenny west: Part one’, RnM, 11 (2000), 71–87. Cox, L., ‘The Dillon lords of Kilkenny west: Part two’, RnM, 12 (2001), 74–89. Cowdrey, H. E. J., ‘Peace and Truce of God in the eleventh century’, PP, 46 (1970), 42–67. Cowley, F. G., The Monastic Orders in South Wales 1066–1349 (Cardiﬀ, 1977). Crawford, J. G., Anglicizing the Government of Ireland: The Irish Privy Council and the Expansion of Tudor Rule, 1556–1578 (Blackrock, co. Dublin, 1993). Crooks, P., ‘“Hobbes”, “Dogs” and politics in the Ireland of Lionel of Antwerp, c. 1361–6’, Haskins Society Journal, 16 (2005), 117–48. Crooks, P., ‘Factions, feuds and noble power in late medieval Ireland, c. 1356–1496’, IHS, 35:140 (2007), 425–54. Crooks, P., ‘Introduction’ in Crooks (ed.), Government, War, and Society (2008), pp. 25–36. Crooks, P. (ed.), Government, War and Society in Medieval Ireland: Essays by Edmund Curtis, A. J. Otway-Ruthven and James Lydon (Dublin, 2008). Crooks, P., ‘Medieval Ireland and the wider world (review article)’, Studia Hibernica, 35 (2008–9), 167–86. Crooks, P., ‘Reconstructing the past: The case of the medieval Irish chancery rolls’ in F. M. Larkin and N. M. Dawson (eds), Lawyers, the Law and History: Irish Legal History Society Discourses and other Papers, 2006–2011 (Dublin, 2013), pp. 281–309. Cubitt, C., ‘Universal and local saints in Anglo-Saxon England’ in A. Thacker and R. Sharpe (eds), Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford, 2002), pp. 423–54.

268 Bibliography Cunningham, B., ‘Sir Richard Bingham (1527/8–1599)’, ODNB (2008). Cunningham, B., ‘Loss and gain: Attitudes towards the English language in early modern Ireland’ in B. Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–1700: Colonisation and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin, 2011), pp. 163–86. Curtis, E., ‘The clan system among English settlers in Ireland’, EHR, 25:97 (1910), 116–20. Curtis, E., ‘The spoken languages of medieval Ireland’, Studies, 8:30 (June, 1919), 234–54. Curtis, E., History of Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1927). Curtis, E., ‘Rental of the manor of Lisronagh, 1333, and notes on betagh tenure in medieval Ireland’, PRIA, 43 c(1935–7), 41–76. Curtis, E. and E. St John Brooks, ‘The barons of Norragh, co. Kildare, 1171–1660’, JRSAI, 5:1(1935), 84–101. Davies, R. R., ‘The law of the March’, WHR, 5:1 (1970), 1–30. Davies, R. R., ‘Race relations in post-conquest Wales’, THSC (1974–5), 32–56. Davies, R. R., Lordship and Society in the March of Wales (Oxford, 1978). Davies, R. R., ‘Lordship or colony’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland (1984), pp. 142–60. Davies, R. R., ‘In praise of British history’ in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles, 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 9–26. Davies, R. R., The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415 (Oxford, 2000). Davies, R. R., The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000). Davies, R. R., ‘Roger Mortimer, (VII), fourth earl of March and sixth earl of Ulster (1374–1398)’, ODNB (2008). Davis, V., ‘Irish clergy in late medieval England’, IHS, 32:126 (2000), 145–60. de Miramon, C., ‘Noble dogs, noble blood: the invention of the concept of race in the late Middle Ages’ in M. Eliav-Feldon, B. Isaac, and J. Ziegler (eds), The Origins of Racism in the West (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 200–16. de Paor, L., Ireland and Early Europe (Dublin, 1997). Devitt, Rev. M., ‘Dame Anastasia Wogan’s dower’, JCKAS, 3:1 (1899), 88–97. DeWindt, A. R., ‘Local government in a small town: A medieval leet jury and its constituents’, Albion, 23:4 (1991), 627–54. Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (London, 1964). Dillon, G., ‘Cnoc Diolún’, IG, 2:12 (1955), 361–7. Dimmock, S., ‘Haverfordwest: an exemplar for the study of southern Welsh towns in the later Middle Ages’, WHR, 22:1 (2004), 1–28. Ditchburn, D., ‘Who are the Scots? Some problems of identification and misidentification in later medieval Europe’ in P. Dukes (ed.), Frontiers of European Culture (Lewiston, New York, 1996), pp. 89–100. Ditchburn, D., Scotland and Europe: The Medieval Kingdom and its Contacts with Christendom, 1214–1560 (East Linton, 2000). Dobson,R.B.,‘Cathedral chapters and cathedral cities: York, Durham and Carlisle in the fifteenth century’ in R. B. Dobson, Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London, 1996), pp. 1–28.

269 Bibliography Dobson, R. B., ‘The last English monks on Scottish soil: The severance of Coldingham priory from the monastery of Durham, 1461–78’ in Dobson, Church and Society, pp. 109–34. Dolan, T., ‘The literature of Norman Ireland’ in S. Deane (ed.), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing (Derry, 1991), pp. 141–70. Donahue, C., ‘Clandestine’ marriage in the later Middle Ages: A reply’, Law and History Review, 10 (1992), 316–22. Donahue, C., ‘Female plaintiffs in marriage cases in the court of York in the later Middle Ages: What can we learn from the numbers?’ in S. Sheridan Walker (ed.), Wife and Widow in Medieval England (Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 183–214. Donovan, B. C. and D. Edwards (eds), British Sources for Irish History (Dublin, 1997). Down, K., ‘Colonial society and economy’, NHI,ii(2008), pp. 482–4. Drew, C., Early Parochial Organisation in England: The Office of Churchwarden (York, 1954). Duby, G., Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-century France, trans. E. Forster (Baltimore, 1991 [first published 1978]). Dudley Edwards, R., ‘The kings of England and papal provisions in fifteenth century Ireland’ in Watt, Morrall, and Martin, Medieval Studies (1961), pp. 265–80. Duffy, E., The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven, 2005). Duffy, P. J., ‘The nature of the medieval frontier in Ireland’, Studia Hibernica, 22–23 (1982–3), 21–38. Duffy, S., ‘The first Ulster plantation: John de Courcy and the men of Cumbria’ in Colony and Frontier (1995), pp. 1–28. Duffy, S., ‘The problem of degeneracy’ in Lydon, Law and Disorder (1997), pp. 87–106. Duffy, S., Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland, 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002). Duffy, S., ‘The Bruce invasion of Ireland: A revised itinerary and chronology’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), pp. 9–44. Duffy, S., ‘Henry II and England’s insular neighbours’ in C. Harper-Bill and N. Vincent (eds), Henry II: New Interpretations (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 129–53. Duffy, S. (ed.), The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords, and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600 (Dublin, 2007). Duffy, S., ‘The prehistory of the galloglass’ in Duffy, The World of the Galloglass (2007), pp. 1–24. Duffy, S., ‘The Welsh conquest of Ireland’ in E. Purcell, P. MacCotter, J. Nyhan, and J. Sheehan (eds), Clerics, Kings and Vikings: Essays on Medieval Ireland in honour of Donnchadh Ó Corráin (Dublin, 2015), pp. 103–14. Duggan, A., ‘The making of a myth: Giraldus Cambrensis, Laudabiliter, and Henry II’s lordship of Ireland’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3:4 (2007), 107–69. Dungan, T. P., ‘John Dongan of Dublin, an Elizabethan gentleman’, JRSAI, 118 (1988), 101–17. DuVal, K., ‘Indian intermarriage and métissage in colonial Louisiana’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 6:2 (2008), 267–305.

270 Bibliography Dyer, C., ‘Landscape, farming and society in an English region: The Inquisitions Post Mortem for the West Midlands, 1250–1509’ in M. Hicks (ed.), The Later Medieval Inquisitions Post Mortem: Mapping the Medieval Countryside and Rural Society (Woodbridge, 2016), pp. 59–83. Edmonds, F., ‘Personal names and the cult of Patrick in eleventh-century Strathclyde and Northumbria’ in S. Boardman, J. R. Davies, and E. Williamson (eds), Saints Cults in the Celtic World (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 42–65. Edwards, D., ‘Ideology and experience: Spenser’s View and martial law in Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 127– 57. Edwards, D., The Ormond Lordship in County Kilkenny, 1515–1642: The Rise and Fall of the Butler Family (Dublin, 2003). Eggerer, E., ‘The guild merchant of Dublin’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin VI (Dublin, 2005), pp. 144–59. Ellis, S. G., ‘The Kildare Rebellion and the early Henrician Reformation’, The Historical Journal, 19:4 (1976), 807–30. Ellis, S. G., ‘Tudor policy and the Kildare Ascendancy in the lordship of Ireland 1496–1534’, IHS, 20:79 (1977), 235–71. Ellis, S. G., ‘The struggle for control of the Irish mint, 1460–1506’, PRIA, 78 c (1978), 17–36. Ellis, S. G., ‘Thomas Cromwell and Ireland, 1532–40’, The Historical Journal, 23:3 (1980), 497–519. Ellis, S. G., ‘The destruction of the liberties: Some further evidence’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 54 (1981), 150–61. Ellis, S. G., Reform and Revival: English Government in Ireland, 1470–1534 (London, 1986). Ellis, S. G., ‘Crown, community and government in the English territories 1450– 1575’, History, 71 (1986), 187–204. Ellis, S. G., ‘Nationalist historiography and the English and Gaelic worlds in the late Middle Ages’, IHS, 25:97 (1986–7), 1–18. Ellis, S. G., ‘“Not mere English” the British perspective 1400–1650’, History Today, 38:12 (1988), 41–8. Ellis, S. G., ‘A border baron and the Tudor state: The rise and fall of lord Dacre of the north’, The Historical Journal, 35:2 (1992), 253–77. Ellis, S. G., Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: the Making of the British State (Oxford, 1995). Ellis, S. G., ‘A crisis of the aristocracy? Frontiers and noble power in the early Tudor state’ in J. Guy (ed.), The Tudor Monarchy (London, 1997), pp. 330–40. Ellis, S. G., Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 1447–1603, 2nd edn (Harlow, 1998). Ellis, S. G., ‘More Irish than the Irish themselves: The “Anglo-Irish” in Tudor Ireland’, HI, 7:1 (1999), 22–6. Ellis, S. G., ‘The English state and its frontiers’ in D. Power and N. Standen (eds), Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700 (Basingstoke, 1999), pp. 153–81. Ellis, S. G., ‘Racial discrimination in later medieval Ireland’ in G. Hálfdanarson (ed.), The Culture and Politics of Discrimination (Pisa, 2003), pp. 21–32.

