Books: Irish Race in the Past and the Present

A >> Aug. J. Thebaud >> Irish Race in the Past and the Present

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57

But what in reality was the authority of the Ard-Righ in Ireland,
of the Penteyrn in Britain, of the supreme chief in Gaul, whose
name, as usual, is not mentioned by Caesar?

First, it is to be remarked that a certain extent of territory was
always under his immediate authority. Then, as far as we can gather
from history, there was a reciprocity of obligations between the
high power and the subordinate kings or chieftains, the former
granting subsidies to the latter, who in turn paid tribute to
support the munificence or military power of the former.

We know from the Irish annals that the dignity of Ard-Righ was
always sustained by alliances with some of the provincial kings,
to secure the submission of others, and we have a hint of the
same nature in the passage, already quoted, from Caesar, as also
taking place in Gaul.

We know also from the "Book of Rights" that the tributes and stipends
consisted of bondsmen, silver shields, embroidered cloaks, cattle,
weapons, corn, victuals, or any other contribution.

The Ard-Righ, moreover, convened the _Feis_, or general assembly
of the nation, every third year; first at Tara, and after Tara
was left to go to ruin in consequence of the curse of St. Ruadhan
in the sixth century, wherever the supreme monarch established
his residence.

The order of succession to the supreme power was the weakest point
of the Irish constitution, and became the cause of by far the
greatest portion of the nation's calamities. Theoretically the
eldest son--some say the eldest relative--of the monarch succeeded
him, when he had no blemish constituting a radical defect: the
supreme power, however, alternating in two families. To secure
the succession, the heir-apparent was always declared during the
life of the supreme king; but this constitutional arrangement
caused, perhaps, more crimes and wars than any other social
institution among the Celts. The truth is that, after the
heir-apparent, sustained by some provincial king, supplanted the
reigning monarch, one of the provincial chieftains claimed the
crown and succeeded to it by violence.

Yet the general rule that the monarch was to belong to the race
of Miledh was adhered to almost without exception. One hundred
and eighteen sovereigns, according to the moat accredited annals,
governed the whole island from the Milesian conquest to St. Patrick
in 432. Of these, sixty were of the family of Heremon, settled
in the northern part of the island; twenty-nine of the posterity
of Heber, settled in the south; twenty-four of that of Ir; three
issued from Lugaid, the son of Ith. All these were of the race of
Miledh; one only was a _firbolg_, or plebeian, and one a woman.

It is certainly very remarkable that for so long a time--nearly
two thousand years, according to the best chronologists--Ireland
was ruled by princes of the same family. The fact is unparalleled
in history, and shows that the people were firmly attached to their
constitution, such as it was. It extorted the admiration of Sir
John Davies, the attorney-general of James I, and later of Lord Coke.

The functions of the provincial kings of Ulster, Munster,
Leinster, and Connaught, were in their several districts the same
as those which the Ard-Righ exercised over the whole country. They
also had their feuds and alliances with the inferior chieftains,
and in peaceful times there was also a reciprocity of obligations
between them. Presents were given by the superiors, tributes by
the inferiors; deliberations in assembly, mutual agreement for
public defence, wars against a common enemy, produced among them
traditional rules which were generally followed, or occasional
dissensions.

Sometimes a province had two kings, chiefly Munster, which
was often divided into north and south. Each king had his
heir-apparent, the same as the monarch. Indeed, every hereditary
office had, besides its actual holder, its Tanist, with right of
succession. Hence causes of division and feuds were needlessly
multiplied; yet all the Celtic tribes adhered tenaciously to all
those institutions which appeared rooted in their very nature, and
which contributed to foster the traditional spirit among them.

For these various offices and their inherent rights were all
derived from the universally prevailing family or clannish
disposition. Genealogies and traditions ruled the whole, and gave,
as we have seen, to their learned men a most important part and
function in the social state; and thus what the Greek and Latin
authors, Julius Caesar principally, have told us of the Celtic
Druids, is literally true of the ollamhs in their various degrees.

