Erenachs, Erenachships, and Church Landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270-1609

Erenachs, erenachships and church landholding inGaelic Fermanagh, 1270�1609

CIARAN O SCEA*Global Ireland Institute, University College Dublin

[Accepted 31 May 2010. Published 27 October 2011.]

Abstract This article sets out to fill in neglected gaps in our scholarly knowledge of thesystem of erenach and church landholding in Gaelic Ulster (1270�1609). Incontrast to previous studies which have concentrated on the legal status ofcoarbs and erenachs, this study analyses at macro level the functioning oferenachships as economic units, and at a micro level the system as it operated inthe medieval lordship of Fermanagh. The result has been to demonstrate thatthe enfranchisement of nativus septs as erenach septs on church-lands tookplace as a result of the twelfth-century Reform (1101�72). In the case ofFermanagh, outside of the initial transfer of lands from the monasteries to theerenach septs, most of the church-lands were acquired piecemeal over thecourse of centuries. Many of the erenach septs were furthermore of outsideorigin, but became accepted as nativus septs through longterm settlement.

Introduction In 1640 Tadhg O Rodaigh, a descendant of the coarb of Fenagh, won a legal

battle in the House of Commons in London against the bishop of Ardagh,

claiming wrongful dispossession on the part of the Church of Ireland of his

family’s hereditary lands at the beginning of the seventeenth century. However,

the Irish Parliament was determined not to proceed with redress, owing to

vested interests within the same body and the likely implications for the

Plantation of Ulster.1

Even before the Plantation of Ulster, the nature of Gaelic ecclesiastical

landholding had both fascinated and been the subject of legal analysis on the

part of English officials such as Sir John Davies, Attorney General (1569�1626), and George Montgomery, one-time bishop of Derry, Raphoe and

* Author’s e-mail: [email protected]

doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2011.112.041 John Logan, ‘Tadhg O’Roddy and the two surveys of County Leitrim’, Breifne 4(1971), 318�34: 322�3; Irish Parliament, House of Lords, Journals of the House of Lords

of the kingdom of Ireland (8 vols, Dublin, 1783�1800), vol. 1, 172, 174, 176; see also the

poem ‘Maith thrath do thoigheacht a Thaidhg’ by Ferghal Muinhnıoch O Duibhean-

nain, celebrating Tadhg O Rodaigh’s success in England. Trinity College Dublin (TCD),

Ms. H.6.15 (�1419), 303�4. My thanks to Seosamh Mac Muiri of Trinity College

Dublin for pointing out the existence of this poem.

Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 112C, 271�300 # 2011 Royal Irish Academy

Clogher (1562�1621), among others.2 Their interest in the system of coarb and

erenach lands was motivated partly as it represented a means of establishing a

group of freeholders in Gaelic lordships who could have acted as a counter-

weight to the power of the traditional Ulster lords, and partly in order to

acquire lands for the Church of Ireland.However, the same attention shown by contemporary English observers

to the system of coarb and erenach landholding has not been matched by

modern historians. As a result our knowledge of the Gaelic Church’s

landholding structure, the role of the erenach septs within the diocesan

hierarchy and the Church’s relationship to the secular lordships remains

limited. Other than the important contributions by King, Barry, St John

Seymour, Glanchy and, more recently, Jefferies, most of what has been written

on the subject has been confined to sections of books on local, family or

regional histories, or as part of a wider ecclesiastical remit.3

2 Sir John Davies, ‘Letter from sir John Davies to Robert earl of Salisbury touching the

state of Monaghan, Fermanagh and Cavan, wherein is a discourse concerning the

corbes and irenahs of Ireland’, in Henry Morley (ed.), Ireland under Elizabeth and

James the First (London, 1890), 342�80; George Montgomery, ‘The ancient estate of

the bishopricks of Derry, Raphoe and Clogher’, in E.P. Shirley (ed.), Papers relating to

the Church of Ireland (London, 1874), 25�38l; A.F. O’D. Alexander (ed.), ‘Bishop

Montgomery’s survey of the bishoprics of Derry, Raphoe and Clogher’, Analecta

Hibernica 12 (1941), 79�111; for a more complete edition of the latter see Henry A.

Jefferies (ed.), ‘Bishop Montgomery’s survey of the parishes of Derry diocese: a

complete text from c. 1609’, Seanchas Ardmhacha 17 (1996�7), 44�76; James Ussher,

‘Of the original and first institution of corbes, herenaches, and termon lands’, in C.R.Elrington (ed.), The whole works of James Ussher (17 vols, Dublin, 1847�64), vol. 11,

421�45; Sir James Ware, ‘Of corbes or corbanes and erenachs or herenachs, scribes,

colidei and anchorites of Ireland’, in Walter Harris (ed.) The whole works of sir James

Ware concerning Ireland (2 vols, Dublin, 1739�45), vol. 2, 232�8; Henry A. Jefferies

(ed.), ‘Erenaghs in pre-plantation Ulster: an early seventeenth-century account’,

Archivium Hibernicum 53 (1999), 16�19; Henry A. Jefferies (ed.), ‘Erenaghs and

termonlands: another early seventeenth-century account’, Seanchas Ardmhacha 19

(2002), 55�8.3 Robert King, Memoir introductory to the early history of the primacy of Armagh, 2nd

edn (Armagh, 1854); John Barry, ‘Erenach in the monastic Irish Church’, Irish

Ecclesiastical Record (hereafter IER) 89 (1958), 424�32; John Barry, ‘Appointment of

coarb and erenach’, IER 93 (1960), 361�5; John Barry, ‘Extent of coarb and erenach in

Gaelic Ulster’, IER 94 (1960), 12�16, 90�5; John Barry, ‘Status of coarbs and erenachs’,

IER 94 (1960), 147�53; John Barry, ‘Duties of coarb and erenach’, IER 94 (1960), 211�18; John Barry, ‘Coarbs in medieval times’, IER 89 (1958), 24�35; John Barry, ‘Lay

coarb in medieval times’, IER 91 (1959), 27�39; John Barry, ‘The distinction betweencoarb and erenach’, IER 94 (1960), 90�5; John Barry, ‘The coarb and the twelfth

century Reform’, IER 88 (1957), 17�25; St John Seymour, ‘Coarbs in the medieval Irish

Church’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section C 41 (1933), 219�34; Michael

Glancy, ‘Church-lands of county Armagh and text of 1609 inquisition’, Seanchas

Ardmhaca 1 (1954), 67�100; Michael Glancy, ‘The primates and the church-lands of

Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhaca 5 (1970) 370�96; Padraig O Gallachair, ‘Coarbs and

Ciaran O Scea

272

In this article I intend to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of the

system of coarb and erenach landholding, not so much in regards to the pre-

Reform period, which has already been adequately covered by a number of

secondary writers, but more in how the system developed in Gaelic Ulster

between 1270 and 1609 at both a broad and a microscopic level. The first part

will look at both the organisation and the functioning of the erenachships from

an economic perspective. This will be followed by a microstudy of the system in

the lordship of Fermanagh as it worked out in practice, both in terms of

landholding as well as the human element. It is expected that the analysis of the

overall structure, together with the use of the Fermanagh case study, will greatly

increase scholarly knowledge, conception and understanding of the Gaelic

Church’s system of landholding and hierarchical structure.

Erenachs anderenachships

Coarbs and erenachs: a background

In terms of origins and of antiquity the coarb (originally comarba) has always

had a nobler and more authoritative status than the erenach (originally

airchinnech) both before and after the twelfth-century Reform (1101�72), owing

to their respective roles as ‘spiritual heir’ and ‘overseer’ of the early-Christian

monasteries.4 In general the title comarba has come to denote a series of

ecclesiastical positions from overlordship of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction to

abbot of a monastic establishment or to the rectoryship of a comorbanship.5 In

erenachs in county Donegal’, Donegal Annual 4 (1960), 272�81; Peadar Livingstone,

The Fermanagh story (Enniskillen, 1969); Seamus O Ceallaigh, Gleanings from Ulster

history (Cork, 1951); for more recent works that deal partially or substantially with the

coarbs and erenachs see Henry A. Jefferies, ‘Derry diocese on the eve of the Plantation’,

in Gerard O’Brien (ed.), Derry and Londonderry history and society (Dublin, 1999),

175�203; Gerard O’Brien, Priests and prelates of Armagh in the Age of Reformations,

1518�1558 (Dublin, 1997), 125�8; Katherine Simms, ‘Frontiers in the Irish Church*regional and cultural’, in T.B. Barry, R.F. Frame and Katherine Simms (eds), Colony

and frontier in medieval Ireland, essays presented to J.F. Lydon (London, 1995), 1�27.4 Colman Etchingham, Church organisation in Ireland AD 650 to 1000 (Naas, 1999), 26;s.v. comarba and airchinnech, E.G. Quin et al., Contributions to a dictionary of the Irish

language (Dublin, 1913�75); for more recent research on the twelfth-century Reform

movement see Damian Bracken and Dagmar O Riain-Raedel (eds), Ireland and Europe

in the twelfth century: reform and renewal (Dublin, 2006).5 Canice Mooney, ‘The church in Gaelic Ireland, thirteenth to fifteenth centuries’, in A

history of Irish Catholicism 2 (Dublin, 1969), 10; Seymour, ‘The coarb in the medieval

Irish Church’, 219; the origin, status, and function of coarbships varied from region to

region. Some of them functioned as erenachs in all but name; others were instituted outof pre-Reform erenachships; a number were continuations of ancient monastic

settlements while others had no claim to fame other than a saintly founder. For a

detailed discussion of the distinctions between the the different kinds of coarbships see

Ciaran O Scea, ‘The system of erenach landholding within the context of the lordship

of Fermanagh, 1400�1609’, unpublished M.Phil. thesis in Irish Studies, University

College Dublin, 1996, 15�24.