271 Bibliography Ellis, S. G., ‘An English gentleman and his community: Sir William Darcy of Platten’ in V. Carey and U. Lotz-Heumann (eds), Taking Sides? Colonial and Confessional Mentalités in Early Modern Ireland (Dublin, 2003), pp. 19–41. Ellis, S. G., ‘Frontiers and identities in the historiography of the British Isles’ in Lud’a Kluzáková and Steven Ellis (eds), Frontiers and Identities: Exploring the Research Area (Pisa, 2006), pp. 67–85. Ellis, S. G., ‘Gerald Fitzgerald, eighth earl of Kildare (1456?–1513)’, ODNB (2008). Ellis, S. G., ‘Gerald FitzGerald, ninth earl of Kildare (1487–1534)’, ODNB (2008). Ellis, S. G., ‘Richard Nugent, third Baron Delvin (d. 1538)’, ODNB (2008). Ellis, S. G., ‘The English Pale: A failed entity?’, HI, 19: 2 (2011), 14–17. Ellison, C. C., ‘Some aspects of Navan history’, RnM, 3:1 (1963), 33–56. Empey, C. A., ‘The Butler lordship’, Journal of the Butler Society, 3 (1970), 174–87. Empey, C. A., ‘The layperson in the parish: The medieval inheritance, 1169–1536’ in R. Gillespie and W. G. Neely (eds), The Laity and the Church of Ireland, 1000–2000 (Dublin, 2002), pp. 7–48. Empey, C. A. and K. Simms, ‘The ordinances of the White Earl and the problem of coign in the later Middle Ages’, PRIA, 75 c(1975), 161–87. Etty, C., ‘Neighbours from hell? Living with Tynedale and Redesdale, 1489–1547’ in Michael Prestwich (ed.), Liberties and Identities in the Medieval British Isles (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 120–40. Farnhill, K., Guilds and the Parish Community in Late Medieval East Anglia, c. 1470–1550 (Woodbridge, 2001). Faulkner, P., ‘The clergy of the parish of Dunleer’, JCLAS, 23:2 (1994), 218–30. Finnegan, D., ‘Old English views of Gaelic Irish history and the emergence of an Irish Catholic nation, c. 1569–1640’ in B. Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–1700 Colonisation and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin, 2011), pp. 187–213. Fitzgerald, W., ‘Incidents in the life of Garrett More, eighth earl of Kildare’, JCKAS, 2 (1896–9), 117–32. Fitzgerald, W., ‘Kilkea Castle’, JCKAS, 2 (1896–9), 3–32. Fitzgerald, W., ‘Fitzgeralds of Ballyshannon (Kildare) and their successors thereat’, JCKAS, 3:7 (1899–1902), 425–52. Fitzgerald, W., ‘Narraghmore and the barons of Norragh’, JCLAHS, 7:4 (1913), 242–72. Fitzsimons, F., ‘Fosterage and gossipred in late medieval Ireland: some new evidence’ in P. J. Duffy, D. Edwards, and E. Fitzpatrick (eds), Gaelic Ireland: Land, Lordship, and Settlement c. 1250–c. 1650 (Dublin, 2001), pp. 138–52. Fitzsimons, F., ‘Wolsey, the native affinities and the failure of reform in Henrician Ireland’ in D. Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1100–1650: Essays for Kenneth Nicholls (Dublin, 2004), pp. 78–121. Flavin, S. and E. T. Jones, Bristol’s Trade with Ireland and the Continent, 1503–1601 (Dublin, 2009). Fleming, P., ‘Identity and belonging: Irish and Welsh in fifteenth-century Bristol’ in L. Clark (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VII (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 175–93. Fleming, P., ‘The Welsh diaspora in Early Tudor English towns’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (2012), pp. 271–93.

272 Bibliography Fletcher, A. J., ‘Unnoticed sermons from John Mirk’s Festival’, Speculum, 55:3 (1980), 514–22. Fletcher, A. J., ‘Preaching in late medieval Ireland: The English and the Latin tradition’ in A. Fletcher and R. Gillespie (eds), Irish Preaching 700–1700 (Dublin, 2001), pp. 56–80. Fletcher, A. J., ‘The de Derby Psalter of Christ Church cathedral, Dublin’ in Gillespie and Refaussé, Medieval Manuscripts of Christ Church (2006), pp. 81–102. Foley, Á., ‘The sheriff of Dublin in the fourteenth century’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XII (Dublin, 2012), pp. 264–88. Foley, Á., The Royal Manors of Medieval Co. Dublin: Crown and Community (Dublin, 2013). Ford, A., ‘Meredith Hanmer (1543–1604)’, ODNB (2008). Frame, R., ‘The judicial powers of the medieval Irish keepers of the peace’ in R. Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), pp. 301–17 first published in IJ, 2:2 (1967), 308–26. Frame, R., ‘The immediate effect and interpretation of the 1331 ordinance una et eadem lex: Some new evidence’, IJ, 7 (1972), 109–14. Frame, R., ‘Power and society in the lordship of Ireland 1272–1377’, PP, 76 (1977), 3–33. Frame, R., English Lordship in Ireland, 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982). Frame, R., The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990). Frame, R., ‘Commissions of the peace in Ireland, 1302–1461’, Analecta Hibernica, 35 (1992), 3–43. Frame, R., ‘‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’: the English political identity in medieval Ireland’, TRHS, sixth series, 3 (1993), 83–103. Frame, R., ‘Two kings in Leinster: the crown and the MicMhurchadha in the fourteenth century’ in Colony and Frontier (1995), pp. 155–75. Frame, R., ‘Review of Identity on the Medieval Irish Frontier’, EHR, 69:483 (2004), 1029–30. Frame, R., ‘Lordship and liberties in Ireland and Wales, c. 1170–1360’ in Pryce and Watts, Power and Identity (2007), pp. 125–38. Frame, R., ‘Munster in the later Middle Ages’ in R. Stalley (ed.), Limerick and South- West Ireland: Medieval Art and Architecture (Leeds, 2011), pp. 5–18. Frame, R., ‘Ireland after 1169: Barriers to acculturation on an “English” edge’ in K. Stringer and A. Jotischky (eds), Norman Expansion: Connections, Continuities, and Contrasts (Farnham, 2013), pp. 115-41. French, K., The People of the Parish: Community Life in a Late Medieval English Diocese (Philadelphia, 2012). Fulton, H. (ed.), Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (Cardiff, 2012). Galbraith, V. H., ‘Nationality and language in medieval England’, TRHS, fourth series, 23 (1941), 113–28. Gallwey, H., ‘The Cusack family of cos Meath and Dublin’, IG, 5:3 (1976), 298–313, 5:4 (1977), 464–70, 5:5 (1978), 591–600, 5:6 (1979), 673–87; 6:2 (1981), 130–53, 6:3 (1982), 285–98. Gillespie, R. and R. Refaussé (eds), The Medieval Manuscripts of Christ Church Cathedral (Dublin, 2006).

273 Bibliography Given–Wilson, C. ‘The problem of labour in the context of English government, c. 1350–1450’ in J. Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg, and W. M. Ormrod (eds), The Problem of Labour in Fourteenth-Century England (York, 2000), pp. 85–100. Gogarty, T., ‘The Abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, Knock’, JCLAS, 4:1 (December, 1916), 62–9. Goheen, R. B., ‘Peasant politics? Village community and the crown in fifteenth century England’, AHR, 96:1 (1991), 42–62. Goldberg, P. J., ‘Fiction in the archives: The York cause papers as a source for later medieval social history’, Continuity and Change, 12 (1997), 425–45. Goodman, A., ‘Religion and warfare in the Anglo-Scottish marches’ in Bartlett and Mackay, Medieval Frontier Societies (1989), pp. 245–66. Goodman, A., ‘The Anglo-Scottish marches in the fifteenth century: A frontier society?’ in R. Mason (ed.), Scotland and England, 1286–1815 (Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 18–33. Graham, B. J., ‘Economy and town in Anglo-Norman Ireland’ in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and Society in medieval Ireland: Studies Presented to F.X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1998), pp. 241–60. Green, T., Verdict According to Conscience: Perspective on the English Criminal Trial Jury 1200–1600 (Chicago, 1985). Green, D., ‘Lordship and principality: Colonial policy in Ireland and Aquitaine in the 1360s’, Journal of British Studies, 47:1 (2008), pp. 3–29. Greene, D., ‘The professional poets’ in B. Ó Cuív (ed.), Seven Centuries of Irish Learning 1000–1700 (Cork, 1961), pp. 38–50. Greene, D., ‘The Irish war-cry’, Ériu, 22 (1971), 167–73. Griffith, M. C., ‘The Talbot-Ormond struggle for control of the Anglo-Irish government, 1414–47’, IHS, 2:8 (1941), 376–97. Griffiths, R. A., ‘Local rivalries and national politics: the Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–55’, Speculum, 43:4 (1968), 589–632. Griffiths, R. A., ‘Wales and the marches’ in S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths (eds), Fifteenth-Century England, 1399–1509, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1997), pp. 145–72. Griffiths, R. A., ‘Who were the townsfolk of medieval Wales?’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (2012), pp. 9–18. Grummitt, D., ‘‘One of the mooste pryncipall treasours belonging to his realme of Englande’: Calais and the Crown, c. 1450–1558’ in D. Grummitt (ed.), The English Experience in France, c. 1450–1558 (London, 2002), pp. 46–62. Guinness, H. S., ‘Dublin trade guilds’, JRSAI, 12:2 (1922), 143–63. Gundacker, J., ‘Absolutions and acts of disobedience: Excommunication and society in fourteenth century Armagh’, Traditio, 64 (2009), 183–212. Gwynn, A., ‘Ireland and the English nation at the council of Constance’, PRIA, 45 c (1939–40), 183–233. Gwynn, A., ‘Ireland and Rome in the eleventh century’, IER, 57 (1941), 213–32. Gwynn, A., ‘Provincial and diocesan decrees of the diocese of Dublin during the Anglo-Norman period’, AH, 11 (1944), pp. 31–117. Gywnn, A., The Medieval Province of Armagh (Dublin, 1946). Gwynn, A., ‘Edward I and the proposed purchase of English law for the Irish, c. 1276–80’, TRHS, 5:10 (1960), 111–27.

274 Bibliography Gwynn, A., ‘A breviary from St Mary’s Abbey, Trim’, RnM, 3 (1966), 290–98. Gwynn, A., The Twelfth-Century Reform (Dublin, 1968). Gwynn, A., Anglo-Irish Church Life in the 14th and 15th Centuries (Dublin, 1968). Gwynn, A and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, with an Appendix to Early Sites (Harlow, 1970). Hagger, M., The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales, 1066–1316 (Dublin, 2001). Hall, D., ‘Towards a prosopography of nuns in medieval Ireland’, AH, 53 (1999), 3–15. Hall, D., ‘Women and violence in late medieval Ireland’ in C. Meek and C. Lawless (eds), Pawns or Players?: Studies on Medieval and Early Modern Women (Dublin, 2003), pp. 131–40. Hammond, M. H., ‘Ethnicity and the writing of medieval Scottish history’, SHR, 85:219 (2006), 1–27. Hanawalt, B., Crime and Conﬂict in English Communities, 1300–1348 (Cambridge, Mass., 1979). Hanawalt, B., ‘The Widow’s Mite: Provision for medieval London widows’ in L. Mirrer (ed.), Upon my Husband’s Death: Widows in the Literature and Histories of Medieval Europe (Ann Arbor, 1992), pp. 26–35. Hanawault, B., ‘Violence in the domestic milieu’ in R. Kaueper (ed.), Violence in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 197–214. Hand, G., ‘The Psalter of Christ Church Dublin, Bodleian MS Rawlinson G.135’, Reportorium Novum, 1:2 (1956), 311–22. Hand, G., ‘Cambridge University Additional MS 710’, Reportorium Novum, 2:1 (1958), 17–23. Hand, G., ‘The status of the native Irish in the lordship of Ireland, 1272–1331’, IJ, new series, i (1966), pp. 93–115. Hand, G., English Law in Ireland, 1290–1324 (Cambridge, 1967). Hanks, P. and F. Hodges, A Dictionary of Surnames (Oxford, 1988). Hanks, P., F. Hodges, A. D. Mills, and A. Room (eds), Oxford Names Companion (Oxford, 2002). Harbison, P., ‘St Doulagh’s church’, Studies, 71:281 (1982), 27–42. Haren, M., ‘Vatican archives as a historical source to c. 1530’, AH, 39 (1984), 3–12. Haren, M., ‘Social structures of the Irish church: A new source in papal penitentiary dispensations for illegitimacy’ in L. Schmugge (ed.), Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter (Munich, 1994), pp. 207–26. Harriss, G., King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975). Harriss, G., Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461 (Oxford, 2005). B. Hartland, ‘The liberties of Ireland in the reign of Edward I’ in M. Prestwich (ed.), Liberties and Identities in the Medieval British Isles (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 200–16. Harvey, K., Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214–1344 (Farnham, 2014). Hawkes, W., ‘The liturgy in Dublin 1200–1500’, Reportorium Novum, 2:1 (1958), 33–67. Hayes, G., ‘Ordination ritual and practice in the Welsh-English frontier, circa 1540– 1640’, Journal of British Studies, 44:4 (2005),713–27.