But the clannish spirit chiefly showed itself in the authority and
rights of every chieftain in his own territory. He was truly the
patriarch of all under him, acknowledged as he was to be the head
of the family, elected by all to that office at the death of his
predecessor, after due consultation with the files and shanachies,
to whom were intrusted the guardianship of the laws which governed
the clan, and the preservation of the rights of all according to
the strict order of their genealogies and the traditional rules
to be observed.

The power of the chieftain was immense, although limited on every
side by laws and customs. It was based on the deep affection of
relationship which is so ardent in the Celtic nature. For all the
clansmen were related by blood to the head of the tribe, and each
one took a personal pride in the success of his undertakings. No
feudal lord could ever expect from his vassals the like self-devotion;
for, in feudalism, the sense of honor, in clanship, family affection,
was the chief moving power.

In clanship the type was not an army, as in feudalism, but a
family. Such a system, doubtless, gave rise to many inconveniences.
"The breaking up of all general authority," says the Very Rev. Dean
Butler (Introduction to Clyn's "Annals"), "and the multiplication
of petty independent principalities, was an abuse _incident_ on
feudalism; it was _inherent_ in the very essence of the patriarchal
or family system. It began, as feudalism ended, with small independent
societies, each with its own separate centre of attraction, each
clustering round the lord or the chief, and each rather repelling
than attracting all similar societies. Yet it was not without its
advantages. If feudalism gave more strength to attack an enemy,
clanship secured more happiness at home. The first implied only
equality for the few, serfdom or even slavery for the many; the
other gave a feeling of equality to all."

It was, no doubt, this feeling of equality, joined to that of
relationship, which not only secured more happiness for the Celt,
but which so closely bound the nobility of the land to the inferior
classes, and gave these latter so ardent an affection for their
chieftains. Clanship, therefore, imparted a peculiar character
to the whole race, and its effect was so lasting and seemingly
ineradicable as to be seen in the nation to-day.

Wherever feudalism previously prevailed, we remark at this time
a fearful hatred existing between the two classes of the same
nation; and the great majority of modern revolutions had their
origin in that terrible antagonism. The same never existed, and
could not exist, in Celtic Countries; and if England, after a
conflict of many centuries, had not finally succeeded in destroying
or exiling the entire nobility of Ireland, we should, doubtless,
see to this very day that tender attachment between high and low,
rich and poor, which existed in the island in former ages.

This, therefore, not only imparted a peculiar character to the
people, but also gave to each subordinate chieftain an immense
power over his clan; and it is doubtful if the whole history of
the country can afford a single example of the clansmen refusing
obedience to their chief, unless in the case of great criminals
placed by their atrocities under the ban of society in former
times, and under the ban of the Church, since the establishment
of the Christian religion among them.

The previous observations give us an insight into the state of
the people in Celtic countries. Since, however, we know that
slavery existed among them, we must consider a moment what kind
of slavery it was, and how soon it disappeared without passing,
as in the rest of Europe, through the ordeal of serfdom.

At the outset, we cannot, as some have done, call slaves the
conquered races and poor Milesians, who, according to the ancient
annals of Ireland, rose in insurrection and established a king of
their own during what is supposed to be the first century of the
Christian era. The _attacotts_, as they were called, were not
slaves, but poor agriculturists obliged to pay heavy rents: their
very name in the Celtic language means "rent-paying tribes or
people." Their oppression never reached the degree of suffering
under which the Irish small farmers of our days are groaning. For,
according to history, they could in three years prepare from their
surplus productions a great feast, to which the monarch and all
his chieftains, with their retinue, were invited, to be treacherously
assassinated at the end of the banquet. The great plain of Magh Cro,
now Moy Cru, near Knockma, in the county of Galway, was required
for such a monster feast; profusion of meats, delicacies, and
drinks was, of course, a necessity for the entertainment of such
a number of high-born and athletic guests, and the feast lasted
nine days. Who can suppose that in our times the free cottiers
of a whole province in Ireland, after supporting their families
and paying their rent, could spare even in three years the money
and means requisite to meet the demands of such an occasion? But
the simple enunciation of the fact proves at least that the attacotts
were no slaves, but at most merely an inferior caste, deprived of
many civil rights, and compelled to pay taxes on land, contrary
to the universal custom of Celtic countries.