Erenachs, erenachships and church landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270�1609

273

the early stages the coarb functioned as the elected spiritual guardian of the

early Church’s more important monasteries, in both a temporal (as airchinnech)

and a spiritual capacity (as comarba). It was not however until the late eleventh

and early twelfth centuries that this position evolved more fully into one of

ecclesiastical overlordship, which characterised the medieval period.6

The airchinnech, though sometimes equated with coarbs or deputy

coarbs, functioned as the administrator and effective lord of the Church and its

dependants, sometimes in a lay and more often in a clerical capacity during the

pre-Reform period.7 It was his duty to ensure that the manaig tenants of

church-lands were provided with the pastoral services of baptism, communion,

mass, preaching and burial in exchange for tithes, first fruits, death and burial

dues.8 In general the position came to denote the heir apparent of the abbots of

the smaller and less powerful monastic establishments, or as deputy abbot of

the larger monasteries.9 The erenach furthermore differed from the coarb in his

restricted legal capacity to trade in land, and his tenure in office was not

hereditary.10

As a result of the twelfth-century Reform a diocesan parish system was

introduced which redefined the respective roles of the airchinnech, the comarba

and the sacart.11 In the case of the airchinnech a compromise solution was

reached which reduced the power of the pre-Reform airchinnech and instituted

the system of hereditary erenach families tied to the Church’s termon lands.

These were redistributed, for the most part, at least in theory, on a parochial

basis. The pre-Reform erenachships of the monastic establishments underwent

a new lease of life, though not necessarily at the disposition of the same families,

while the coarb continued in his ancient role though was now subject to

episcopal visitation and cess. At the same time the position of sacart was

curtailed and downgraded, and its functions divided between the newly created

rector and vicar.

6 The comorbania of Maedoc was also known as a temporal lordship called dominium.

W.H. Bliss et al. (eds), Calendar of entries in papal registers relating to Great Britain and

Ireland: letters (18 vols, London, 1893�1961; Dublin, 1978�94), vol. 5, 398.7 Colman Etchingham, ‘Aspects of early Irish ecclesiastical organisation’, unpublished

PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 1993, 437. The subject of the role and position of

the airchinnech is treated more thoroughly in this thesis than in the published book. For

a discussion of the role of the erenach in the pre- and post-Reform period see O Scea,

‘The system of erenach landholding’, 25�35.8 Etchingham, ‘Aspects of early Irish ecclesiastical organisation’, 90�1, 103, 259, 264�5,

275.9 Aubrey Gwynn, ‘The first synod of Cashel’, IER 66 (1945), 81�92, 67 (1946), 109�22:

88�9; King, Memoir introductory to the early history, 26.10 Etchingham, Church organisation in Ireland, 74; O Scea, ‘The system of erenach

landholding’, 26.11 On the twelfth-century Reform see Aubrey Gwynn, ‘The twelfth century Reform’, in

History of Irish Catholicism 2 (Dublin, 1968).

Ciaran O Scea

274

Erenachships and tenants

Working on the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, both Kenneth Nicholls and to

a lesser extent Nicholas Canny have shown that the distinction between ‘free’

and ‘unfree’ tenants, based on contractual liability and land ownership, was

very evident in the temporal sphere.12 Nevertheless the use of these terms in

English and Irish language sources did not always bear an exact correlation or

equivalence. Thus, English State Papers refer to those tenants who were

continually changing lords in Gaelic Ireland, who were to all effects and

purposes ‘tenants-at-will’.13 However they were clearly not in the same category

as ‘unfree’ tenants tied to the soil as villeins. In a Gaelic Irish context these

‘tenants-at-will’ were ‘unfree’ as they were not landowners. The terms ‘free’ and

‘unfree’ are therefore in many ways misnomers as they do not accurately reflect

the legal realities of these two kinds of tenants. From this point on the terms

‘freehold’ tenants and ‘tenants-at-will’ will be used instead of the ‘free’/‘unfree’

distinction in the case of church-lands, except where these terms have been used

by other authors.Similarities to the above distinctions in lay lordships were also apparent

on church-lands throughout the medieval period, though there also existed

wider categories of tenants.14 James Ussher, the archbishop of Armagh, divided

the tenants of termon lands in a somewhat rigid manner into the adscriptitii

who were tied to the land and the coloni liberi who were free tenants.15 On the

other hand Michael Glancy, who has been a pioneer in this field, divided the

inhabitants of church-lands into:

the free tenants (Coloni Liberi) [who] resided on and cultivated thecensual or temporal lands, while the unfree occupiers (Nativi or ServiEcclesiastici cum onore) laboured on the mensal lands. The formerincluded the erenach septs or gavellers, so called because their landswere subject to the usage of gavelkind or periodic redistribution; a cattleraising class, known as chattelers (Catallaria) i.e. owners of realproperty in the form of cattle, who received certain grasslands andmountain pasture, for specified periods, subject to stipulated rents and

12 Nicholas Canny, ‘Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone and the changing face of Gaelic

Ulster’, Studia Hibernica 10 (1970), 25�32; Kenneth Nicholls, ‘Land, law and society in

sixteenth-century Ireland’, O’ Donnell lecture, University College Cork, May 1976

(Dublin, 1978), 9�14.13 For examples of these see H.C. Hamilton, E.G. Atkinson, and R.P. Mahaffy (eds),

Calendar of state papers relating to Ireland of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary

and Elizabeth (11 vols, London, 1860�1912), vol. 4, 1588�92, 481.14 On the legal status of tenants in the early Irish Church see W.N. Handcock et al.

(eds), Ancient laws of Ireland (6 vols, Dublin, 1865�1901), vol. 3, 43; Lisa M. Bitel, Isle

of the saints: monastic settlement and Christian community in early Ireland (Ithaca,

1990), 115�22; J.G. O’Keefe, ‘Rule of Patrick’, Eriu 1 (1904), 223; Etchingham, Church

organisation in Ireland, 363�93.15 Ussher, ‘The original and first institution of corbes’, 424�8.


275

mensal tributes; and finally certain families who held their lands, inpermanence, on a hereditary basis, on payment of headrents, as arecompense for their professional services or as custodians of the sacredinsignia of the See.16

Nor were these the only kinds of tenants or proprietors of church-lands. In the

diocese of Clogher there existed ecclesiastical lords (domini ecclesiae) besides

erenachs and coarbs.17 In all these cases the fundamental distinction between

the different categories of occupiers was one based on the extent of contractual

liability or freedom from legal obligations, expressed either in terms of

attachment to church-lands in the hands of particular septs, or as tenants-at-

will.Nevertheless, these divisions need to be qualified and corrected. First,

there existed no clear division between the tenants-at-will cultivating the mensal

lands and the erenach septs cultivating the censual lands. Most probably there

was a mixture of the two kinds of tenants on both kinds of lands, as will be

shown below. The references in the registers to tenants’ failure to reside, as well

as to erenachs dispersing their tenants, appear to indicate that these tenants

were not permanently tied to the land.18

Second, the term nativus as used in the Armagh registers in the late-

medieval period no longer carried the sense of servi ecclesiastici cum onore of

the early Middle Ages. In the Norman and post-Norman periods and in those

areas which came under Norman influence, the term nativus, which was usually

only found in connection with church-lands, was interchangeable with the term

betagh.19 In marked contrast to the serf-like betagh in areas of Norman

influence, the term nativus as used in the province of Armagh in the late-

medieval period denoted the freehold tenants of the erenach lands. In early-

seventeenth-century County Fermanagh there existed the equivalent Irish term

duthasach, anglicised as doughasa, which denoted a number of the native

16 Glancy, ‘Church-lands of county Armagh’, 375.17 William O’Sullivan (ed.), ‘Two Clogher constitutions’ in Tegwyn Jones and E.B.

Fryde (eds) Ysgrifau a cherddi cyflwnedig i Daniel Huws golygywd gan Tegwyn Jones ac

E.B. Fryd [Essays and poems presented to Daniel Huws] (Aberystwyth, 1994), 369, no.

11, 370, no. 18; Calender of entries 18, no. 16; for other examples of church tenants see

D.A. Chart (ed.), Register of John Swayne (Belfast, 1935), 56, 198.18 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, nos 9, 13, 14, 372, no. 19; King, Memoir

introductory to the early history, 54.19 Richard Butler (ed.), Registrum prioratus Omnium Sanctorum : juxte Dublin (Dublin,

1845), xv; on the controversy regarding the betagh (bıatach) see Gearoid Mac Niocaill,

‘The origins of the betagh’, Irish Jurist 1 (1966), 292�8; G.J. Hand, ‘The status of thenative Irish in the lordship of Ireland 1272�331’, Irish Jurist 1 (1966), 93�115; Edmund

Curtis, ‘Rental of the manor of Lisronagh 1333 and Notes on ‘‘betagh’’ tenure in

medieval Ireland’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section C 43 (1935�7), 41�76; Liam Price, ‘The origin of the word betagius’, Eriu 20 (1966), 185�92; Fergus Kelly,

Early Irish farming (Dublin, 1998), 428�9; Gregory Toner, ‘Baile: Settlement and

landholding in medieval Ireland’, Eigse 34 (2004), 25�48.

Ciaran O Scea

276

holders of hereditary erenach land.20 In the Register of Clogher they are definedas nativi ecclesiarum in order to distinguish them from the tenentes ecclesiarum

(tenants-at-will).21

The Armagh registers use the same term to refer to the hereditary

holders of termon lands. Quite a few disputes regarding the archbishop’s landsrevolved around proving that the individual in question was a nativus orfreehold tenant of the lands concerned. It was such a consistent problem that in

1444 an agreement was signed between the citizens of Armagh and ArchbishopMey, prohibiting clerics and laymen from being enchartered as long as therewas a nativus ‘eligible and capable of undertaking the duties and obligations’.22

Moreover, it is evident from the long-term associations betweenthe erenach septs and their respective land holdings that these septs were theoriginal nativi. The legacy of this link, between the nativus as a betagh and the

nativus as a member of the erenach septs, can be seen in many of the dues andobligations payable to the bishop by the erenach. The obligations to providefuel and refection, cultivate the lands, pay entrance fines and provide

procurations to the bishop are reminiscent of the demands made on the nativus

in betagh tenure.23 As one erenach put it ‘My Lord cannot change the ancientrent, but if he wants supplies of fat cattle, he should send to us and we are

forced to supply them, for we and all we have are his’.24 Significantly, it wasonly in those areas of Anglo-Norman or English influence that the nativus as abetagh survived up until a later period.