275 Bibliography Heal, F., Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003). Heal, F., ‘Food gifts, the household and the politics of exchange in early modern England’, PP, 199 (2008), 41–70. Heal, F., The Power of Gifts: Gift-Exchange in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2015). Helmholtz, R. H., ‘Canonical defamation in medieval England’, American Journal of Legal History, 15:255 (1971), 255–68. Helmhotz, R. H., ‘Writs of prohibition and ecclesiastical sanctions in the English courts Christian’, Minnesota Law Review, 60 (1975), 1011–1033. Helmholtz, R. H., The Oxford History of the Laws of England: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford, 2004). Herlihy, D., ‘Tuscan names 1200–1500’, Renaissance Quarterly, 41 (1988), 561–82. Hickey, R., ‘Assessing the relative status of languages in medieval Ireland’ in J. Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics (Berlin, 1997), pp. 181–205. Hicks, L. V., Religious Life in Normandy, 1050–1300: Space, Gender and Social Pressure (Woodbridge, 2007). Hindson, B., ‘Attitudes towards menstruation and menstrual blood in Elizabethan England’, Journal of Social History, 45:1 (2009), 89–114. Hodgers, D., ‘The “rebellion” of John Hadsor, c. 1446–1468’, JLAHS, 27:4 (2012), 569–92. Hoﬀman, R., ‘Outsiders by birth and blood: racist ideologies and realities around the periphery of medieval European culture’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 6 (1983), 1–36. Hogan, A., The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda in Ireland, 1172–1541 (Dublin, 2008). Holt, J. C., What’s in a Name? Family Nomenclature and the Norman Conquest (Reading, 1981). Hore, H. and J. Graves (eds), The Social State of Southern and Eastern Counties of Ireland in the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1870). Horrox, R. (ed.), Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late Medieval England (Cambridge, 1994). Housley, N., The Later Crusades from Lyons to Alcazar, 1274–1580 (Oxford, 1992). Hudson, B. T., ‘The changing economy of the Irish sea province AD 900–1300’ in B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 39–66. Hunt, A., Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (London, 1996). Hyam, R., Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience (New York, 1990). Hyams, P. R., ‘The proof of villain status in the common law’, EHR, 89:353 (1974), 721–49. Hyams, P. R., ‘What did Edwardian villagers understand by “law?”’ in Z. Razi and R. Smith (eds), Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford, 1996), pp. 69–102. Irish Historic Towns Atlas, 27 vols (Dublin, 1986–2015). Izbicki, T. M., ‘Forbidden colors in clerical dress’ in R. Netherton and G. Owen- Crocker (eds), Medieval Clothing and Textiles vol. 1 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 105–14. Jones, R., ‘Janico Markys, Dublin, and the coronation of “Edward VI” in 1487’ in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin XVI (Dublin, 2015), pp. 185–209.

276 Bibliography Jefferies, H. A., ‘The church courts of Armagh on the eve of the Reformation’, SA, 15:2 (1993), 1–38. Jefferies, H. A., Priests and Prelates of Armagh in the Age of Reformations, 1518–1558 (Dublin, 1997). Jefferies, H.A., ‘The role of the laity in the parishes of Armagh “Inter Anglicos”, 1518–1553’, AH, 52,(1998), pp. 73–84. Jefferies, H. A., ‘Dr George Cromer, Archbishop of Armagh (1521–1543), and Henry VIII’s reformation’ in A. J. Hughes and W. Nolan (eds), Armagh: History and Society (Dublin, 2001), pp. 217–44. Jefferies, H. A., ‘Medieval Cork’ in H. A. Jefferies (ed.), Cork: Historical Perspectives (Dublin, 2004), pp. 48–76. Jefferies, H. A., The Irish Church and the Tudor Reformations (Dublin, 2010). Jefferson, J. A. and A. Putter (eds), with A. Hopkins, Multilingualism in Medieval Britain (c. 1066–1520): Sources and Analysis (Turnhout, 2013). Johnson, R. L., ‘How Nicholas Fleming became archbishop of Armagh’, JCLAS, 13:3 (1955), 279–87. Johnson, Samuel and George Steevens (eds), The Plays of William Shakespeare in Ten Volumes, 10 vols (London, 1778). Johnston, D., ‘Towns in medieval Welsh poetry’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (2012), pp. 95–115. Jones, K., Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: The Local Courts in Kent, 1460–1560 (Woodbridge, 2006). Jordan, W., ‘Why “Race”’, JMEMS, 31:1 (2001), 165–73. Kane, B., ‘Making the Irish European: Gaelic honour politics and its continental contexts’, Renaissance Quarterly, 61:4 (2008), 1139–66. Kane, B., ‘Custom, memory and knowledge in the medieval church courts’ in R. Hayes and W. Sheils (eds), Clergy, Church and Society in England and Wales, c.1200–1800 (York, 2013), pp. 61–81. Keen, M., English Society in the Later Middle Ages, 1348–1500 (Ann Arbor, 1990). Kelly, F., A Guide to Early Irish Law (Dublin, 1991). Kelly, F., ‘Onomatopoeic interjections in early Irish’, Celtica, 25 (2007), 88–107. Kelly, M., A History of the Black Death in Ireland (Stroud, 2001). Kenny, G., ‘Anglo-Irish and Gaelic marriage laws and traditions in late medieval Ireland’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 27–42. Kenny, G., Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Women in Ireland, c.1170–1540 (Dublin, 2007). Kenny, G., ‘The women of county Louth in the later medieval period, 1170–1540’, JCLAHS, 26:4 (2008), 579–94. Kinsella, S., ‘From Hiberno-Norse to Anglo-Norman, c. 1030–1300’ in Milne, Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, pp. 25–52. Kleinhenz, C. and K. Busby (eds), Medieval Multilingualism: the Francophone World and its Neighbours (Turnhout, 2010). Knoll, P., ‘The Polish-German frontier’ in Murray, The Clash of Cultures (2009), pp. 151–74. Kovesi Killerby, C., Sumptuary Law in Italy, 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2002). Lambert, B. and M. Ormrod, ‘Friendly foreigners: international warfare, resident aliens and the early history of denization in England, c. 1250–c. 1400’, EHR, 130:542 (2015), 1–24.

277 Bibliography Laughton, J., Life in a Late Medieval City, Chester 1275–1520 (Oxford, 2008). Le Fanu, T. P., ‘A note on the two charters of the Smiths’ Guild of Dublin’, JRSAI, 10:2 (1930), 150–64. Leiberman, M., The March of Wales, 1067–3012: A Borderland of Medieval Britain (Cardiff, 2008). Lennon, C., ‘Richard Stanihurst (1547–1618) and Old English identity’, IHS, 21:82 (1978), 121–43. Lennon, C., Richard Stanihurst the Dubliner, 1547–1618 (Blackrock, co. Dublin, 1981). Lennon, C., ‘The chanceries in the Irish reformation: The case of St Anne’s guild, Dublin, 1550–1630’ in R. V. Comerford, M. Cullen, J. R. Hill, and C. Lennon (eds), Religion, Conflict and Co-Existence in Ireland: Essays Presented to Monsignor Patrick Corish (Dublin, 1990), pp. 6–25. Lennon, C., ‘The foundation charter of St Sythe’s guild, Dublin, 1476’, AH, 48 (1994), 3–12. Lennon, C., Sixteenth-Century Ireland: The Incomplete Conquest (Dublin, 2005). Lennon, C., ‘The Fitzgeralds of Kildare and the building of a dynastic image, 1500– 1630’ in T. Nolan and T. McGrath (eds), Kildare History and Society (Dublin, 2006), pp. 195–211. Lennon, C., ‘The confraternities and cultural duality in Ireland, 1450–1550’ in C. Black and P. Gravestock (eds), Early Modern Confraternities in Europe and the Americas (Aldershot, England, 2006), pp. 35–52. Lennon, C., ‘Christopher Nugent, fifth Baron Delvin (1544–1602)’, ODNB (2008). Lennon, C., ‘The parish fraternities of county Meath in the late Middle Ages’, RnM, 19 (2008), 85–101. Leslie, Rev. J. B., Armagh Clergy and Parishes (Dundalk, 1911). Leslie, Rev. J. B., Clogher Clergy and Parishes (Enniskillen, 1929). Lieberman, M., ‘Anglicization in high medieval Wales: The case of Glamorgan’, WHR, 23:1 (2006), 1–26. Lieberman, M., The March of Wales, 1067–1312: A Borderland of Medieval Britain (Cardiff, 2008). Lourie, E., ‘A society organised for war: Medieval Spain’, PP, 35:1 (1966), 54–76. Lower, M. A., A Dictionary of Surnames (Ware, Hertfordshire, 1988). Lucas, A., ‘Hiberno-English literature’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopaedia (Abingdon, 2005), pp. 356–9. Lund, T., The Creation of the Common Law: The Medieval Year Books Deciphered (Clark, NJ, 2015). Lutton, R., ‘Godparenthood, kinship and piety in Tenterden, England 1449–1537’ in I. Davis, M. Müller, and S. Rees Jones (eds), Love, Marriage and Family Ties in the Later Middle Ages (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 217–34. Lydon, J., ‘The Irish exchequer in the thirteenth century’, Bulletin of the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, 81:99 (1958), 1–2. Lydon, J., ‘Survey of the memoranda rolls of the Irish exchequer, 1294–1509’, Analecta Hibernica, 23 (1966), 49–134. Lydon, J., ‘The problem of the frontier in medieval Ireland’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 317–31 (originally published in Topic, xxiii [1967], 5–22). Lydon, J., ‘The Braganstown massacre’, JCLAHS, 19:1 (1977), 5–16. Lydon, J., ‘The city of Waterford in the later Middle Ages’, Decies, 12 (1979), 5–15.