Caesar, it is true, pretends that real slavery existed among the
Celts in Gaul. But a close examination of that short passage in
his "Commentaries," upon which this opinion is based, will prove
to us that the slavery he mentions was a very different thing from
that existing among all other nations of antiquity.

"All over Gaul," he says, "there are two classes of men who enjoy
all the honors and social standing in the state--the Druids and
the knights. The plebeians are looked upon almost as slaves, having
no share in public affairs. Many among them, loaded with debt,
heavily taxed, or oppressed by the higher class, give themselves
in servitude to the nobility, and then, _in hos eadem omnia sunt
jura quoe dominis in servos_, the nobles lord it over them as, with
us, masters over their slaves."

It is clear from this very passage that among the Celts no such
servile class existed as among the Romans and other nations of
antiquity. The plebeians, as Caesar calls them, that is to say,
the simple clansmen, held no office in the state, were not summoned
to the councils of the nation, and, on that account, were nobodies
in the opinion of the writer. But the very name he gives them -
_plebs_ - shows that they were no more real slaves than the Roman
plebs. They exercised their functions in the state by the elections,
and Caesar did not know they could reach public office by application
to study, and by being _ordained_ to the rank of file, or shanachy,
or brehon, in Ireland, at least: and this gave them a direct share
in public affairs.

He adds that debt, taxation, and oppression, obliged a great many
to give themselves in servitude, and that then they were among
the Celts what slaves were among the Romans.

This assertion of Caesar requires some examination. That there
were slaves among the Gaels, and particularly in Ireland, we know
from several passages of old writers preserved in the various
annals of the country. St. Patrick himself was a slave there in
his youth, and we learn from his history and other sources how
slaves were generally procured, namely, by piratical expeditions
to the coast of Britain or Gaul. The Irish _curraghs_, in pagan
times, started from the eastern or southern shores of the island,
and, landing on the continent or on some British isle, they captured
women, children, and even men, when the crew of the craft was strong
enough to overcome them; the captives were then taken to Ireland
and sold there. They lost their rights, were reduced to the state
of "chattels," and thus became real slaves. Among the presents
made by a superior to an inferior chieftain are mentioned bondsmen
and bondsmaids. We cannot be surprised at this, since the same
thing took place among the most ancient patriarchal tribes of the
East, and the Bible has made us all acquainted with the male and
female servants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are also called
bondsmen and bondswomen. Among the Celts, therefore, slaves were
of two kinds: those stolen from foreign tribes, and those who
had, as it were, sold themselves, in order to escape a heavier
oppression: these latter are the ones mentioned by Caesar.

The number of the first class must always have been very small,
at least in Ireland and Britain, since the piratical excursions
of the Celtic tribes inhabiting those countries were almost
invariably undertaken in curraghs, which could only bring a
few of these unfortunate individuals from a foreign country.

As to the other class, whatever Caesar may say of their number
in Gaul, making it composed of the greatest part of the plebeians
or common clansmen, we have no doubt but that he was mistaken,
and that the number of real slaves reduced to that state by
their own act must have always been remarkably small.

How could we otherwise account for the numerous armies levied by
the Gaulish chieftains against the power of Rome, or by the British
and Irish lords in their continual internecine wars? The clansmen
engaged in both cases were certainly freemen, fighting with the
determination which freedom alone can give, and this consideration
of itself suffices to show that the great mass of the Celtic tribes
was never reduced to slavery or even to serfdom.

Moreover, the whole drift of the Irish annals goes to prove that
slavery never included any perceptible class of the Celtic population;
it always remained individual and domestic, never endangering the
safety of the state, never tending to insurrection and civil disorder,
never requiring the vigilance nor even the care of the masters
and lords.