Clearly then, there is a major incongruity between the nativus as abetagh, and the nativus as a ‘freehold’ tenant, which can only be explained in

two ways. Either the term nativus or bıatach in the archdiocese of Armagh isunrelated to their usage as found in Norman records; or if the two terms arerelated, then the enfranchisement of certain classes of bıatachs or nativus septs

as erenach septs took place. Furthermore, the institution of the hereditaryerenach septs in the post-Reform period, their restricted legal capacity and theirsmaller landholding units, vis a vis the coarb in the same period, points towards

the enfranchisement of the native church tenants. This was in line with early-Irish law that ecclesiastical appointments in the early-Irish Church should be

20 James Hardiman (ed.), Inquisitionum cancellariae hiberniae repertorium (Dublin,

1826�9), vol. 2: Ultonia, app. vi, col. 2, 5�7, app. iv, col. 2; s.v. duthchas, duthchasach,

and duthaig in Contributions; W.M. Hennessy and Bernard MacCarthy (eds), Annala

Uladh: the annals of Ulster (4 vols, Dublin, 1887�91), 1420.21 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 363 nos 9, 12.22 Swayne’s register, 192; Anthony Lynch, ‘A calendar of the reassembled register ofJohn Bole, archbishop of Armagh 1457�71’, Seanchas Ardmhacha 15 (1992), 113�85:

115�16.23 For examples see Richard Caulfield, Canon O’Riordan, and James Coleman (eds),

‘The pipe roll of Cloyne’, Cork Historical and Archaeological Society Journal 19 (1913),

31, 166�7, 21 (1915), 95.24 Cited in Glancy, ‘Church-lands of county Armagh’, 374.


277

given to members of the kin group who donated the land to the church in the

absence of members of the saint’s kin group.25

Sir Oliver St John, of all the writers on the subject, best captured the

essence of the erenach’s role when he stated that,

the church-lands are possessed by the Herenaghes and their septsaccording to the manner of Irish tanurie. The Herenaghe himselfe (asthe other chiefe of septs commonly do in Ireland) was nott the actuallpossessor of those Herenagh lands but the lands were devidedaccordinge to the custome of the contrye by equall portions amongethe whole sept or nation, and yet the Herenaghe represented the whole,and to have himself as lord over them for a tyme, and had of them rent,cuttinge and service, as other of the temporall lords had of theretenants, or landholders.26

This emphasis on the erenach’s role as protector and lord of the church-lands

stands in conflict with a number of the secondary writers on the subject, who

portray him sometimes as ‘tenant-in-chief ’ and other times as a ‘lay parson’.

Nevertheless, the greater part of the evidence clearly points to his fulfilling the

role of ‘lord’ of the erenach parish lands, but with restrictions on his role and

status brought about by the twelfth-century Reform.27

According to the jurors of the 1609 Inquisition,

the herenagh himself was to be the first elected among themselves, andto be confirmed by the bishop, and that if the said sept could not agree,then the election belonged to the bishop, dean and chapter, but that thebishop always confirmed the erenach so elected. . .nevertheless the saidjurors say, that the inheritance and the sole property of the landremained in the sept, and that if any time the sept were quite extinct, yetthe bishop had no power either to detain the lands in his ownpossession, or to dispose of it to any other person, but to such a septwhereof he would choose another herenagh to perform those duties andrights in the church that the former herenagh had done, and that thenalso the bishop could not alter or increase his former rent, pension orduties.28

From this it is clear that the bishop was limited to affirming and confirming the

sept’s choice of erenach but only under certain conditions. These requirements

covered rents and services due to the bishop; rents and services due from his

25 Kelly, Early Irish farming, 405�6.26 Jefferies, ‘Erenaghs in pre-plantation Ulster’, 17.27 Besides examples already outlined, Ussher also refers to the erenachs as ‘head lords’,

Ussher, ‘The original and first institution of corbes’, 429.28 Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. vi, col. 8.

Ciaran O Scea

278

ecclesiastical tenants; his religious duties and status; and his duties in regard to

the land.29 The bishop could however have a say in those cases where a

particular erenach sept was extinct, or where the candidate did not have the

necessary qualifications*in such an eventuality he would need the consent of

the cathedral chapter.30

The erenach could however be deprived of his title to the lands or part

of the lands for various offences. Among the reasons cited in the diocesan

registers and in English sources are the alienation or leasing of church-lands to

a layman or cleric; the killing of an episcopal bailiff; failure to provide divine

services or pay rent; failure to appear with the charter within a certain time

limit; and the erenach’s son ‘meddling with his father’s lands before the bishop

granted him the erenancy’.31 It is apparent that by 1609 in the diocese of

Raphoe, the bishop had made use of the general failure to fulfil some of the

conditions laid down in the grants in order to deprive the erenach septs of their

lands, which were then annexed to the bishop’s or dean’s mensal lands.Fundamental to an understanding of the erenach’s legal position in the

post-Reform period were the land charters, which embodied the conditions by

which the erenachship was to be held by the bishop.32 The necessity to produce

land charters as evidence of title when the bishop was on visitation; when a

bishop was conducting ordinations; in cases where the erenach’s rights were

questioned; and on the entry of a new bishop, testifies to their fundamental

importance to the erenach’s legal status.33 On the other hand, their loss or theft

as happened in 1426 could undermine the legal standing of many landholders

and with it the whole complex system of loyalties, rights and dues.34

29 The most comprehensive coverage from secondary sources of these dues and services

are to be found in Barry, ‘The duties of coarbs and erenaghs’, 211�18; for primary

sources see Ussher, ‘The original and first institution of corbes’; Davies, ‘Letter to the

earl of Salisbury’; Alexander, ‘Bishop Montgomery’s survey’; Montgomery, ‘The

ancient estate of the bishopricks of Derry, Raphoe and Clogher’; Jefferies, ‘Erenaghs

in pre-plantation Ulster’; Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, appendices; O’Sullivan,

‘Clogher constitutions’.30 Barry, ‘Appointment of coarb and erenach’, 361�2; ‘Bole’s register’, 115, 13 July1444; Jefferies, ‘Erenaghs in pre-plantation Ulster, 18; Kenneth Nicholls (ed.), ‘The

register of Clogher’, Clogher Record (1971�2), 361�431: 371; Hardiman, Inquisitionum

repertorium, apps.31 H.J. Lawlor, ‘A calendar of the register of archbishop Fleming’, Proceedings of the

Royal Irish Academy Section C 30 (1912), no. 32; ‘Register of Clogher’, 371, 373;

Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. v, col. 5; Montgomery, ‘The ancient estate of

the bishopricks of Derry, Raphoe and Clogher’, 27�8; O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitu-

tions’, 369, no. 7; Ware, Whole works of sir James Ware, vol. 2, 234.32 On charters see Marie Therese Flanagan and Judith A. Green (eds), Charters and

charter scholarship in Britain and Ireland (Hampshire and New York, 2005).33 J.A. Watt, ‘John Colton, justiciar and archbishop’, in James Lydon (ed.), England

and Ireland in the later Middle Ages, essays in honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven

(Blackrock, 1981), 209; Swayne’s register, 157.34 Swayne’s register, 43.


279

Given the importance of land charters in regard to all aspects of

erenach landholding, control of the cathedral chapter became of paramount

importance in influencing the renewal of the charters, and on those occasions

when the bishop appointed a new sept to an erenachship. In some dioceses such

as Clogher, this may have resulted in a divided power structure, between the

dean and chapter on one hand, and the bishop on the other. In Armagh inter

hibernicos, however, due to the almost permanent absence of the archbishop, it

was the chapter which was the principal source of patronage and influence. For

a period of at least five years in the early fifteenth century the ‘common seal’ of

the chapter, which should have been kept under three locks, was in the sole

possession of the dean, against the will of the chancellor and precentor, its

custodians. The same dean also ‘took the said seal with him to profane places

and signed and caused to be signed letters, charters and muniments by himself

and his servants’.35

In the oldest extant examples, belonging to the second half of the

thirteenth century and the early part of the fourteenth century, the charters

were short and limited to defining the grantee, the geographical boundaries of

the grant, the rent and the time of its payment.36 It was not however until the

second half of the fourteenth century that a standard formula had evolved

which covered the conditions of tenure, the extent and nature of the granted

lands, the period of tenure, its usage, the restriction on leasing the lands to

outside laymen, obedience to church officials and rent.37

In terms of inheritance to the erenach land the evidence shows regional

variations. The charters in the Armagh registers were granted to either a father

and son or to two brothers, though there existed a greater tendency for the

erenachships to be passed in the direct male line from father to son than there

was in the case of the temporal lordships.38 On the other hand, the evidence

from the lordship of Fermanagh shows that it passed from brother to brother.

Most of the erenach learned families such as the Uı hOgain of Iniskeen and the

coarb of Termon Dabeog (Termon McGrath) followed this pattern.39 Never-

35 Swayne’s register, 91�2.36 ‘Fleming’s register’, nos 29, 30; ‘Register of Clogher’, 373.37 See for example the erenach charter for 1365 in King, Memoir introductory to the

early history, 37.38 For examples see ‘Register of Clogher’, 373; ‘Fleming’s register’, nos 22, 29, 30, 32,

39, 258; W.G.H. Quigley, and E.F.D. Roberts (eds), Registrum Iohannis Mey 1443�56

(Belfast, 1972), no. 299; TCD, Ms 557/13, 60�1. Complete transcript of Archbishop

Dowdall’s Register (Liber Niger).39 Based on genealogies reconstructed from John O’Donovan (ed.), Annala rıoghachta

Eireann: annals of the kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters from the earliest period to

the year 1616 (7 vols, Dublin, 1848�51), Annala Uladh and Calender of entries. Among

the Uı Caiside, the Uı Breaslain, and the Uı Fialan this pattern is apparent. There is

insufficient data to confirm it for the other erenach learned families. The ecclesiastical

Mac Magnusa sept of the same lordship, though not an erenach sept, underwent a

transformation from brother-to-brother inheritance to father-to-son from the early

fifteenth century.