278 Bibliography Lydon, J. (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland: Proceedings of the First Joint Meeting of the Royal Irish Academy and the British Academy (Dublin, 1984). Lydon, J., ‘A land of war’, NHI,ii(1987), pp. 240–74. Lydon, J., ‘The medieval city’ in A. Cosgrove (ed.), Dublin through the Ages (Dublin, 1988), pp. 25–45. Lydon, J., ‘The middle nation’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland, pp. 1–26 reprinted in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 332–52. Lydon, J., ‘Ireland and the English crown, 1171–1541’, IHS, 29:115 (1995), 281–94. Lydon, J., ‘Nation and race in medieval Ireland’ in S. Forde, L. Johnson, and A. V. Murray (eds), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds, 1995), pp. 103–24. Lydon, J. (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: the Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997). Lydon, J., ‘Historical revisit, Edmund Curtis, “A history of medieval Ireland”’ (1923, 1938), IHS, 31:124 (1999), 535–48. Lydon, J., ‘Christ Church in the later medieval Irish world, 1300–1500’ in Milne, Christ Church Cathedral (2000), pp. 75–94. Lydon, J., The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Dublin, 2003). Lynch, A., ‘Religion in late medieval Ireland’, AH, 36 (1981), 3–15. Lynch, A., ‘Some metropolitical visitations of Meath in the ﬁfteenth century’, RnM, 7:2 (1982–3), 3–11. Lynch, A., ‘The administration of John Bole, Archbishop of Armagh, 1457–71’, SA, 14:2 (1991), 39–108. Lynch, A., ‘Thomas Fleming, O.F.M., Bishop of Leighlin (1434–c. 58), cited to a provincial council at Ferns’, Collectanea Hibernica, 34:35 (1993), 7–9. Lyons, M. A., ‘Sidelights on the Kildare ascendancy: a survey of Geraldine involvement in the church, c. 1470–c. 1520’, AH, 48 (1994), 73–87. Lyons, M. A., Church and Society in County Kildare, c. 1470–1547 (Dublin, 2000). Lyons, M. A., ‘Lay female piety and church patronage in late medieval Ireland’ in B. Bradshaw (ed.), Christianity in Ireland: Revisiting the Story (Dublin, 2002), pp. 57–75. McCabe, B., ‘Carrickmines: A note from the past’, Dublin Historical Record, 56:1 (2003), 71–7. McCaﬀerty, J., ‘Defamation and the church courts in sixteenth-century Armagh’, AH, 48 (1994), 88–106. McCarthy, C., Marriage in Medieval England: Law, Literature and Practice (Woodbridge, 2004). McClintock, H. F., Old Irish and Highland Dress (Dundalk, 1949). McDonald, R. A., ‘Matrimonial politics and core-periphery interactions in twelfth and early thirteenth-century Scotland’, JMH, 21:3 (1995), 227–47. McEvoy, B., K. Simms, and D. G. Bradley, ‘Genetic investigation of the patrilineal kinship structure of early medieval Ireland’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 136 (2008), 415–22. MacFarlane, K. B., ‘Bastard Feudalism’ in England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays by K. B. MacFarlane (London, 1981), pp. 23–43. McGowan-Doyle, V., The Book of Howth: Elizabethan Conquest and the Old English (Cork, 2011).

279 Bibliography McIntosh, A. and M. L. Samuels, ‘Prolegmena to a study of mediaeval Anglo-Irish’, Medium Aevum, 37:1 (1968), 1–11. Mac Iomhair, D., ‘Two old Drogheda Chronicles’, JCLAHS, 15:1 (1961), 88–95. MacKay, A., ‘Religion, culture and ideology on the late medieval Castilian- Granadan frontier’ in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), pp. 217–43. McKenna, E., ‘Was there a political role for women in Medieval Ireland? Lady Margaret Butler and Lady Eleanor MacCarthy’ in C. Meek and K. Simms (eds), The Fragility of her Sex?: Medieval Irishwomen in the European Context (Dublin, 1996), pp. 163–74. McKenna, L., Aithdioghluim Dána (Dublin, 1940). MacLysaght, E., More Irish Families (Dublin, 1960). MacLysaght, E., Irish Families, reprint 4th edn (Dublin, 1991). MacLysaght, E., The Surnames of Ireland, 4th edn (Dublin, 1997). McMahon, M., Medieval Church Sites of North Dublin: A Heritage Trail (Dublin, 1991). McManus, D., ‘A chronology of Latin loan words from early Irish’, Ériu, 34 (1983), 21–71. McNeill, C., ‘Rawlinson manuscripts’, Analecta Hibernica, 1 (1930), 1–178. MacNeill, E., Phases of Irish History, 2nd edn (Dublin, 1968 [first published 1919]). Mac Niocaill, G., Na Buirgéisí, 2 vols (Dublin, 1964). MacNiocaill, G., ‘The origins of the betagh’ IJ, 1 (1966), 292–8. MacNiocaill, G., ‘The contact of Irish and common law’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 23:1 (1972), 16–23. MacNiocaill, G., ‘The interaction of laws’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland (1984), pp. 105–17. MacQuarrie, A., ‘Scottish saints’ legends in the Aberdeen Breviary’ in S. Boardman and E. Williamson (eds), The Cult of Saints and the Virgin Mary in Medieval Scotland (Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 143–58. Maginn, C., ‘English marcher lineages in south Dublin in the late Middle Ages’, IHS, 34:134 (2004), 113–36. Maginn, C., ‘Gaelic Ireland’s English frontiers in the late Middle Ages’, PRIA, 110 c (2010), 173–90. Maginn, C. and S. G. Ellis (eds), The Tudor Discovery of Ireland (Dublin, 2015). Magoun, F. P., ‘Football in medieval England and in middle-English literature’, AHR, 25:1 (1929), 33–45. Magoun, F. P., ‘Scottish popular football, 1424–1815’, AHR, 37:1 (1931), 1–13. Mahon, B., ‘Traditional dyestuffs in Ireland’ in A. Gailey and D. Ó hÓgáin (eds), Gold under the Furze: Studies in Folk Tradition (Dublin, 1982), pp. 115–28. Mann, K., ‘The march of Wales: A question of terminology’, WHR, 18:1 (1996), 1–13. Martin, F. X., ‘The Irish Augustinian reform movement in the fifteenth century’ in Watt, Morrall, and Martin, Medieval Studies (1961), pp. 230–64. Martin, F. X., ‘John, lord of Ireland, 1185–1216’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 127–55. Martin, F. X., F. J. Byrne, et al. (eds), A New History of Ireland, 9 vols (Oxford, 1972– 2011). Mason, W. M., The History and Antiquities of the Collegiate and Cathedral Church of St Patrick near Dublin (Dublin, 1820).

280 Bibliography Masschaele, J., Jury, State and Society in Medieval England (New York, 2008). Massey, R., ‘Lancastrian Rouen: military service and property holding 1419–49’ in D. Bates and A. Curry (eds), England and Normandy in the Middle Ages (London, 1994), pp. 269–86. Matthew, E., ‘Richard Talbot (d. 1449)’, ODNB (2008). Matthew, E., ‘Richard Nugent, first Baron Delvin and baron of Delvin (d. 1475)’, ODNB (2008). Matthew, E., ‘Henry V and the proposal for an Irish crusade’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Robin Frame (Houndsmills, 2009), pp. 161–75. Miller, J., Urban Society in East-Central Europe, 1500–1700 (Aldershot, 2008). Milne, K. (ed.), Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin: A History (Dublin, 2000). Mitchell, L. (ed.), Irish Spinning, Dyeing and Weaving: An Anthology from Original Documents (Dundalk, 1978). Mooney, C., The Church in Gaelic Ireland: 13th to 15th Centuries (Dublin, 1969). Moore, P., ‘The MacMahons of Monaghan (1500–1593)’, Clogher Record, 1:3 (1955), 22–38. Morgan, D. A. L., ‘The banner-bearer of Christ and Our Lady’s knight: How God became an Englishman revisited’ in N. Saul (ed.), St George’s Chapel Windsor, in the Fourteenth Century (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 51–61. Morgan, H., ‘Giraldus Cambrensis and the Tudor conquest of Ireland’ in H. Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland 1541–1641 (Dublin, 1999), pp. 22–44. Morgan, H., ‘Sunday 6 June 1518 – the day the Renaissance came to Ireland’, HI, 20:3 (2012), 18–21. Morley, V. and B. Smith, ‘Letters’, HI, 1:4 (1993), 7. Moylan, T. K., ‘Vagabonds and sturdy beggars’, Dublin Historical Record, 1:1 (1938), 11–18. Muller, A., ‘Conflicting loyalties: The Irish Franciscans and the English crown in the high Middle Ages’, PRIA, 107 c(2007), 87–106. Munro, J., ‘The Anti-red shift – to the dark side: Colour changes in Flemish luxury woollens, 1300–1500’, Clothing and Textiles, 3 (Woodbridge, 2007), 55–96. Murphy, B., ‘The status of the native Irish after 1331’, IJ, 2 (1967), 116–28. Murphy, G., ‘Poems of exile by Uilliam Mac Barúin Dealbhna’, Éigse, 6 (1948–52), 8–15. Murphy, M. and M. Potterton, TheDublinRegionintheMiddleAges(Dublin, 2010). Murtagh, H., ‘Athlone’, IHTA, 6 (Dublin, 1994). Murray, A. V. (ed.), The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier (Farnham, 2009). Murray, L. P., ‘St Columba in Louth’, JCLAHS, 2:4 (1911), 337–46. Murray, J., ‘The sources of clerical income in the Tudor diocese of Dublin, c. 1530– 1600’, AH, 46 (1991/2), 139–60. Murray, J., Enforcing the English Reformation in Ireland: Clerical Resistance and Political Conflict in the Diocese of Dublin, 1534–1590 (Cambridge, 2009). Musson, A., ‘Twelve good men and true? The character of early fourteenth-century juries’, Law and History Review, 15:1 (1997), 115–44.