The story of Libran, recorded in the life of St. Columbkill, is
so pertinent to our present purpose, and so well adapted to give
us a true idea of what voluntary slavery was among the Celtic
tribes, that we will give it entire in the words of Montalembert:

"It was one day announced to Columba in Iona that a stranger
had just landed from Ireland, and Columba went to meet him in
the house reserved for guests, to talk with him in private and
question him as to his dwelliing-place, his family, and the cause
of his journey. The stranger told him that he had undertaken this
painful voyage in order, under the monastic habit and in exile,
to expiate his sins. Columba, desirous of trying the reality of
his repentance, drew a most repulsive picture of the hardships
and difficult obligations of the new life. 'I am ready,' said the
stranger, 'to submit to the most cruel and humiliating conditions
that thou canst command me.' And, after having made confession,
he swore, still upon his knees, to accomplish all the requirements
of penitence. 'It is well,' said the abbot: 'now rise from thy
knees, seat thyself, and listen. You must first do penance for
seven years in the neighboring island of Tirce, after which I
will see you again.' 'But,' said the penitent, still agitated by
remorse, 'how can I expiate a perjury of which I have not yet
spoken? Before I left my country I killed a poor man. I was about
to suffer the punishment of death for that crime, and I was already
in irons, when one of my relatives, who is very rich, delivered me
by paying the composition demanded. I swore that I would serve
him all my life; but, after some days of service, I abandoned him,
and here I am notwithstanding my oath.' Upon this the saint added
that he would only be admitted to the paschal communion after his
seven years of penitence.

"When these were completed, Columba, after having given him the
communion with his own hand, sent him back to Ireland to his patron,
carrying a sword with an ivory handle for his ransom. The patron,
however, moved by the entreaties of his wife, gave the penitent
his pardon without ransom. 'Why should we accept the price sent
us by the holy Columba? We are not worthy of it. The request of
such an intercessor should be granted freely. His blessing will
do more for us than any ransom.' And immediately he detached the
girdle from his waist, which was the ordinary form in Ireland for
the manumission of captives or slaves. Columba had, besides,
ordered his penitent to remain with his old father and mother
until he had rendered to them the last services. This accomplished,
his brothers let him go, saying, 'Far be it from us to detain a
man who has labored seven years for the salvation of his soul with
the holy Columba!' He then returned to Iona, bringing with him the
sword which was to have been his ransom. 'Henceforward thou shaft be
called Libran, for thou art free and emancipated from all ties,' said
Columba; and he immediately admitted him to take the monastic vows."

Servitude, therefore, continued in Ireland after the establishment
of Christianity; but how different from the slavery of other
European countries, which it took so many ages to destroy, and
which had to pass through so many different stages! Although we
cannot know precisely when servitude was completely abolished
among the Celts, the total silence of the contemporary annals on
the subject justifies the belief that the Danes, on their first
landing, found no real slaves in the country; and, if the Danes
themselves oppressed the people wherever they established their
power, they could not make a social institution of slavery. It
had never been more than a domestic arrangement; it could not
become a state affair, as among the nations of antiquity.

In clannish tribes, therefore, and particularly among the Celts,
the personal freedom of the lowest clansman was the rule, deprivation
of individual liberty the exception. Hence the manners of the people
were altogether free from the abject deportment of slaves and
villeins in other nations--a cringing disposition of the lower
class toward their superiors, which continues even to this day
among the peasantry of Europe, and which patriarchal nations have
never known. The Norman invaders of Ireland, in the twelfth century,
were struck with the easy freedom of manner and speech of the
people, so different from that of the lower orders in feudal
countries. They soon even came to like it; and the supercilious
followers of Strongbow readily adopted the dress, the habits, the
language, and the good-humor of the Celts, in the midst of whom
they found themselves settled.

And it is proper here to show what social dispositions and habits
were the natural result of the clan system, so as to become
characteristic of the race, and to endure forever, as long at least
as the race itself. The artless family state of the sept naturally
developed a peculiarly social feeling, much less complicated than
in nations more artificially constituted, but of a much deeper and
more lasting character. In the very nature of the mind of those
tribes there must have been a great simplicity of ideas, and on
that account an extraordinary tenacity of belief and will. There
is no complication and systematic combination of political, moral,
and social views, but a few axioms of life adhered to with a most
admirable energy; and we therefore find a singleness of purpose,
a unity of national and religious feeling, among all the individuals
of the tribe.