Ciaran O Scea

280

theless, in the absence of ‘qualified and capable’ male heirs the erenachship

could pass to the female side of the sept. In Swayne’s Register there is one

instance where a charter was got ‘on false representation that there was no

relation by birth or marriage (agnatus sive conjugatus) who could or ought to

succeed though there were some relations (cognati) who wished to be

enchartered’.40

Given that the charters of the erenachs were often for the lifetime of two

individuals, if a general redivision of the land took place at all it probably only

happened after the new brother-brother or father-son erenachs were enchar-

tered. The newly enchartered erenach then presumably decided how the land

was to be divided among the remainder of the sept, after having chosen that

portion of free land which remained with him for life.41 The erenach evidently

had a certain amount of power to redistribute the land on his confirmation, but

to what extent is not clear.From the evidence of the 1609 Inquisition, the rest of the land was then

divided in equal portions according to the tenants’ several abilities to pay the

burdens and dues to the erenach as the bishop’s representative.42 Only in the

event of the forfeiture of a tenant’s portion, or in the event of a tenant’s death,

would the erenach have played a key role in deciding its redistribution.43

Nevertheless, the erenach clearly had acquired a capacity to grant land whether

acquired through forfeiture or by other means. The frequent warnings in the

charters not to alienate land, as well as the stipulations in episcopal

constitutions against alienation of church-lands, testifies to the erenach’s power

in this regard.44

The erenach as lord of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction mirrored his

counterpart in the secular lordships as the focal point of all socio-political

relationships, which was expressed in the series of dues and payments given and

accepted as pledges of loyalty, overlordship and deference.45 This took the form

of a tuarastal or acceptance payment given by the erenach to the tenants or

landholders. In return they bound themselves to pay a rent or ‘chiefery’

(dominium) as well as other dues and services to the erenach. In the diocese of

Clogher in the early fifteenth century this chiefery consisted of ‘a sow in winter

and spring, half a beef, a twelve gallon barrel of beer, and a sheep and its

unweaned lamb in summer and autumn’ on the part of the nativi ecclesiarum,

which included the sons and brothers of the erenach. The erenach was also due

40 Swayne’s register, 65.41 See the various appendices in Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium; O’Sullivan,

‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, no. 11; in the 1609 Inquisition it tended to be the principal

erenach that had the proportion of free land. The lesser erenachs frequently did nothave any free land.42 Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. v, col. 14; Jefferies, ‘Erenaghs in pre-

plantation Ulster’, 17.43 Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. vii, col. 8.44 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, no. 7, 371, no. 15.45 Jefferies, ‘Erenaghs in pre-plantation Ulster’, 17.


281

the ‘whole customary payment of beer, meat, salt and other lesser dues in the

townland’.46

In the case of the tenentes ecclesiarum there was an option between

paying the full chiefery or half of it, depending on whether the erenach’s

payment was accepted or not. This was not an option available to the nativi

ecclesiarum. Acceptance of the payment tied the tenentes ecclesiarum to the

erenach for three years. Custom, which played such an important part in Gaelic

society, could also dictate regional differences. Some churches within the

diocese of Clogher permitted the tenentes ecclesiarum to change lord after one

year. In such an eventuality the tenant could keep a third of the payment.

Where the custom did not exist he had to return to his original lord and pay a

fine to the bishop’s bailiffs.47 All tenants were also bound to reside, give

hospitality and pay a mortuary tax to the erenach. In some churches the hired

tenants (mercedem tenentes) were also responsible in part for the upkeep of the

church.48 Furthermore, given that most tenentes ecclesiarum were bound by a

dominium to the erenach, the latter presumably decided how these tenentes

ecclesiarum were to be divided among the other nativi. This would have given

the erenach great economic power and leverage over members of his own sept.In practice, however, the system was under strain by 1430, as is evident

from Bishop Art Mac Cathmaoil’s Clogher constitutions, which attempted to

inititiate a ‘reformation of the church and the ecclesiastical tenants’ in that

year.49 These episcopal constitutions demonstrate that the core of the socio-

economic problems facing the Church and its subjects was related to under-

population, as reflected in the great shortage of tenants needed to work the

lands and support the burdens, rents and dues. Evidently many tenants and

erenachs were deserting church-lands for long periods, while the former were

not respecting their contracts with the erenach. Why this was so is not totally

clear. In part it was to avoid paying the burdens on church-lands, but there may

also have been an enticement to work on secular lands, possibly for higher

wages. A high proportion of the tenants found it more profitable to accept

secular lands or become part of a plough-team even when church-lands were

available. Nevertheless, these periods of absence do not appear to have been

permanent, as many of the same erenachs and tenants returned to claim

produce from the land and dominium from the tenants for their periods spent

away.50

More than likely the failure to support the burdens and dues as well as

the loss of tenants would have greatly helped to undermine the economic

position and power of the erenach. In some cases this would have come about as

a result of internal sept rivalries, but in other cases it was due to secular or

46 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, no. 12.47 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, no. 11.48 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 368, no. 3, 369, no. 16, 370, nos 6, 18.49 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 368.50 The relevant decrees for 1430 are nos 11, 13, 14 and 15.

Ciaran O Scea

282

episcopal interference.51 In the mid-fifteenth century the erenach of Clones wasforced to complain to the archbishop of Armagh that Ross Maguire, Bishop ofClogher ‘had absolved those who were excommunicated for non-payment ofdominium due to him and that he had abetted a certain Mathew Mac Molynd inhis possession of certain lands despite his non-payment of dominium’.52

Nor was this problem confined to the diocese of Clogher. It was alsofound in the diocese of Armagh where it was, along with lay encroachments andthe collection of tithes, a veritable bone of contention.53 The widespread non-payment of rents by both tenants and erenachs as well as the concealing oftithes, which becomes increasingly evident during the course of the fifteenthcentury, demonstrates a degree of economic instability.54 In some cases this wascaused by lay impositions, but in other cases episcopal interference, poverty ofbenefices, exactions of the erenach, the imposition of tithes and other economicfactors will have contributed.55

Since the erenach had serious problems exacting rents from his tenants,it is only logical that the bishops and archbishops should have had seriousproblems in the same regard with the erenachs and the other officials of theChurch. This is increasingly reflected in many erenach charters from the earlypart of the fifteenth century onwards. In many of the charters as well as in otherland charters a clause was inserted giving the relevant incumbent the right torepossess the lands if the rents were unpaid for more than two to three weeks.56

Nevertheless it was clearly not convenient to attempt deprivations of erenach-ships for the non-payment of rents. To have done so would have alienated thevery people on whom the bishop or archbishop depended for the collection oftithes and other dues. Hence, it is no surprise that the bishops were inclined tolive off their refections rather than off their rents.

Increasingly, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Church found itnecessary to insert clauses in erenach charters designed to forestall any threat toits interests. At first this consisted of inserting a clause giving the Church the

51 O’Sullivan, ‘Clogher constitutions’, 369, no. 12.52 Mey’s register, xciii, no. 273; for other examples of an erenach not able to enforce his

writ because of the opposition of other erenachs or sept segments, see Swayne’s register,

47�8, 96�7.53 On lay encroachments of church-lands see Katherine Simms, ‘The archbishop of

Armagh and the O’Neills 1347�1471’, Irish Historical Studies 19 (1974�75), 38�55;

O Scea, ‘The system of erenach landholding’, 55�61.54 Little has been written on the influence of tithes on the medieval or early-modernIrish economy. For the case of Dublin see James Murray, ‘The sources of clerical

income in the Tudor diocese of Dublin c. 1530�1660’, Archivium Hibernicum 46 (1991�2), 139�60.55 Exactions by Owen O’Reilly on erenach lands in the diocese of Kilmore was behind

the concealing of tithes in 1428. Swayne’s register, 97.56 Swayne’s register, 65, 85, 100; Mey’s register, no. 368; Dowdall’s Liber Niger, 60�1.


283

right to re-enter the lands if the rents were unpaid within the stated period. But

this would seem to have put a question over the Church’s legal rights to interfere

with the lands, as it then became standard practice to insert another clause

protecting the legal standing of the relevant bishop or archbishop, such as

‘nevertheless, it is not our purpose, in these our grant, constitution and

ordinance, to include anything derogatory to our power, or that of our

Successors, in regard to a new entry connected with a new grant or investiture,

whenever there may be occasion for it’.57 Certainly by the mid-sixteenth century

the combined effects of lay encroachments, difficulties in exacting rents from

tenants and erenachs, the impositions of Scottish mercenaries, shortage of

tenants, internal family feuds and the English religious and political threat had

led to the need to insert a clause in the charters threatening excommunication

against all opposition to the enchartered erenach.58 This represented a new

departure, as threats of excommunications previously only came about after a

long series of warnings, and only then against notoriously recalitrant offenders.At a broad level erenach charters, which represented the legal frame-

work that defined the economic organisation of the erenachships throughout

Gaelic Ulster, underwent a long process of development that reflected the

historical transitions and pressures that both church-lands and their tenants

had to undergo. At the same time, however, there exist considerable gaps in our

knowledge of the process of the transfer of church-lands from the monasteries

to the erenachs, the origins of the erenach septs and their relationship to the

diocesan hierarchy. For this reason a microstudy of the system in medieval

Fermanagh helps to throw light on the internal workings of the erenachships.