281 Bibliography Musson, A., ‘Crime and the compensation culture in medieval England’, Crime and Retribution Lecture Series,MuseumofLondon(2009)[www.gresham.ac.uk/ lectures+events]. Naum, M., ‘Difficult middles, hybridity, and ambivalence of a medieval frontier: the cultural landscape of Lolland and Falster (Denmark)’, JMH, 31:1 (2012), 56–75. Neely, W. G., Kilkenny: An Urban History, 1391–1841 (Antrim, 1989). Neville, C. J., ‘Keeping the peace on the northern marches in the later Middle Ages’, EHR, 109:430 (1994), 1–15. Neville, C. J., ‘Scottish influences on the medieval laws of the Anglo-Scottish marches’, SHR, 81:212 (2002), 161–85. Newcombe, D. G., ‘John Kite (d. 1537)’, ODNB (2008). Newton, S. M., Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, a Study of the Years 1340–1365 (Woodbridge, 1980). Nicholls, K. W., ‘The descendants of Oliver FitzGerald of Belagh’, IG, 4:1 (1968), 2–9. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Geraldines of Allen’, IG, 4:1 (1968), 92–108, 194–200. Nicholls, K. W., ‘The early Keatings’, IG, 5:3 (1976), 286–9. Nicholls, K. W., ‘The Kavanaghs, 1400–1700’, IG, 5:4 (1977), 435–47, 5:5 (1978), 573–80. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Anglo-French Ireland and after’, Peritia, 1 (1982), pp. 370–403. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Gaelic society and economy in the high Middle Ages’, NHI,ii (1987), pp. 397–438. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Irishwomen and property in the sixteenth century’ in M. Maccurtain and M. O’Dowd (eds), Women in Early Modern Ireland (Edinburgh, 1991), pp. 17–31. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Worlds apart? The Ellis two-nation theory on late medieval Ireland’, HI, 7:2 (1999), 22–6. Nicholls, K. W., ‘Scottish mercenary kindreds in Ireland 1250–1600’ in Duffy, The World of the Galloglass (2007), pp. 86–105. Nicholls, K. W., Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Dublin, 2003). Ni Chonaill, B., ‘Fosterage: Child-rearing in medieval Ireland’, HI, 5:1 (1997), 28–31. Ní Mharcaigh, M., ‘The medieval parish churches of south-west county Dublin’, PRIA, 97:5 c(1997), 245–96. O’Byrne, E., ‘On the frontier: Carrickmines Castle and Gaelic Leinster’, Archaeology Ireland¸ 16:3 (2002), 13–15. O’Byrne, E., War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 1156–1606 (Dublin, 2003). O’Byrne, E., ‘Cultures in contact in the Leinster and Dublin marches, 1170–1400’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin V (Dublin, 2004), pp. 111–48. O’Byrne, E., ‘An Calbach O’Connor Faly (d. 1458), king of Offaly’, DIB (2009). O’Byrne, E., ‘Domhnall MacCarthy (d. 1531)’, DIB (2009). Ó Clabaigh, C., The Franciscans in Ireland 1400–1534: from Reform to Reformation (Dublin, 2002). Ó Clabaigh, C., ‘The Benedictines in medieval and early modern Ireland’ in Browne and Ó Clabaigh, The Irish Benedictines (2005), pp. 79–121. Ó Clabaigh, C., The Friars in Ireland, 1224–1540 (Dublin, 2012).

282 Bibliography Ó Clérigh, C. ‘The O’Connor Faly lordship of Offaly, 1395–1513’, PRIA, 96:4 c (1996), 87–102. Ó Corráin, D. and F. Maguire, Gaelic Personal Names (Dublin, 1981). Ó Crualaoich, C., ‘Some evidence in Tudor “Fiants, Calendar of Patent Rolls” and “Inquisitions” for Irish among families of Anglo-Norman descent in county Wexford between 1540 and 1640’, The Past: The Organ of the Uí Cinsealaigh Historical Society, 26 (2005), 80–102. Ó Cuív, B., The Irish Bardic Duanaire or ‘Poem-book’, the R. I. Best Memorial Lecture (Dublin, 1973). Ó Cuív, B., ‘The Irish language in the early modern period’ in NHI, iii (1976), pp. 109–45. ÓCúiv,B.,‘Personal names as an indicator of relations between native Irish and settlers in the Viking period’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society (1988), pp. 79–88. Ó Cuív, B., Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Oxford College Libraries (Dublin, 2001). O’Donovan, J., The Topographical Poems of John O’Dubhagain and Giolla na Naomh O’Huidhrin (Dublin, 1864). O’Dowd, M., ‘Women and the law in early modern Ireland’ in C. Meek (ed.), Women in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe (Dublin, 2000), pp. 95–108. Ó Heoghusa, G. B., ‘In memoria Ricardi Nugent’ in O. Bergin (ed.), ‘Unpublished Irish poems II’, Studies, 7:26 (1918), 279–82. O’Keeffe, G., ‘The hospital of St John the Baptist in medieval Dublin: functions and maintenance’ in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Dublin IX (Dublin, 2009), pp. 166–82. O’Keeffe, T., ‘Medieval frontiers and fortifications: The Pale and its evolution’ in F. H. A. Aalen and K. Whelan (eds), Dublin City and County from Prehistory to the Present: Studies in Honour of J.H. Andrews (Dublin, 1992), pp. 57–77. Ó Macháin, P., ‘Two Nugent manuscripts: the Nugent Duanaire and Queen Elizabeth’s Primer’, RnM, 23 (2012), 121–42. O’Neill, M., ‘The medieval parish churches in county Meath’, JRSAI, 132 (2002), 1–56. O’Neill, M., ‘The medieval parish churches of Kildare’, JCKAS, 19:3 (2005), 406–46. O’Neill, T., Merchants and Mariners in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1987). O’Rahilly, T., ‘Irish poets, historians and judges in English documents, 1538–1613’, PRIA, 36 c(1921–4), 86–120. O’Reilly, J. P., ‘Notes on the orientations and certain architectural details of the old churches of Dalkey town and Dalkey island’, PRIA, 24 c(1902–4), 199–206. Ó Riain, P., ‘The calendar and martyrology of Christ Church’ in R. Gillespie and R. Refaussé (eds), The Medieval Manuscripts of Christ Church Cathedral Dublin (Dublin, 2006), pp. 33–59. Ó Riain-Raedel, D., ‘The Irish medieval pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela’, HI, 6:3 (1998),17–21. Ó Riain-Raedel, D., ‘Irish Benedictine monasteries on the continent’ in Browne and Ó Clabaigh, The Irish Benedictines (2005), pp. 25–63. Ormrod, W., Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (Basingstoke, 1995). Orpen, G. H., ‘Review of Statute Rolls Henry VI’, EHR, 25:100 (1910), 772–4.

283 Bibliography Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans, 4 vols (Oxford, 1911–20). Ó Scea, C., ‘Erenachs, erenachships and church landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270–1609’, PRIA, 112 c(2012), 271–300. O’Sullivan, A., ‘Warriors, legends and heroes: The archaeology of hurling’, Archaeology Ireland, 12:3 (1998), pp. 32–4. O’Sullivan, C. M., Hospitality in Medieval Ireland, 900–1500 (Dublin, 2004). O’Sullivan, W., ‘Medieval Meath manuscripts’, RnM, 7:4 (1985–6), 3–21. Ó Tuathail, É., ‘Nugentiana’, Eígse, 2 (1940), 4–14. Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 121–40 (originally published in IHS, 5:17 [1946], 1–28). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The request of the Irish for English law, 1277–80’, IHS, 6:24 (1949), 261–70. Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The native Irish and English law in medieval Ireland’,in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 141–54 (originally published in IHS, 7:25 [1950], 1–16). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The organisation of Anglo-Irish agriculture in the Middle Ages’, in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 275–86 (originally published in JRSAI, 81:1 [1952], 1–13). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The medieval county of Kildare’, IHS, 11:43 (1959), 181–99. Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The medieval Irish chancery’ in Crooks, Government, War and Society, pp. 106–120 (originally published Album Helen Maud Cam, 2 vols [Louvain-Paris, 1960–1], ii, 119–38). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The chief governors of medieval Ireland’ in Crooks, Government, War, and Society, pp. 79–89 (originally published JRSAI, 95:1/2 [1965], 227–36). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Ireland in the 1350s: Sir Thomas Rokeby and his successors’, JRSAI, 97:1 (1967), 47–59. Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Review of The Irish Jurist’, IHS, 16:61 (1968), 103–6. Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn (New York, 1980). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The medieval Irish town’ (ed. P. Crooks) in S. Duﬀy (ed.), Medieval Dublin X (Dublin, 2010), pp. 299–311. Owen, D. H., ‘The Englishry of Denbigh: an English colony in Medieval Wales’, THSC (1974–5), 57–76. Pastoureau, M., ‘Formes et couleurs du désordre: le jaune avec le vert’, Médiévales, 4 (1983), 62–73. Parkes, P., ‘Fosterage, kinship and legend: When milk was thicker than blood?’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46:3 (2004), 587–615. Parkes, P., ‘Celtic fosterage: adoptive kinship and clientage in northwest Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 48:2 (2006), 359–95. Parker, C., ‘Ostmen in post-Norman Waterford’, Decies, 49 (1994), 29–37. Parker, C., ‘The internal frontier: the Irish in county Waterford in the later Middle Ages’ in Colony and Frontier (1995), pp. 139–54. Phillips, J. R. S., ‘David MacCarwell and the proposal to purchase English law, c. 1273 – c. 1280’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 253–73. Phillips, K., ‘Masculinities and the medieval English sumptuary laws’, Gender and History, 19:1 (2007), 22–42.

284 Bibliography Pocock, J.G.A., ‘British history: a plea for a new subject’, Journal of Modern History, 47 (1975), 601–24. Pollard, A.J., ‘John Talbot, first earl of Shrewsbury and first earl of Waterford (c. 1387–1453)’, ODNB (2008). Poos, L. R., ‘Heavy handed marriage counsellor: Regulating marriage in some later medieval English local ecclesiastical court jurisdictions’, American Journal of Legal History, 39:3 (1995), 291–309. Postles, D., The North through Its Names: A Phenomenology of the Medieval and Early- Modern Northern England, English surnames Survey, 8 (Oxford, 2007). Potterton, M., Medieval Trim (Dublin, 2005). Powell, E., Kingship, Law and Society: Criminal Justice in the Reign of Henry V (Oxford, 1989). Powell, E., ‘Law and justice’ in Horrox, Fifteenth-Century Attitudes (1995), pp. 29–41. Powicke, F. M. and E. B. Fryde (eds), Handbook of British Chronology, 2nd edn (London, 1961). Price, L., ‘Origin of the word betagius’, Eiru, 20 (1966), 185–90. Pryce, H. and J. Watts (eds), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007). Purcell, M., ‘St Patrick’s purgatory: Francesco Chieracati’s letter to Isabella d’Este’, Seanchas Ardmhacha, 12:2 (1987), 1–10. Quinn, D. B., ‘Guide to English financial records for Irish history, 1461–1558’, Analecta Hibernica, 10 (1941), 1–69. Quinn, D. B., ‘“Irish” Ireland and “English” Ireland’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 619–37. Quinn, D. B., ‘The hegemony of the earls of Kildare’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 638–61. Quinn, D. B., ‘English policy in Irish affairs’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 662–87. Razi, Z. and R. Smith (eds), Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford, 1996). Reaney, P. H. and R. M. Wilson, Dictionary of English Surnames (Oxford, 2005). Rees, E. A., A Life of Guto’r Glyn (Talybont, 2008). Refaussé, R., ‘Introduction’ in Milne, Christ Church Cathedral Dublin (2000), pp. 1–24. Reynolds, S., Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1997). Ribordy, G., ‘The two paths to marriage: The preliminaries of noble marriage in late medieval France’, Journal of Family History, 26:3 (2001), 323–36. Richards, G. M., ‘The population of Welsh border’, THSC, 1(1970), 77–100. Richardson, H. G., ‘English institutions in medieval Ireland’, IHS, 1:4 (1939), 382– 92. Richardson, H. G. and G. O. Sayles, The Irish Parliament in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1952). Richardson, H. G. and G. O. Sayles, ‘The early statutes’ in Richardson and Sayles, The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (London, 1981), chapter 25, pp. 1–56 (originally published in Law Quarterly Review, 50 [1954], 201–23, 540–21). Roderick, A. J., ‘Marriage and politics in Wales, 1066–1282’, WHR, 4:1(1968), 1–20. Rolker, C., ‘Marital economy and female naming practices in late medieval Germany’ in P. Andersen, M. Münster-Swendsen, and H. Vogt (eds), Law and Private Life in the Middle Ages (Copenhagen, 2011), pp. 49–60. Ronan, M. V., ‘St Patrick’s staff and Christ Church’ in H. B. Clarke (ed.), Medieval Dublin: the Living City (Dublin, 1990), pp. 123–31.