As nothing is complicated and systematized among them, the political
system must be extremely simple, and based entirely on the family.
And family ideas being as absolute as they are simple, the political
system also becomes absolute and lasting; without improving, it is
true, but also without the constant changes which bring misery
with revolution to thoughtful, reflective, and systematic nations.
What a frightful amount of misfortunes has not logic, as it is
called, brought upon the French! It was in the name of logical
and metaphysical principles that the fabric of society was destroyed
a hundred years ago, to make room for what was then called a more
rationally-constituted edifice; but the new building is not yet
finished, and God only knows when it will be!

The few axioms lying at the base of the Celtic mind with respect
to government are much preferable, because much more conducive
to stability, and consequently to peace and order, whatever may
have been the local agitation and temporary feuds and divisions.
Hence we see the permanence of the supreme authority resting in
one family among the Celts through so many ages, in spite of
continual wrangling for that supreme power. Hence the permanence
of territorial limits in spite of lasting feuds, although territory
was not invested in any particular inheriting family, but in a
purely moral being called the clan or sept.

As for the moral and social feelings in those tribes, they are
not drawn coldly from the mind, and sternly imposed by the external
law, in the form of axioms and enactments, as was the case chiefly
in Sparta, and as is still the case in the Chinese Empire to-day;
but they gush forth impetuously from impulsive and loving hearts,
and spread like living waters which no artificially-cut stones
can bank and confine, but which must expand freely in the land
they fertilize.

Deep affection, then, is with them at the root of all moral and
social feelings; and as all those feelings, even the national and
patriotic, are merged in real domestic sentiment, a great purity
of morals must exist among them, nothing being so conducive
thereto as family affections.

Above all, when those purely-natural dispositions are raised to
the level of the supernatural ones by a divinely-inspired code, by
the sublime elevation of Christian purity, then can there be found
nothing on earth more lovely and admirable. Chastity is always
attractive to a pure heart; patriarchal guilelessness becomes
sacred even to the corrupt, if not altogether hardened, man.

Of course we do not pretend that this happy state of things is
without its exceptions; that the light has no shadow, the beauty
no occasional blemish. We speak of the generality, or at least of
the majority, of cases; for perfection cannot belong to this world.

Yet mysticism is entirely absent from such a moral and religious
state, on account, perhaps, of the paucity of ideas by which the
heart is ruled, and perhaps also on account of the artless
simplicity which characterizes every thing in primitively-constituted
nations. And, wonderful to say, without any mysticism there is
often among them a perfect holiness of life, adapting itself to
all circumstances, climates, and associations. The same heart of
a young maiden is capable of embracing a married life or of
devoting itself to religious celibacy; and in either case the
duties of each are performed with the most perfect simplicity and
the highest sanctity. Hence, how often does a trifling circumstance

determine for her her whole subsequent life, and make her either
the mother of a family or the devoted spouse of Christ! Yet, the
final determination once taken, the whole after-life seems to
have been predetermined from infancy as though no other course
could have been possible.

There is no doubt that sensual corruption is particularly engendered
by an artificial state of society, which necessarily fosters
morbidity of imagination and nervous excitability. A primitive
and patriarchal life, on the contrary, leads to moderation in all
things, and repose of the senses.

Herein is found the explanation of the eagerness with which the
Celts everywhere, but particularly in Ireland, as soon as
Christianity was preached to them, rushed to a life of perfection
and continence. St. Patrick himself expressed his surprise, and
showed, by several words in his "Confessio," that he was scarcely
prepared for it. "The sons of Irishmen," he says, "and the daughters
of their chieftains, want to become monks and virgins of Christ."
We know what a multitude of monasteries and nunneries sprang up
all over the island in the very days of the first apostle and of
his immediate successors. Montalembert remarks that, according to
the most reliable and oldest documents, a religious house is
scarcely mentioned which contained less than three thousand monks
or nuns. It appeared to be a consecrated number; and this took
place immediately after the conversion of the island to Christianity,
while even still a great number were pagans.