The Lordship ofFermanagh*acase study

Background

The medieval Lordship of Fermanagh was unique among all the Ulster political

entities of the Middle Ages in that not only was it not shired until the late

sixteenth century, but throughout the medieval period its borders were

continually being redefined. From the early-medieval period through to the

late sixteenth century this geographical region was regarded as consisting of

two distinct areas: one of Lough Erne and its surrounding area, and the other

called Fermanagh, which lay to the east of Lough Erne, dominated by the

Mheig Uidhir.59 The history of this lordship is marked by the expansion of

57 King, Memoir introductory to the early history, 38.58 See for example Dowdall’s Liber Niger, 60�1.59 Gearoid Mac Niocaill (ed.), The red book of the earls of Kildare (Dublin, 1964), no.

85; Richard Butler (ed.), Tracts relating to Ireland (2 vols, Dublin, 1842), vol. 2, 24;

Roderic O’Flaherty, A choreographical description of west or h-iar Connaught, written AD

1684, (Dublin, 1846), 349�50.

Ciaran O Scea

284

settlement into this frontier zone from Airghialla, Tyrone and Connaught, and

the subsequent extension of the Mag Uidhir lordship over the west side of

Lough Erne.60

Politically, the county of Fermanagh was divided at the end of the

sixteenth century by the English surveyors into seven principal baronies

(Magheraboy, Clanawley, Knockninny, Clankelly, Magherastephana, the half

barony of Tirkennedy, the half barony of Coole, and Lurg). Although these

divisions are of English origin, they do correspond to equivalent Gaelic

medieval tribal divisions.61 In the annals most of the barony names occur quite

late, thus indicating that many though not all of these divisions originated in

the late medieval period. A comparison with the medieval parish boundaries

(Fig. 1) confirms this.62 It is very noticeable how so many of the medieval

parishes are not contained within the barony boundaries, but actually cross into

other baronies. This contrasts markedly with the situations in Donegal, Tyrone

and Cavan, where the creation of parish and barony boundaries appears to have

occurred contemporaneously.63

In terms of land quality, it is evident from the data for the Plantation in

Fermanagh that those baronies with the highest proportions of profitable land

were predominantly on the east side of Lough Erne, in particular Clankelly,

Coole and Tirkennedy.64 The exception to this situation was Knockninny,

which lay on the south-west side of the Upper Lough. The three former

mentioned baronies together with Magherastephana were the most settled areas

in 1609.65

60 On the Maguires see Katherine Simms, ‘Medieval kingdom of Lough Erne’, Clogher

Record 9 (1977), 126�41. There is an updated version of this article entitled ‘Medieval

Fermanagh’, in E.M. Murphy and W.J. Roulston (eds), Fermanagh: history and society:

interdisciplinary essays on the history of an Irish county (Dublin, 2004), 77�104.61 Nollaig O Muraile, ‘Barony names of Fermanagh and Monaghan’, Clogher Record

11 (1984), 387�94: 389. See also the barony map of Fermanagh in the same, 391.62 This map was constucted from the parish bounds given in Hardiman, Inquisitionum

repertorium, and the Down Survey Maps for the baronies of Clanawley and Maghera-boy. For those doubtful areas not covered by either sources recourse was made to the

introduction in P.J. Duffy, Landscapes of south Ulster (Belfast, 1993); Hardiman,

Inquisitionum repertorium, app. vi; Ordinance Survey Office, Down survey maps for

county Fermanagh: the baronies of Magheraboy, Magherastephana, and Clanawley

(Southampton, 1908).63 See Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, apps ii, v, vii.64 Clankelly contained 5,000 profitable acres out of 30,922 acres, Lurg and Cool-

mckernan contained 9,000 out of 82,939, Knockninny contained 9,000 out of 30,604,Magheraboy contained 9,000 out of 94,171, Clanawley contained 6,000 out of 75,469,

and Coole and Tirkennedy contained 10,000 out of 75,702 Plantation acres. Harold T.

Masterson, ‘Land-use patterns and farming practice in County Fermanagh, 1609�1845’, Clogher Record 7 (1969), 56�88: 65.65 John Johnson, ‘Settlement patterns in County Fermanagh, 1610�60’, Clogher

Record 10 (1980), 199�210: 199.


285

Settlement

The modern-day county of Fermanagh first became settled in the pre-Christian

period, though substantial in-migration did not occur before the eleventh

century. Prior to 800 AD the principal settlers on the west side of Lough Erne

were tribal groups of Connaught origin, while on the east side they were for the

most part of Airghialla origin.66 The Monaigh, who gave their name to the

medieval lordship, were reputed to have emigrated from Leinster to Lough Erne

in the first half of the sixth century. In the ninth and tenth centuries the most

significant migrations were those of Muintir Pheodacain into Clanawley, and

the Uı Lugain into Magherastephana.67 At this early stage the title Rı Fer

Manach was confined to the tuathas of Magherastephana, Clankelly, Tirken-

nedy and Coole. It was not until the late thirteenth century that the first real

expansion of the medieval lordship of the Fir Manach took place under the first

Mag Uidhir king, Donn Carrach.68 Over the following century the Mheig

Uidhir extended their control south over Clankelly to the Monaghan border,

FIG. 1*Late-medieval parishes of the lordship of Fermanagh.

66 On the early secular settlement see Livingstone, The Fermanagh story, 5�8.67 Paul Walsh, ‘The chieftains of Fermanagh’, in Colm O’ Lochlainn (ed.), Irish chiefs

and leaders (Dublin, 1960), 1�57: 1�13.68 Simms, ‘Kingdom of Lough Erne’, 126�9; Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 19�22.

Ciaran O Scea

286

over Knockninny to the border with Leitrim and over much of the western side

of Lough Erne.69

Helen Brannigan, in a pioneering dissertation on pre-Plantation and

post-Plantation County Tyrone, has shown that there is a relationship between

ballyboe or town-land density per barony, population density, the numbers of

troops raised during the Nine Years War and nineteenth-century land

valuation.70 She also demonstrated that Hugh O Neill’s barony of Dungannon

contained by far and away the greatest density of ballyboes and was able to

muster the greatest numbers of troops. The barony of Dungannon, moreover,

contained the greatest density of parishes per barony in County Tyrone.71 This

same relationship was apparent in County Cavan, where the important O

Raghallaigh barony of Lough Tee contained the greatest density of town-lands

in the county, and the greatest concentration of parishes per barony.72

Evidently, the lord who controlled the barony with the highest town-land

density would be most likely to ensure his dominance over the lordship.73

One of the principal sources of Helen Brannigan’s study was Josiah

Bodley’s Barony Maps of the Escheated Counties of Ulster.74 These are very

important maps for understanding the social, topographical and ecclesiastical

structure of Gaelic Ireland at the end of the medieval period. They outline the

town-land divisions or their equivalent by barony of the escheated counties.

More importantly, they locate in a geographical context the land belonging to

69 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 28�31.70 Helen Brannigan, ‘A geographical study of pre-Plantation and post-Plantation

Tyrone’, B.Ed. dissertation (Carysfort College Blackrock, 1979); see also PhilipRobinson, ‘The Ulster Plantation and its impact on the settlement pattern of County

Tyrone’, in Charles Dillon and Henry A. Jefferies (eds), Tyrone history and society

(Dublin, 2000), 233�66: 238.71 Brannigan, ‘Pre-Plantation and post-Plantation Tyrone’, 10�12, 26; the barony of

Dungannon contained 15 out of Tyrone’s 33 parishes. Hardiman, Inquisitionum

repertorium, app. ii.72 The barony of Lough Tee contained 368 town-lands on Josiah Bodley’s maps which

is more than double that of Lough Oughter (155). Lough Tee barony also contained 10of Cavan’s 28 parishes. The barony of Kilmacrenan in County Donegal, which was so

central to O Domhnaill control, contained 13 out of Donegal’s 39 parishes. Hardiman,

Inquisitionum Repertorium, apps v, vii; Henry James (ed.), Maps of the escheated

counties of Ireland 1609 (Southampton, 1861).73 The same relationship was apparent in the Desmond earldom in North Kerry. On

this see Patrick J. O’Connor, ‘North County Kerry: territorial organisation and

settlement before c. 1600’, unpublished PhD thesis, 2 vols, University College Dublin,

1979, vol. 1, 109�10, 113.74 On these maps see J.H. Andrews, ‘Maps of the Escheated Counties’ in Proceedings of

the Royal Irish Academy Section C 74 (1974), 133�70; a facsimile version of the

originals which are kept in Southampton was published by Henry James in 1861. See fn.

73. A copy of unbound originals are located in the Public Record Office of Northern

Ireland (PRONI). PRONI, T. 1652, Joshiah Bodley’s 1609 Barony Maps of the

Escheated Counties.