285 Bibliography Rose, J., ‘The law of maintenance and the obligations of lordship: A case study’, Social Science Research Network (2013)[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=2262007]. Rosser, G., The Art of Solidarity in the Middle Ages: Guilds in England, 1250–1550 (Oxford, 2015). Roth, N., Conversos, Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 2nd edn (Madison, 2002). Ruddick, A., ‘Ethnic identity and political language in the king of England’s dominions: A fourteenth-century perspective’ in L. Clark (ed.), Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 15–31. Ruddick, A., ‘Gascony and the limits of medieval British Isles history’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages (Houndmills, 2009), pp. 68–88. Ruddick, A., English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 2013). Ryan, S., ‘The most contentious of terms: towards a new understanding of late medieval “popular religion”’, Irish Theological Quarterly, 68:3 (2003), 281–90. Sayers, W., ‘Early Irish attitudes towards hair and beards, baldness and tonsure’, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, 44 (1991), 154–89. Sayles, G. O., ‘The vindication of the earl of Kildare from treason in 1496’, IHS, 7:25 (1950), 39–47. Sayles, G. O., ‘Review of Calendar of justiciary rolls’, EHR, 73:286 (1958), 101–5. Sayles, G. O., ‘The legal proceedings against the ﬁrst earl of Desmond’, Analecta Hibernica, 23 (1966), 3–47. Scott, A.B., ‘Latin learning and literature in Ireland, 1169–1500’ in NHI,i,pp.935–95. Shagrir, I., Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 2003). Sheehan, M., ‘Marriage theory and practice in the conciliar legislation and diocesan statutes of medieval England’ in J. K. Farge (ed.), Marriage, Family and Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Studies (Toronto, 1996), pp. 118–76. Sherbo, A., ‘George Steevens (1738–1800)’, ODNB (2008). Silke, J. J., ‘Manus O’Donnell, lord of Tyrconnell (d. 1563)’, ODNB (2008). Simms, K., ‘The archbishops of Armagh and the O’Neills 1347–1471’, IHS, 19:73 (1974), 38–55. Simms, K., ‘The concordat between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill (1455)’, AH, 24 (1977), 71–82. Simms, K., ‘The medieval kingdom of Lough Erne’, Clogher Record, 9:2 (1977), 126– 41. Simms, K., ‘Women in Norman Ireland’ in M. Maccurtain and D. Ó Corráin (eds), Women in Irish Society: The Historical Dimension (Dublin, 1978), pp. 14–25. Simms, K., ‘Guesting and feasting in Gaelic Ireland’, JRSAI, 108 (1978–9), 67–100. Simms, K., ‘Bardic poetry as a historical source’ in T. Dunne (ed.), The Writer as Witness: Literature as Historical Evidence (Cork, 1987), pp. 58–75. Simms, K., ‘Bards and barons’ in Bartlett and MacKay, Medieval Frontier Societies (1989), pp. 177–97. Simms, K., ‘The brehons of late medieval Ireland’ in D. Hogan and W. N. Osborough (eds), Brehons, Serjeants and Attorneys: Studies in the History of the Irish Legal Profession (Dublin, 1990), pp. 52–76.

286 Bibliography Simms, K., ‘Frontiers in the Irish church-regional and cultural’ in Colony and Frontier (1995), pp. 177–200. Simms, K., ‘Literacy and the Irish bards’ in H. Pryce (ed.), Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 238–58. Simms, K., ‘Medieval Armagh: The kingdom of Oirthir (Orior) and its rulers the Uí Annluain (O’Hanlons)’ in A. J. Hughes and W. Nolan (eds), Armagh History and Society (Dublin, 2001), pp. 187–216. Simms, K., ‘The MacMahon pedigree: A medieval forgery’ in D. Edwards (ed.), Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1110–1650 (Dublin, 2004), pp. 27–36. Simms, K., Medieval Gaelic Sources (Dublin, 2009). Simms, K., ‘The Ulster Revolt of 1404 – an anti-Lancastrian dimension?’ in B. Smith (ed.), Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 2009), pp. 141–60. Simms, K., ‘The Poet’s Tale’ in S. Booker and C. N. Peters (eds), Tales of Medieval Dublin (Dublin, 2014), pp. 161–74. Simms, K., ‘Origins of the creaght: Farming system or social unit?’ in M. Murphy and M. Stout (eds), Agriculture and Settlement in Ireland (Dublin, 2015), pp. 101–18. Simpson, L., ‘Anglo-Norman settlement in Ui Briúin Cualann, 1169–1350’ in K. Hannigan and W. Nolan (eds), Wicklow: History and Society (Dublin, 1994), pp. 191–235. Slavin, P., ‘Warfare and ecological destruction in early fourteenth-century British Isles’, Environmental History, 19 (2014), 528–50. Smith, B., ‘The concept of the march in medieval Ireland: The case of Uriel’, PRIA, 88 c(1988), 257–69. Smith, B., ‘A county community in early fourteenth-century Ireland: The case of Louth’, EHR, 108:428 (1993), 561–88. Smith, B., ‘Tenure and locality in north Leinster in the early thirteenth century’ in Colony and Frontier (1995), pp. 29–40. Smith, B., ‘Keeping the peace’ in Lydon, Law and Disorder (1997), pp. 57–65. Smith, B., Colonisation and Conquest in Medieval Ireland: the English in Louth, 1170–1330 (Cambridge, 1999). Smith, B., ‘Church and community on the medieval Irish frontier: county Louth 1170–1346’, AH, 45 (2000), 38–45. Smith, B., ‘John Swayne (d.1439x42)’, ODNB (2008). Smith, B., ‘Late medieval Ireland and the English connection: Waterford and Bristol, ca. 1360–1460’, Journal of British Studies, 50:3 (2011), 546–65. Smith, B., Crisis and Survival in Late Medieval Ireland: The English of Louth and their Neighbours, 1330–1450 (Oxford, 2013). Smyth, W., ‘Excavating, mapping and interrogating ancestral terrains: towards a cultural geography of ﬁrst names and second names in Ireland’ in H.B.Clarke,J.Prunty,andM.Hennessy(eds),Surveying Ireland’sPast: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Anngret Simms (Dublin, 2004), pp. 243–80. Stalley, R., ‘Sailing to Santiago: Medieval pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela and its artistic inﬂuence in Ireland’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society (1988), pp. 397–420.

287 Bibliography Stevens, M. F., Urban Assimilation in Post-Conquest Wales: Ethnicity, Gender and Economy in Ruthin, 1282–1348 (Cardiff, 2010). Stevens, M. F., ‘Anglo-Welsh towns of the early fourteenth century: A survey of urban origins, property holding, and ethnicity’ in Fulton, Urban Culture in Medieval Wales (2012), pp. 137–62. Stevens, M. F., ‘London women, the courts and the “Golden Age”: A quantitative analysis of female litigants in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries’, The London Journal, 37:2 (2012), 67–88. St John Brooks, E. (ed.), Register of the Hospital of St John the Baptist (Dublin, 1936). Stoler, A. L., Race and the Education of Desire (Durham, NC, 1995). Stubbs, W., ‘The weavers’ guild; the guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dublin, 1446– 1840’, JRSAI, 9:1 (1919), 60–88. Sughi, M. A., ‘The family of Comedinus Offercheran, the authority of the archbishop of Armagh, and the dispute over the rectory of Tamlaghtlege, 1414– 1449’, SA, 17:1 (1996–7), 26–43. Summerson, H., ‘Crime and society in medieval Cumberland’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 82 (1982), 111–24. Summerson, H., ‘Responses to war: Carlisle and the West March in the later fourteenth century’ in A. Goodman and A. Tuck (eds), War and Border Societies in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), pp. 155–77. Swanson, R. N., ‘Problems of the priesthood in the pre-Reformation England’, EHR, 105:417 (1990), 845–69. Swanson, R. N., Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215–c. 1515 (Cambridge, 1995). Swanson, R. N., ‘Bishoprics and parishes’ in R. N. Swanson (ed.), Routledge History of Medieval Christianity, 1050–1500 (New York, 2015), pp. 19–30. Tait, C., Death, Burial and Commemoration in Ireland, 1550–1650 (Basingstoke, 2002). Tait, C., ‘Safely delivered: Childbirth, wet-nursing, gossip-feasts and churching in Ireland, c. 1530–1690’, Irish Economic History Society, 30 (2003), 1–23. Tait, C., ‘Namesakes and nicknames: Naming practices in early modern Ireland, 1540–1700’, Continuity and Change, 21:2 (2006), 313–40. Thibodeaux, J. (ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle Ages (London, 2010). Thiery, D. E., ‘Plowshares and swords: Clerical involvement in acts of violence and peacemaking in the late medieval England, c. 1400–1536’, Albion, 36:2 (2004), 201–22. Thiery, D. E., Polluting the Sacred: Violence, Faith and the ‘Civilizing’ of Parishioners in Late Medieval England (Leiden, 2009). Thomas, H. M., The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and Identity, 1066–c. 1220 (Oxford, 2003). Thompson, G. L., Paris and its People under English Rule: The Anglo-Burgundian Regime, 1420–1436 (Oxford, 1991). Thompson, J. A. F., ‘Scots in England in the fifteenth century’, SHR, 79:207 (2000), 1–16. Turville-Petre, T., England the Nation: Language, Literature, and National Identity, 1290–1340 (Oxford, 1996).

288 Bibliography Twiss, H. F. (ed.), ‘Some ancient deeds of the parish of St Werburgh, Dublin 1243– 1676’, PRIA, 35 c(1918), 282–315. Verstraten Veach, F., ‘Naming practices among the Irish secular nobility in the high Middle Ages’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 43–53. Verstraten Veach, F., ‘Men’s names among the Uí Mhórdha of Laoighis, c. 1000– c. 1500’, Ossory, Laois and Leinster, 5 (2012), 187–211. Verstaten Veach, F., ‘Anglicization in medieval Ireland: Was there a Gaelic Irish “middle nation”’ in S. Duffy and S. Foran (eds), The English Isles, Cultural Transmission and Political Conflict in Britain and Ireland, 1100–1500 (Dublin, 2013), pp. 118–36. Vodola, E., Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1986). Walker, J. C., A Historical Essay on the Dress of the Ancient and Modern Irish (Dublin, 1788). Walsh, K., A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford, 1981). Walsh, K., ‘The Roman career of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh, 1418–1439: Plans for an Irish hospice in Rome’, SA, 11:1 (1983/4), 1–21. Walsh, K., ‘The clerical estate in later medieval Ireland: Alien settlement or element of conciliation’ in Bradley, Settlement and Society (1988), pp. 361–78. Ward, J. C., The Essex Gentry and the County Community in the Fourteenth Century (Essex, 1991). Warner, G. and J. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections, 4 vols (London, 1921). Waters, K., ‘The earls of Desmond and the Irish of south-western Munster’, JMH, 32:1 (2006), 54–68. Watt, D. E. R., Medieval Church Councils in Scotland (Edinburgh, 2000). Watt, J. A., ‘Laudabiliter in medieval diplomacy and propaganda’, IER, 87 (1957), 420–32. Watt, J. A., The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970). Watt, J. A., The Church in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1972). Watt, J. A., ‘John Colton, justiciar of Ireland (1382) and archbishop of Armagh (1383–1404)’ in J. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), pp. 196–213. Watt, J. A., ‘Ecclesia inter anglicos et hibernicos: Confrontation and coexistence in the medieval diocese and province of Armagh’ in Lydon, The English in Medieval Ireland (1984), pp. 46–64. Watt, J. A., ‘The papacy and Ireland in the fifteenth century’ in R. B. Dobson (ed.), Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1984), pp. 133–45. Watt, J. A., ‘The disputed primacy of the medieval Irish church’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Vatican City, 1988), pp. 373–83. Watt, J. A., ‘Approaches to the history of fourteenth-century Ireland’ in NHI,ii (1993), pp. 303–13. Watt, J. A., ‘The Anglo-Irish colony under strain’ in NHI,ii(1993), pp. 352–96. Watt, J. A., J. B. Morrall, and F. X. Martin (eds), Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961).

289 Bibliography Waugh, S. L., ‘Richard Talbot, second Lord Talbot (c. 1306–1356)’, ODNB (2008). Webb, J. J., The Guilds of Dublin (London, 1929). Werner, J., ‘Promiscuous priests and vicarage children: Clerical sexuality and masculinity in late medieval England’ in J. D. Thibodeaux (ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle Ages (Houndsmills, 2010), pp. 159–84. Whelan, C., ‘Translating the Expugnatio Hibernica: Transmission of a vernacular history for a late medieval English colony’ in C. Griﬃn and E. Purcell (eds), Migration & Manipulation: Texts, Translation & Transmission (forthcoming). Williams, G., ‘Language, literacy and nationality in Wales’ in Religion, Language and Nationality in Wales: Historical Essays by Glanmor Williams (Cardiﬀ, 1979), pp. 127–47. Williams, P., ‘Sir William Gerard (d. 1581)’, ODNB (2008). Wilson, S., The Means of Naming: a Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in Western Europe (London, 1998). Woulfe, P., Sloinnte Gaedeal is Gall/Irish Names and Surnames (Dublin, 1922).

unpublished dissertations and theses Abraham, K., ‘Patterns of landholding and architectural patronage in late medieval Meath’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Queens University Belfast (1991). Booker, S., Gaelicisation and Identity in the ‘four obedient shires’ of Ireland, 1399–1534, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2011). Buldorini, C., ‘Drogheda as a case study of Anglo-Norman town foundation in Ireland, 1194-1412’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2010). Coleman, B., ‘Every lord and gentleman of the said land: The gentry of English Ireland, c. 1399–c. 1513’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College Dublin (2016). Hammond, M., ‘A Prosopographical Analysis of Society in East Central Scotland, circa 1100 to 1260, with special reference to ethnicity’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Glasgow (2005). Matthew, E., ‘The governing of the Lancastrian lordship of Ireland in the time of James Butler, fourth earl of Ormond, c. 1420–1452’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Durham (1994). Ó h-Innse, S., ‘Fosterage in early and medieval Ireland’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University College Galway (1943). Rooney, C. M., ‘The manuscripts of the works of Gerald of Wales’, unpublished Ph. D thesis, University of Cambridge (2005).

electronic publications Bardic Poetry Database, ed. K. Simms, www.bardic.celt.dias.ie. Corpus of Electronic Texts, www.ucc.ie/celt (1997–2015). CIRCLE: A Calendar of Irish Chancery Letters c. 1244 – 1509, ed. and trans. P. Crooks, https://chancery.tcd.ie/ (2012). Dictionary of Irish Biography, eds J. McGuire and J. Quinn, http://dib.cambridge.org/ (Cambridge, 2009). eDIL, Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language, www.dil.ie (Dublin, 2007). 290 Bibliography Irish Script on Screen, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, www.isos.dias.ie/ Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, www.oed.com (Oxford, 2016). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition, www.oxfordnb.com (Oxford, January 2008). Papal Encyclicals Online, www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils (2015). ‘The surname Woulfe/Wolfe in Ireland’,P.MacCotter,http://home.alphalink .com.au/~datatree/wolf-his.htm (2012).

291 INDEX

Alen, John, Archbishop of Dublin, 59–60 Ballymore Eustace, co. Kildare, 50 aliens, 68, 69, 93 bardic poets, 76, 107–8, 200–3, 212, 224. See also Allyn, John, Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, 63, Mac an Bháird; Ó Cobhthaigh; Ó Dálaigh 123 Barnewall Almondstown, co. Louth, 58–9 family, 166, 230 alterage. See fosterage Bellew Anglo-Irish family, 231 as a term, 9 Richard, 204 Anglo-Scottish border. See also northern Bermingham England family, 31, 235, 236, 238, 240, 253 annullment. See divorce family as a lineage, 191–5 anti-Irish sentiment, 60–4, 71–2, 79, 85–8, John, Earl of Louth, 235 101–3, 116–18, 132–4, 144–8, 250 Patrick, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, apprentices 228, 229 Irish, 77–8 Piers, 235 Archbold Betagh family, 192, 219, 238, 240 family, 65, 84–5, 173–4 archery, 190, 212 betaghs, 45–6, 68, 90 Ardagh bilingualism, 216–17, 218–20, 224, 226, 228–30, bishop of, 101 232, 246, 253 Ardee, 120 Bingham, Richard, 224 Armagh Black Death, 75, 211 Archbishops of, 20, 51, 104–15, 150, 156, 251 blackrent, 228 See Richard FitzRalph; John Colton; John Blessington, co. Wicklow, 36 Mey; Nicholas Fleming; John Bole; John Bole, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 105, 106, Kite; John Swayne; Octavian de Palatio; 107, 109–10, 113, 121, 125, 127 John Prene Bouland, John, 219 Archdiocese of, 98, 249 bows (longbows). See archery ecclesiastical families in, 119 Brehon law, 76, 195–200, 212 Irish clerics in the administration of, 124–6, brotherhood of St George, 30, 44 128 Bruce invasion, 116 Athlone, 35 Burke Athy, 36 family, 219