287

the Church, hereby representing a photographic imprint of the Gaelic land

structure in the early seventeenth century.It has already been shown in the case of Tyrone that the distribution of

these town-lands coincides with the numbers of town-lands in the 1608

Inquisition and with the numbers of town-lands in the Hearth Money Rolls.75

In the case of Fermanagh, Bodley’s maps cannot be correlated to the 1608

Inquisition for a number of reasons.76 Nonetheless, the Hearth Money Rolls for

County Fermanagh, though existing for only one barony, confirm Bodley’s

barony map of the same area.77

An analysis of Bodley’s 1609 barony maps of Fermanagh shows that the

average town-land density per barony in Fermanagh was considerably lower

than that of County Tyrone.78 Even the barony of Clankelly, which contained

the highest number of town-lands per barony in Fermanagh (147), had half the

number of town-lands than the least dense Tyrone barony.79 Next to Clankelly

the remaining baronies were Clanawley (126); Magherastephana, Coole and

Tirkennedy (104); Knockninny (126); Lurg (98) and Magheraboy (88). Thus the

county of Fermanagh contained a total of 679 town-lands or tates in 1609,

which was considerably below the figure of 1,493 town-lands or ballyboes for

County Tyrone.80 A similar contrast is also apparent in terms of parish

distribution. In 1609 Fermanagh contained a total of eighteen parishes, five of

which lay predominantly outside Fermanagh.81 Even after taking into

consideration the different acreages of the relative counties, it is clear that in

comparison with other Ulster lordships the lordship of Fermanagh suffered

from severe underpopulation, a situation that was confirmed by Sir John Davies

when he noted how ‘Maguire had to hire his soldiers out of Breifne’.82

75 Brannigan, ‘Pre-Plantation and post-Plantation Tyrone’, 10.76 For all of the Ulster counties there is broad agreement between the 1603 Survey, the

1608 Inquisition, and Bodley’s 1609 maps of the escheated counties. In contrast

the 1608 Inquisition for Fermanagh halves the acerages of church-lands compared to

the other surveys, and doubles the number of town-lands compared to those on

Bodley’s maps. For this Inquisition see Irish Manuscripts Commission (eds), ‘Ms.Rawlinson A. 237. The Bodleian library, Oxford’, Analecta Hibernica 3 (1931), 151�218: 192�203.77 Only the complete records for the Barony of Lurg survive. In this case there are 124

town-lands listed. On Bodley’s Map of Lurg there are 98. The difference can be

accounted for by the greater area covered by the Hearth Money Rolls whereas Bodley’s

map of Lurg covered a smaller area. Padraig O Gallachair, ‘Hearth money rolls:

County Fermanagh’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 207�14.78 See the map of 1609 town-land density per square mile in Philip S. Robinson, The

Plantation of Ulster (Dublin, 1984), 15.79 The barony of Clogher had 259 town-lands, Omagh had 283, and part of the barony

of Dungannon had 372 town-lands. James, Maps of the escheated counties.80 Brannigan, ‘Pre-Plantation and post-Plantation Tyrone’, 10.81 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 43.82 Davies, ‘Letter to the earl of Salisbury’, 370.

Ciaran O Scea

288

To an even greater degree than secular expansion did, ecclesiastical

settlement left its mark on the medieval Fermanagh landscape, with the earliest-

known ecclesiastical settlements dating to the sixth and seventh centuries.

Moreover, it was these early monks who gave most of the medieval parish

names to Fermanagh.83 For the most part, the vast majority of the parishes had

their centres on Lough Erne and conform to the Gaelic pattern of large

unwieldy units with sometimes detached portions.84

Further insights into the process of ecclesiastical expansion in the

medieval period can be had by examining the ecclesiastical placename elements

in modern topography. In Fermanagh the most common ecclesiastical

placename is cill, which historians date to the pre-twelfth century monastic

period.85 Although it is found in other parts of Fermanagh, its principal

FIG. 2*Cill place name element distribution.

83 Donall Mac Giolla Easpaig, ‘Placenames and early settlement in County Donegal’,

in William Nolan, Liam Ronayne, and Mairead Dunlevy (eds), Donegal, history and

society, interdisciplinary essays in the history of an Irish county (Dublin, 1995), 149�82:

162.84 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 43; on the origins of the medieval parishes see P.J.

Duffy, ‘The shape of the parish’, in Elizabeth FitzPatrick and Raymond Gillespie (eds),

The parish in medieval and early modern Ireland (Dublin, 2006), 33�61.85 Deirdre Flanagan, ‘Ecclesiastical nomenclature in Irish texts and placenames: a

comparison’ in Proceedings of the tenth International Congress of Onomastic Science

(1969), vol. 5, 355�88: 381.


289

FIG. 3*Land-unit place name elements distribution.

FIG. 4*Erenachships and coarbships in the medieval lordship of Fermanagh.

Ciaran O Scea

290

distribution (Fig. 2) is confined to those areas in the south close to Lough Erne

such as Kinawley/ Galloon/ Drumully/ Clones, which did not originally form

part of the Fir Manach territory, to the Mag Uidhir heartland of Aghalurcher/

Derrybrusk, and to the Rossorry/ Iniskeen area.86 All three constituted areas of

high town-land density and medium-to-high land values (see below) in 1609.

Similarly, a comparison with the distribution of land-unit placename elements

such as tate, gort, baile and tir (Fig. 3) shows striking concentrations in these

areas.87

There furthermore exists a broad correlation between the distribution of

cill elements and the distribution of erenachships and coarbships (Fig. 4) and

medieval church sites (Fig. 5) on the east side of Lough Erne, but not on the

west side.88 In terms of the latter there is broad agreement between cill

distribution and medieval church sites but not with either the erenachships and

FIG. 5*Medieval church sites.

86 Based predominantly on Duffy, Landscapes. For those areas not covered by Duffy

use has been made of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland town-land maps.

Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, Index map of Fermanagh (in 2 Sections),

showing townlands and other administrative boundaries (Belfast, 1952).87 The relationship between cill and land unit elements, high town-land density, andhigh land values is also found in North Kerry. O’Connor, ‘Territorial organisation and

settlement’, vol. 2, figs 18, 19.88 The map of erenachships and coarbships was constructed from references in the

annals, the 1603 Survey, the 1609 Inquisition, P.S. Dinneen’s Me Guidhir Fearmanach

(Dublin, 1917), and Padraig O Maolagain (ed.), ‘The early history of Fermanagh’,

Clogher Record 1 (1953�6), 131�40, 2 (1957�9), 50�70, 280�92; the map of medieval


291

coarbships or the land unit placename elements. This sharp contrast may

indicate that the initial twelfth-century Reform was confined to the territories

of the Fir Lurg and the Fir Manach, a situation underlined by the late references

to erenachs or even to parsons or vicars in those areas that did not come under

effective Mag UIdhir control until the second half of the fifteenth century.Without doubt the most significant divergence from the distribution of

cill elements is the great concentration of erenachships, parish churches and

chapels of ease stretching from the Cleenish Island/ Derryvullen/ Iniskeen/

Rossorry area westwards as far as Cleenish and Boho in the barony of

Clanwley. From annalistic and topographical references many of the monas-

teries and churches in this new wave of ecclesiastical expansion can be dated to

the eleventh and twelfth centuries.89 Even more striking is the distribution

of medieval church-lands (Fig. 6), which show the great concentrations of

FIG. 6*Distribution of medieval church-lands with their corresponding 1860 land

valuation.

church sites was constructed principally from Dorothy Corry’s list of ancient churches

and graveyards in County Fermanagh. Dorothy Corry, ‘Ancient church sites and

graveyards in County Fermanagh’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland

9 (1919), 35�46, 10 (1920), 183.89 Monasteries were founded at Rossorry and Lisgoole in 1084 and 1106, respectively.

A number of chapels of ease in the barony of Clanawley contain the element tempul,

Ciaran O Scea

292

church-lands running westwards from the detached portion of Derryvullenparish to Boho, and northwards along both sides of Lough Erne to the extremelimit of the other detached portion of Devenish parish.90 By and large theselands correspond to the two medieval monasteries of Lisgoole and Devenish,with the addition of the erenachships of Cleenish and Boho.

The church-lands

Based on Bodley’s 1609 barony maps, almost 20% or 138 town-lands out of atotal of 679 town-lands were church-lands, which is in keeping with the figure of25% for Tyrone.91 In County Tyrone and to a large extent in CountyRoscommon, one of the most notable features of the medieval church-landsis their predominant location in areas of low town-land density and low landvalue.92

The same observation regarding location of church-lands in areas oflow town-land density applies to Fermanagh, but this needs to be qualified inregard to land value and distribution.93 First, church-lands consisted of 22,926acres (216 town-lands) divided relatively equally between the east and west sidesof Lough Erne.94 Second, certain parishes possessed the greatest concentrationof church-lands (1,000�3,400 acres each), all of which, apart from Aghalurcher,were centered around one principal monastery.95 Slightly less than a quarter(5,430 acres per 52 town-lands) of this land belonged to the four monasteries

which historians date to 1050�1200. Annala Uladh 1084, 1100; O Maolagain, ‘Early

history of Fermanagh’, Clogher Record 2, 289; Flanagan, ‘Ecclesiastical nomenclature

in Irish texts’, 382; Viator, ‘Parish of Cleenish: district of Holywell’, Clogher Record 2(1957�9), 138�47: 145.90 This map contains the identifiable medieval church-lands with their land value based

on Griffith’s valuation. Due, however, to the unavailability of any Down Survey Maps

for the Barony of Knockninny, the extensive Down Survey church-lands of Kinawley

are not included. For a more detailed analysis of the value of the medieval church-lands

see O Scea, ‘The system of erenach landholding’, 79�83, 109�13; Sir Richard John

Griffiths, General valuation of rateable property in Ireland (Dublin, Irish Microfilms,

1978).91 Robinson, Plantation of Ulster, 195.92 Brannigan, ‘Pre-Plantation and post-Plantation Tyrone’, maps 2.2, 2.3, 2.7; Patrick

J. Carty, ‘The Historical geography of county Roscommon’, unpublished MA thesis,

University College Dublin, 1970, 43, figs 4, 6, 32, 49; Robert C. Simington (ed.), Books

of survey and distribution (4 vols, Dublin, 1949�67), vol. 1: County of Roscommon, 132.93 Based on Griffiths Valuation. The only comparable seventeenth-century sources are

the Books of Survey and Distribution but for County Fermanagh only the parishes of

Aghalurcher and Aghavea are completely covered. The data for these parishesnevertheless confirms Griffith’s Valuation. Padraig O Maolagain, ‘Book of survey

and distribution: Barony of Magherastephana’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 524�43.94 The town-lands in this analysis are modern town-lands, based on the indices to

Griffith’s Valuation, which have been identified as medieval church-lands.95 Aghalurcher, Boho, Cleenish, Derryvullen, Devenish, Magheraculmoney, Rossorry

and Trory.


293

who had lands in Fermanagh. In general the monasteries managed to retain themost valuable lands, though never completely. Some 34% of the most valuablechurch-lands in Fermanagh (above sixteen shillings per acre) were held bymonastic institutions of which the monasteries of Devenish and Lisgoole heldthe lion’s share. The majority of the remaining church-lands of high value werelocated, significantly, in the immediate neighbourhood of both these monas-teries. All told, this concentration of high land values is indicative of anunderlying economic motive in the original location of these monasteries.

The erenach lands consisted of 17,282 acres (164 town-lands) in total.Some 80% of these town-lands were less than 150 acres, while only 7% were inexcess of 200 acres. The average town-land size in the erenachships was 105acres with ten town-lands being the mean average in each erenachship. Moresignificantly, there existed a relationship between the number of erenach septsand the total acreage of the erenachships. This varied from a minimum of 100acres per sept to 500 acres for two septs, or over 1,000 acres for three or moresepts. At the same time variations on this general rule were evident, such as thatof the low-to-medium land-value erenachship of Boho (1,388 acres) sharedbetween two septs.

The largest erenachships were Devenish (3,182 acres), Cleenish (2,425acres), Derryvullen (1,917 acres), and Rossorry (1,266 acres). In the case ofCleenish and Derryvullen the average acreage was very high, which explainshow they were able to support twelve erenach septs as well as the remains ofother septs who had been superseded as erenachs at the beginning of theseventeenth century.96 As one moves away from Lisgoole and Devenish, totalacreages in the erenachships drop significantly, especially in the south in thoseareas that did not traditionally form part of the Fir Manach territory.

In terms of land value, 10% of erenach town-lands were valued at lessthan ten shillings per acre, 22% at over sixteen shillings per acre with theremaining 68% located between ten and sixteen shillings per acre. For the mostpart the poorer erenach town-lands were located in the south or on the west sideof Lough Erne. As these figures demonstrate, the majority of the erenach town-lands were of medium land value. By and large, apart from Aghalurcher, thoseerenachships with the greater number of town-lands, greater acreages andcomparatively higher land values were located in parishes bordering on or nearto the monasteries of Devenish and Lisgoole.

These differences in terms of acerage and land value are probablyindicative that outside of a hard core of church-lands pertaining to the earlyerenachships acquired from the monasteries of Lisgoole and Devenish, most ofthe erenach church-lands were acquired piecemeal during the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries. This is again underlined by the geographical distribution ofchurch-lands on Bodley’s barony maps. In the first place it is noticeable thatvirtually all the church-lands are contained within the individual baronies anddo not overlap, which is indicative that these lands were granted when thebaronies’ tribal divisions were still in force. Second, it is significant that the

96 For example the detached part of Derryvullen near the island of Cleenish.

Ciaran O Scea

294

biggest clusters of adjoining church town-lands on Bodley’s maps are all

located, with the exception of Galloon, on barony borders to the north, southand west of what was originally the Fir Manach territory. Again, this supports

the idea that the initial transfer of lands as a result of the twelfth-centuryReform was confined to the territories of the Fir Manach, and maybe also to the

Fir Lurg. At the same time the location of these lands on the borders of the

former territory may also indicate that the original lands were meant tofunction as barriers of sanctuary lands against secular incursions.97

The erenach septs

The earliest annalistic entry for a post-Reform erenach in Fermanagh is that of

Rossorry in 1277.98 The following entries are mid- to late fourteenth century for

Iniskeen, Pobal, Arda and Derrybrusk.99 Then in the early fifteenth centurythere are entries for Derryvullen and Cleenish.100 As a general rule it appears

that references to erenachs predate the first references to parsons or vicars inthose parishes with the oldest erenachships such as Rossorry, Devenish,

Iniskeen and Derrybrusk. On the other hand, those cases in which referencesto parsons or vicars predate those for erenachs are indicative of the late

establishment of erenachships such as Cleenish and Derryvullen.Besides the annalistic evidence, an examination of the origins of many

of the erenach septs shows that many, if not most, were not native to

Fermanagh. This is in line with one glossator who interpreted one passage ofearly Irish law to mean that ‘stranger settlers’ could attain the ‘erenach state’ by

hereditary right.101 In the Geinealaighe Fermanach most of the listed clericalfamilies are given a tenth- or eleventh-century origin which is in accordance

with the various waves of settlement. In quite a number of the same genealogiesthere is a reference to an cheadfhear tainic go Fearmanach ar ttus.102 In some

cases it is possible to identify the origins of a number of the clerical families.

The Mheig Arachain, who had attained the erenachship of Boho by the earlyfifteenth century, were of Clankelly origin, as were the Uı Donnachain, the Uı

Gabhann, the Uı Corragain and the Uı Sleibhine, all of whom had moved intoFermanagh in the early-medieval period. 103

The oldest clerical families in Fermanagh were undoubtedly thoseassociated with the coarbship of Devenish. In this regard the Uı Conghaile, the

Uı Taichligh, and to a lesser extent the Uı Corcrain were the most prominent.

97 James, Maps of the escheated counties.98 Annala Uladh 1277.99 Annala Uladh 1352, 1384, 1396; ‘Register of Clogher’, 403.100 Annala Uladh 1400, 1420.101 Handcock, Ancient laws, vol. 3, 37.102 Labhras O hArain, ‘Geinealaighe Fearmanach’, Analecta Hibernica 3 (1931), 62�150: 137, 145.103 ‘Geinealaighe Fearmanach’, 146; Seosamh O Dufaigh, ‘Families of medieval

Clones’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 385�411: 396�9.


295

All three are listed as coarbs or erenachs in the late-tenth to early-eleventhcentury.104 Later on in the medieval period they all occur as erenachs in eitherCleenish, Rossorry or Devenish.105 On the other hand, the Uı Caiside, thoughpresent in Devenish from the beginning of the twelfth century, had to wait untilthe mid-fourteenth century before becoming erenachs by ousting the MhicCathasaigh from part of their erenach lands.

In contrast to these older families there was a group of septs whodominated the erenachships around the Cleenish Island/ Derryvullen/ En-niskillen area from 1200 onwards. Principal among these were the Uı Breaslain,the Uı Cianain, the Uı Luinın, the Uı hOgain, the Uı Fiaich, and the MhicGilla Coisgle (Cosgrove). The first three of this group were learned families ofoutside origin. The Uı Breaslain were originally territorial lords from Donegalwho migrated to Fermanagh in the post 1200 period.106 The Uı Luinın likewisecame to Fermanagh via Strabane from Donegal around the same time.107 Incontrast the Uı Cianain appear to have come up from Monaghan c. 1300.108

The Uı Fiaich, and the Uı Treasaigh, like a significant number of other familiesor septs, originated in Tyrone.109 The Uı hOgain came up from Sligo in the latetwelfth century or early thirteenth centuries.110

There evidently existed a policy created by the secular lords toencourage other septs to settle in Fermanagh in the medieval period. Thiswas already seen in regards to the learned families by the beginning of thefourteenth century, as one ‘Rory an Einigh Mag Uidhir, Lord of Fermanagh aman who bestowed more silver, apparel, steeds, and cattle on the learned menand chief professors of Ireland than any other of the Sıl Uidhir’.111 Even in thesixteenth century this policy was still being carried out.112 The cultivation of thelearned families and learning by the Maguire chieftains clearly had its roots inthe twelfth-century Reform of the Gaelic Church, whereby the creation of alearned ecclesiastical elite became imperative in order to fill all the newparsonages and vicarages. Learnedness essentially consisted in the ability toread and write in Latin, much commented upon by Davies, Montgomery andUssher in regard to all the erenachs.113 Most likely an enfranchisement viaecclesiastical learning of daer tenants took place in accordance with theprecepts of early Irish Law.114 However, even if it was the Church that gained

104 Annala Uladh 984, 1001, 1049.105 Annala Uladh 1277, 1434; Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. vi, col. 7.106 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 426.107 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 431.108 Annala Uladh 1348, 1400; Peadar Livingstone, The Monaghan story (Enniskillen,

1980), 75.109 Livingstone, Fermanagh story, 427, 444; Annala Uladh 1365, 1483.110 O Maolagain, ‘Early history of Fermanagh’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 284.111 Annala rıoghachta Eireann 1338.112 O Maolagain, ‘Early history of Fermanagh’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 287.113 Barry, ‘Status of coarbs and erenachs’, 150.114 Hancock, Ancient laws, vol. 3, 31, 41; Liam Breatnach (ed.), Uraicecht na Riar, the

poetic grades in early Irish law (Dublin, 1987), 46.

Ciaran O Scea

296

most from the cultivation of learning, the secular lords also gained legitimacythrough the services of the erenach learned families.

It is a mistake to presume, as many secondary writers have, following inthe footsteps of Proinsias MacCana, that the fact that many learned familieswere erenachs is proof that the former developed out of monastic establish-ments. As we have already seen, most of the learned families were late arrivals inFermanagh, and had been accepted as natives through long-term residence. Onthe contrary, the evidence from the annals indicates attempts by the non-poeticlearned families to give themselves a pseudo-ecclesiastical legitimacy throughthe adoption of religious epithets such as gilla na naem or gilla na n-aingil intheir obits, or to use the prefix saer which might be indicative of havinggraduated from the daernemed to the saernemed priveleged class.115 In contrast,the poetic families made no use of such epithets or prefixes, but instead usednames that recalled famous mythological or literary satirists, or martial namesadopted from their patrons. At the same time, none of the post-Reform learnedpoetic families became erenachs apart from one exception.116

The final and probably the most important element relating to theorigin and institution of the erenach septs was their role within the diocesanhierarchy of Clogher. From an examination of data relating to 512 ecclesiasticalappointments (1200�1596) to either the cathedral chapter of Clogher or tothe Fermanagh parts of the diocese, a certain number of features stand out.117

The first feature is the extent to which the erenach septs not only provided thediocesan clergy, as already noted by Katharine Simms, but also made up themajority of the cathedral chapter prior to the inroads made by the cadetbranches of the Mheig Uidhir, Mheig Mathgamna and the Uı Flanagain fromthe beginning of the fifteenth century. A similar pattern in regards to theintrusion of the cadet branches is apparent in the case of the parsonages,though not of the vicarages, which remained largely in the hands of the erenachfamilies throughout the period.