292 Index Butler crusade Earls of Ormond, 19, 36, 50, 67, 135, 182, against the Irish, 103–4, 111 195, 197, 199, 254, 257 cuddies (cuid oidhche), 182, 184, 211 Edmund, 60 cúlán, 204, 208–9, 211. See also sumptuary laws family, 19, 219 Curtis, Edmund, 4, 214 James, 4th Earl of Ormond, 103, 181 Cusack James, 9th Earl of Ormond, 219, 229 family, 32, 242 James, of Polestown, 169 Piers, 8th Earl of Ormond, 229 Dalton Thomas, 7th Earl of Ormond, 182 family, 153–4, 234, 238, 240, 253 war cry, 228 family as a lineage, 191–5 Henry, 203 Calais, 64 Darcy Calf/la Veel, Elizabeth, 146 family, 31, 34, 257 Captain Thomas Stukeley, 231 Margaret, 48 Carbury, co. Kildare, 36, 122 Margery, 164 Carlow, 16, 37–40 William, 2, 164, 172, 179, 184, 205, 228, 229, Carran alias Maccarraghgmhna, 254 Richard, 123 Dartas, Janico, 60 Castledermot, co. Kildare, 35–6 Dauntsey, Edward, Bishop of Meath, 25, 113, cattle-raiding, 190 120, 183 Cháomhánach, Sadhbh, 169 Davies, R.R., 1, 6, 257 citizens Davies, Sir John, 172, 233 Irish, 68, 79–81, 160–2 de Grey, John, lieutenant of Ireland, civic officials 183 Irish, 83 de Palatio, Octavian, Archbishop of Armagh, clerical lineages, 98 52, 105, 112, 156, 163, 182 clothing. See sumptuary laws defamation, 93, 115, 150–2, 230 Colton, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 107–8, Delamare 110, 131 family, 148–9, 150 concubines, clerical, 108, 120, 128 family as a lineage, 191–5 Condon Delvin, 34 family, 241, 242 denizenship. See English law, grants of Conlan Dillon family, 157 family, 253, 257 Corkeran, Henry, 125, 128 family as a lineage, 191–5 Cornell, Dermot, 241 divorce Cosgrove, Art, 5 by affinity, 155–6 Courtney, Philip, lieutenant of Ireland, by non-consent, 156–7 37 by precontract, 152–5 courts Dongan central (colonial), 65–6 John, 241 ecclesiastical, 66, 113–15, 150–9 Thady, 241–2 hundredcourts, 17, 68 Donogh manorial, 66–7 family, 65, 82, 83 of liberties, 17, 67 Dowdall coyne and livery, 27, 108, 179–85, 187, 211 family, 19 creaghts (caoruigheacht), 191 Drogheda, 82 Cruise county, 24 family, 31, 235, 236, 240, 253 Dromiskin, co. Louth, 119, 124 293 Index Dublin family as a lineage, 191–5 Archbishops of, 20, 85, 104–5, 117, 123, 204, family of Desmond, 219 238, 251. See Richard Talbot; John Alen; Gerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, 9, 63, 76, 162, 174, John Walton; Walter FitzSimons; Thomas 182, 227 Minot Gerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, 2, 171, 184–7, city council, 19, 62–3, 72 221, 227, 237, 238, 239, 241 Dublin bench, 16, 40, 54, 55, 56. See also courts Gerrot Bakagh Shanesson, 237 Duffy, Seán, 5, 6 James, son of the 8th Earl of Kildare, 164 Dundalk, 51 Oliver of Belagh, 163 Dundrum, co. Dublin, 73 ‘Silken’ Thomas, son of the 9th Earl of Dysart, co. Louth, 48 Kildare, 185, 223, 227 surname, 22 Edward III, King of England, 218 Thomas, 7th Earl of Kildare, 149 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 229 war-cry, 227–8 Ellis, Steven, 2, 6, 8, 186, 189, 212, 216, 255 FitzRalph, Richard, Archbishop of Armagh, English law 100, 110 exclusion from, 208 FitzSimons, Walter, Archbishop of Dublin, 107, grants of, 55, 68–71, 77, 78, 86, 87, 88, 132, 117 135, 157, 161, 162, 166, 169. See also Irish Flanders, 69 access to Fleming Hiberno-Norse access to, 10, 90 family, 160, 228, 242 in Ireland, 16–17, 25–6, 62, 87, 195–200, 212, Isabella, 238 253, 254, 258 Nicholas, Archbishop of Armagh, 107, 121, Irish access to, 65–8, 71, 84, 87, 89–94, 107, 138 122, 124, 126, 135, 168, 250, 255 Flemish See English law: grants of settlers in England, 256 erenaghs, 98, 106–7, 127, 128 settlers in Ireland, 9–10 erick (éiric/éaraic). See also sautes Fore, co. Westmeath, 34–5 fosterage, 143, 144, 170–5, 218 Feypow four shires family, 237, 240 community of, 1, 11–12, 30–2 FitzEustace Irish priests in, 118–31 barons of Portlester, 228 foyes ( foighdhe), 182–3, 211 family, 31 Frame, Robin, 2, 5, 212, 255 Richard, 62 France, 13, 14, 64, 69, 70, 141, 144, 162, 256 Roland, 1st baron of Portlester, 44 Fitzgerald Gaelicization Alice, daughter of the 8th Earl of Kildare, 162 as a term, 8–9 Earls of Desmond, 162, 184, 195, 197 Gall(e)/Stapleton Earls of Kildare, 17, 19, 25, 29, 32, 51, 149, family, 243 180, 188–9, 195, 199–200, 227, 254 galloglass, 10, 180, 185, 189–90. See also Eleanor, daughter of the 8th Earl of Kildare, Scotland 162 Gerald of Wales, 203, 245, 255 Eleanor, sister of the 8th Earl of Kildare, 162, Geraldines. See Fitzgerald 169 Gernon family, 19, 32, 117, 149, 150, 166, 180, 241 family, 153, 240 family and intermarriage, 149, 162–3, 170, Gerrard, William, Chancellor of Ireland, 179, 176, 257 223 family and language use, 253 gift-giving, 185–7 family and nicknames, 237–8, 239–40 glibbs, 208–9 294 Index Glyndŵr, Owain keening, 203–4 rebellion, 64, 70, 220 Kelly godparenthood, 144, 155, 170, 171, 234 family, 80, 83, 128, 160, 161 ‘good lordship’, 188–9 kerns, 107–8, 180, 182, 185, 189–90, 235 gossipred. See also godparenthood kin liability (cin comfhocuis), 191–5 Grey, Leonard, deputy lieutenant of Ireland, 220 Kite, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 29, 220 grith and comrick, 187–9, 212 guilds, 79, 136 Lawless family, 219, 238, 240, 241, 253 Haddesors, John, 163–4, 204 William, 201 hairstyles, 109–10. See beards; moustaches; Leynagh glibbs; cúláns name, 243 Hammond liberties, 17, 24, 199, 200 family, 236, 240 lineages, 191–5, 212. See also nations; captain of Harold his nation; kin liability family, 219 Luttrell, Thomas, 221–2 Haynestown, co. Louth, 119, 125 Lydon, James, 5 Hedyan, Richard, 135 Lynch, Anthony, 99–100 Henry V, King of England, 103, 104, 111 Lyons, Mary Ann, 99 Henry VI, King of England, 25, 95, 235 Lytill, John, 85–7, 145 Henry VIII, King of England, 14, 15, 19, 57, 134, 219, 221, 229 Mac an Bháird Hereford, Geoffrey, Bishop of Kildare, 116–17 family, 227 Hert alias Ohertecane, Thomas, 87, 148 Mac Cába hibernicus, 90. See also betaghs family, 173 Hiberno-Norse, 9–10, 90, 236 Mac Carthaigh Riabhach settlement, 81 Domhnall, 162 historiography Mac Eochacáin, 227 of identity in medieval Ireland, 3–6 Mac Eochagáin of medieval language-use, 246–7 Muircheartach mac Aodha, 188 of the Irish church, 98–9 Mac Eoghain of the Irish language, 214–15, 216–17 Fearghal, 188 Howard, Thomas, Earl of Surrey, 229 Mac Mathghamhna Howel Aodh Ruadh, 163 family, 219 Eachaidh, 180 hurling, 108 family, 33, 110, 153, 154, 163, 232 Ruaidhrí, 153 intermarriage, 69, 110, 143–70, 179, 251–2, 257 Mac Murchadha children of, 168–70 family, 103 Irish chancery, 16 Mac Murchadha Caomhánach, Art, 36, 146, ‘Irish enemies’, 44, 72, 86, 95–6, 137, 145, 254 176 Irish exchequer, 16, 40–1 Mac Ragnaill, 227 Irish parliament, 15, 42–3 MacMaurice family, 242 Jefferies, Henry, 99 MacNeill, Eoin, 4 jurors maghery, 27–31, 35, 51, 58, 181 Irish, 55–9 Malone, Malachy, Dean of Kildare, 122 Mannyng, Henry, 226 Keating mantles family, 236, 238, 240 Irish, 205–6, 208–9, 212 295 Index march Ó Briain of the four shires, 29–37 family, 103 terminology, 26–7 Ó Cobhthaigh march law, 195–200, 212. See also Brehon law family, 201, 203, 228 Maynooth, 49–50, 51, 67 Ó Coileáin/Ó Cuilinn Mcgillamura, Patrick, 124 family, 128, 135 McKeon/Lyde, Nicholas, 92 Ó Conchobhair McKewyn, Philip, 124 family, 103, 235 Meath Ó Conchobhair Failghe bishop of, 225. See also William Sherwood An Calbhach, 116–17, 149–50 mendicants, 63, 131, 135–6. See also religious Cathaoir, 149, 163 orders Conn, 62 Mey, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 105, 106, family, 229 110, 112, 230 Murchadh, 150 Minot, Thomas, Archbishop of Dublin, 116 Ó Dálaigh Mirk, John, 109 family, 201 Moryson, Fynes, 216, 223 Ó Domhnaill moustaches, 207–9, 211, 212 Aodh Dubh, 164 Moynagh Aodh Ruadh, 174 name, 243 family, 154 Mulghan Maghnus, 162 family, 65, 80, 83 Ó Fearghail Mullingar, 34–5 family, 148–9 Ó Gabhann, Domhnall, Bishop of Kilmore, 113 names, 21–3, 216 Ó hÁdhmaill aliases, 88–9, 126 family, 159 and intermarriage, 158, 159 Ó hAnluain English use of Irish, 233–46 family, 153–4, 163 Irish use of English, 46–7, 52, 59 Ó hUiginn, Niall, 203 Nangle (MacCostello) Ó Maoilsheachlainn, Art, 203 family, 89, 153, 243 Ó Maolchalann nations, captains or cheiftains of, 191–5 family, 119 Neill. See also Ó Néill Ó Maolmhuaidh family, 65, 80, 83, 84, 148, 160 family, 147 ‘New British History’, 5, 6 Ó Mealláin. See Omellane ‘New English’ community, 4, 179, 222, 223–4 Charles, 127 Newbery, Thomas, Mayor of Dublin, 160 family, 119 Nicholls, Kenneth, 5, 6, 216, 255 Ó Mearaich, Domhnall, Bishop of Derry, 113 Norragh, co. Kildare, 36 Ó Néill northern England, 26, 256 Art Og, 162 anti-Scottish sentiment in, 64, 70, 93, 250 Conn, 162 comparisons to Ireland, 12–14, 141, 176, 189 Domhnall, 112 march law in, 191–2, 194–5, 200 Énri, 162 Nugent family, 103, 111–12, 147, 154, 174 barons of Delvin, 31, 201, 228–9 Ó Raghallaigh Christopher, 5th baron of Delvin, 229 Diarmait, Bishop of Kilmore, 123 Dame Margaret, 74, 160 family, 133–4, 163, 235 family, 34, 231–2 Seán, 105 family and intermarriage, 147 William, minister provincial of the Richard, baron of Delvin, 203 Franciscans, 132 296 Index Ó Tuathail saffron clothes/dye, 206–7, 208–9, 212 family, 228 saints OHette, Adam, 135 cults of, 137–40 OKaan/y, Carolus alias Cale, 125 St Begnet, 138 OKewan, Teage, 116–17 St Dunán, 139 ‘Old English’ community, 4, 179, 214, 222–4 St George, 44, 137, 140 Omellane, John, 119, 127, 129 St Lawrence O’Toole, 138 Orpen, Goddard Henry, 4 St Maignend, 138 Oweyn, Elena, 230 sautes, 196–7. See erick (éiric) Scotland, 13, 27, 64, 70, 93, 141, 190, 191, 226, Pale, 24, 28–30, 34, 35, 60, 199, 208, 209, 214, 256 216, 220, 221, 223, 224 language use in, 247 papacy Scottish settlers in Ireland, 9–10. See also and Ireland, 97, 100–4 galloglass Patrickin (first name), 242 surnames in, 194–5 Percy, Earls of Northumberland, 189 Scurlock/Sherlock pilgrimage, 137 family, 241 Plunkett Sherwood, William, Bishop of Meath, 105, 117 family, 230, 231–2 Simms, Katharine, 5, 6, 99, 111, 154, 183 John, baron of Dunsany, 201 slander. See defamation popes slatynaght (slánuigheacht), 187–9, 212 Adrian, 101 Smith, Brendan, 6, 99 Martin V, 104 Spain, 210 Urban VI, 102 Spenser, Edmund, 215, 222, 223 Possewyk, John, 226 Springham Power family, 236 family, 180 St Lawrence Poynings, Edward, deputy lieutenant of Ireland, Christopher, 7th baron of Howth, 222 29, 182 family, 166 Prene, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 105 St. Mary’s Abbey, Granard, 102 Preston Stanihurst, Richard, 9, 215, 216, 217, 222–4 family, 19 Stanley, John, lieutenant of Ireland, 203 Katharine, 229 Statutes of Kilkenny, 116, 145, 209, 218–19, Robert, lord Gormanston, 44 236 protection (of clients by lords). See girth and sumptuary laws, 204–11 comrick; slatynaght Sutton, David, 185 Swayne, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 25, 105, race, 91–4, 95–6, 254–8 106, 107, 110–11, 112, 113, 150, 183, 226 Rathwire, 34 religious orders, 251 Talbot Irish in, 131–6 Alice, 198, 204 Richard II, 146, 229 family, 19, 36, 49–50, 166 Richard, Duke of York, 15, 117, 154 John, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, 125, 180 Roche Richard, Archbishop of Dublin, 105, 203 family, 242 Tallaght, co. Dublin, 73 Roth, Cormac, 125, 128 Tallon Ruth, alias Magruhere, Thomas, 121 family, 157 Teeling saddles family, 192 regulation of, 209–10, 212 Termonfeckin, co. Louth, 58–9, 119, 124 297 Index Tipperary Walsh, Katherine, 99–100 liberty of, 67 Walsh/e. See also Welsh Trim, 81 family, 31, 160, 219, 240 liberty of, 17, 24, 25, 67 family as a lineage, 193, 194 tuarastal, 185–7, 212 Henry of Carrickmines, 31, 33, 204–5 Tuite Thomas, 92 family, 192 Walton, John, Archbishop of Dublin, Tyrell 107 family, 31, 239, 240, 241 Wars of the Roses, 15 family as a lineage, 193, 194 Waterford, 220, 233 Walter, sheriff and mayor of Dublin, 41 Watt, John, 1, 12, 99 Wellesley Uryell, Katherine, 49 family, 31 Welsh. See also Walsh/e Verdon family, 10. See also Wales family, 156, 192, 238 Westmeath, 35 wet-nursing, 175 Wales, 69, 81, 90, 132 Wexford, 233 anti-Welsh sentiment, 64, 65, 70, 250 White comparisons to Ireland, 12–14, 27, 49–50, 51, family of Louth, 150 80, 141–2, 171 James, 33, 174 cultural exchange in, 8, 30, 89, 176 Rowland, 222 language use in, 215, 220, 224, 230, 232, 235, Wogan 243, 247, 248 Anastacia, 48–9 native and march law in, 191, 192, 195, 200 Wolfe race in, 8, 256, 257 family as a lineage, 193, 194 sumptuary law in, 210 Welsh settlers in Ireland, 1, 9–10, 230. See also Zouche, Elizabeth, wife of the 8th Earl of Welsh: family Kildare, 227. See also Fitzgerald

298