A second feature found among the data was how in the majority ofcases, the presence of members of erenach families as monks, as diocesan clergyor as members of the cathedral chapter precede first references to thesesurnames as erenach septs. Hence the control of the important position ofarchdeacon appears to have played a fundamental role in the institution of theerenach septs. In quite a significant number of cases references to the holders ofthis position preceded references to the institution of the same surname as anerenach sept, for example Nicholas Mac Cathasaigh was archdeacon in 1319

115 AFM 1335, 1345, 1447; AU 1406, 1429, 1450, 1484; Proinsias Mac Cana, ‘The rise

of the later schools of Filidhecht’, Eriu 25 (1974), 126�46: 133.116 Annala Uladh 1465; Annala rıoghachta Eireann 1452; P.A. Breatnach, ‘The chief ’spoet’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section C 83 (1983), 37�79: 53; on this

exception (the O Fialan) see below.117 Based on Annala Uladh, Annala rıoghachta Eireann, and Calender of entries; for an

overview of the diocese of Clogher see Brendan Smith, ‘The late medieval diocese of

Clogher’, in Henry A. Jefferies (ed.), History of the diocese of Clogher (Dublin, 2005),

70�80.


297

and the Mhic Cathasaighs had become erenachs of Derryvullen by 1411,Ruaidhri O Caiside was archdeacon in the late fifteenth and early sixteenthcenturies and the Uı Caiside became erenachs during the course of the lattercentury. A further important feature was the role of marriage alliances inhelping families to gain access to erenachships.

All these elements are best illustrated in regards to particular casestudies. One such case was that of Maurice Mag Uidhir, who when he died in1423 was archdeacon of Clogher, parson of Aghalurcher, and tigerna oroverlord of Cleenish and Rossorry.118 It remains evident that the acquisition ofthese positions was bound up with the control of the cathedral chapter ofClogher. His father, son and grandson were all archdeacons of Clogher, whichwould have given the family unparalled access to this centre of ecclesiasticalpower.119 One of the key factors in Maurice’s rise to power was his marriage tothe daughter of Artur Mac Cathmaoil, one-time archdeacon and later bishop ofClogher in 1389.120 The latter’s influence without doubt lay behind Mauricebecoming tigerna or principal erenach of Cleenish and Rossorry.

One of the traditional methods used by Maurice’s family and by otheraspiring ecclesiastical careerists was to target the richer parsonages such asIniskeen and Derryvullen as a first step to achieving higher ecclesiasticalpositions.121 Part of the reason for this was the inability of the Mheig Uidhir tobreak into the erenachship or the parsonage of Aghalurcher in the MheigUidhir heartland, owing to the influence of the same Mac Cathmaoil bishop ofClogher, one of whose sons was parson of Aghalurcher in the 1420s.122

Following the example set by Maurice Mag Uidhir, his son Pierce, with the aidof his grandfather, the same bishop of Clogher, was able to oust on variousoccasions the traditional erenach families of Uı Luinın, Uı Banain and the UıhOgain from the parsonages of Derryvullen and Iniskeen during the seconddecade of the fifteenth century.123 This was followed by Pierce Mag Uidhir’selevation to the position of archdeacon in 1423 and to bishop in 1433 on thedeaths of his father and grandfather respectively.124

Although the influence of the Mac Cathmaoil marriage alliance wasapparent in the careers of both Maurice and Pierce, other marriage alliancesalso played important roles in the success of their dynasty. Chief among thesewas a series of marriages to the O Breaslain erenach family, brehons of

118 Annala Uladh 1423.119 H.J. Lawlor (ed.), ‘A calendar of the register of archbishop Swetman’, Proceedings

of the Royal Irish Academy Section C 29 (1911�12), 213�310, no. 47; Annala Uladh

1471; J.B. Leslie, Clogher clergy and parishes (Enniskillen, 1929), 41.120 Annala Uladh 1427; Mooney, Church in Gaelic Ireland, 57�8.121 Henry A. Jefferies,‘Papal letters and Irish clergy: Clogher before the Reformation’,in Henry A. Jefferies (ed.), History of the diocese of Clogher (Dublin, 2005), 81�107: 96.122 Calender of entries, 355�6.123 Leslie, Clogher clergy, 157�8, 190; Calender of entries 6, 232, 478; Swayne’s register,

96, 104.124 James McKenna, Diocese of Clogher : parochial records (2 vols, Enniskillen, 1920),

vol. 2, 58; Calender of entries 7, 42.

Ciaran O Scea

298

Fermanagh. One of the brothers of Pierce, who became abbot of Lisgoole, wasmarried to the daughter of the O Breaslain. Pierce’s son Edmond, whosucceeded him as archdeacon within a few years of his death, had a daughterand a cousin who married into the same brehon family.125 This connection withMaurice’s family evidently aided the Uı Breaslain, as by the mid-fifteenthcentury they had become arch-erenachs of Derryvullen. Moreover, theconnection most likely contributed to the demise of the Uı Banain, who by1603 had been replaced by the Uı Canain of Donegal.126

The importance of marriage connections between potential erenachfamilies and the centres of ecclesiastical patronage can be seen in the case ofanother ecclesiastical dynasty, that of the Mac Maghnusa of Bellisle, firstelectors to the Mheig Uidhir.127 Besides political marriages into the most seniorMag Uidhir line, the Mhic Gaffraigh who were second electors to the Maguires,and the daughter of the bishop of Kilmore, the Mhic Maghusa alsointermarried with the erenach septs. Cathal og (1438�98), the compiler of theAnnals of Ulster and bishop’s vicar from 1483 to 1498, had two sisters marriedsuccessively to two chiefs of the Uı Fialan, ollamhs in poetry to the MheigUidhir and erenachs of Boho.128 One of Cathal og’s uncles had becomearchdeacon of Clogher on the elevation of Pierce Mag Uidhir to the bishopricin 1433.129 At the same time, a sister of the earlier O Fialan chief had marriedinto one of the main lines of the Uı Breaslain.130 In the case of the Uı Fialansept their marriages to the Mhic Maghnusa predate their first reference aserenachs of Boho by over 30 years, making it likely that that they attained theirerenachship either directly via Mac Maghnusa ecclesiastical influence, orindirectly via the O Breaslain connection to the Maurice Mag Uidhirecclesiastical dynasty.131 One early eighteenth century source states that theUı Fialan received the lands of Boho from the Uı Flanagain. The former thenpresumably granted it to the bishop in a form of ecclesiastical ‘surrender andregrant’ in order to ensure its protection, for which there existed precedents.132

According to the early-eighteenth century Fermanagh genealogies, the othererenach of Boho, the Mheig Arachain, trace their origins to the first erenach ofthat name who died in 1431, which was more or less contemporaneous with thefirst marriage of the O Fialan to the Mhic Maghnusa.133

Conclusion Both the evidence from the erenachships across Ulster as well as the Fermanaghcase study demonstrate that an enfranchisement of nativi septs on church-lands

125 Calender of entries 10, 695; Leslie, Clogher clergy, 42.126 Annala Uladh 1420, 1447, 1495, 1500; Hardiman, Inquisitionum repertorium, app. vi,

col. 4.127 O Maolagain, ‘Early history of Fermanagh’, Clogher Record 2 (1957�9), 281.128 Annala Uladh 1454, 1498, 1501.129 Leslie, Clogher clergy, 41, 158.130 Annala Uladh 1478, 1495.131 Annala Uladh 1483.132 O Maolagain, ‘Early history of Fermanagh’, 280; ‘Register of Clogher’, 400�3.133 ‘Geinealaighe Fearmanach’, 146; Annala Uladh 1431.


299

took place as a result of the twelfth-century Reform, partly to provide a stableincome for the reformed Church but also to furnish an ecclesiastical elite for thediocesan hierarchy. At the same time, despite the limitations on the bishop’spower over the erenachs, both the bishop and the cathedral chapter exercisedconsiderable power and influence over the erenachs, the parsons and the vicars.The presence of so many members of the erenach septs within the diocesanhierarchy, however, also gave the ecclesiastical structure its stability by acting asa brake on the worst abuses of bishops and of secular cadet branches carvingout ecclesiastical dynasties.

An examination of the pattern of ecclesiastical settlement and itsgeographical distribution in the lordship of Fermanagh demonstrates that thetransfer of church-lands from the monastic establishments and secular lordswas a phased process. The initial and biggest phase appears to have been limitedto the Fir Manach early-medieval territory, whereas the later transfers occurredin a piecemeal fashion. In contrast to the early-medieval ecclesiastical settlers,who sought areas of high town-land density, the majority of the erenach septswere located in areas of lower town-land density, of medium-to-high land valueconcentrated either around the medieval monasteries of Lisgoole and Devenish,or in the newly-settled barony of Clanawley on the west side of Lough Erne.

The evidence of erenachship distribution, their starting dates and thenon-Fermanagh origin of many of the erenach septs indicates a phased patternto the creation of the erenachships. It furthermore underlines the problemsrelating to underpopulation that this border area suffered from, whichpresumably the institution of the system of erenach septs was meant to helpsolve, at least in part. The analysis of the members of the diocesan hierarchyalso underlines the important role exercised by the cathedral chapter ininstituting new erenach septs or in supplanting old ones, especially via themedium of marriage alliances.

Finally, at a pan-Ulster level it is clear that the system began to showstress fractures in the late-medieval period. These were primarily related tounderpopulation and manifested themselves in terms of problems relating tothe shortage of tenants, the payment of rents and tithes, lay encroachments ofchurch-lands and the imposition of Scottish mercenaries. All these problems arereflected in the erenach charters, which encapsulated the erenach’s legal status,conditions of service and its development.

Ciaran O Scea

300

Erenachs, Erenachships, and Church Landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270-1609

Documents

Transcript of Erenachs, Erenachships, and Church Landholding in Gaelic Fermanagh, 1270-1609