Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:14:31.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two contemporary historians of the Confederation of Kilkenny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Patrick J. Corish
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the decade of the 1650's many of the Irish confederate leaders, lay and ecclesiastical, found themselves exiles in Europe. In exile, they naturally turned again to the disputes which had disrupted the confederation and had helped to make Cromwell's campaign easier than it might otherwise have been. These disputes grew more and more bitter in the disappointment of defeat; and no matter what point they started from, they had a way of returning to the censures which the papal nuncio, Rinuccini, had pronounced on 27 May 1648. These censures had divided the confederation beyond hope of reunion; even after ten years, they were still regarded by one party as having been justly inflicted, necessary for the preservation of the Catholic religion, while the other considered them to have been unjust and invalid, and the real cause of the subsequent overthrow of the confederation.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 31 , March 1953 , pp. 217 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the controversial circumstances in which the censures were invoked, see my article, ‘Rinuccini’s censure of 27 May 1648’, in Ir. Theol Quart., xviii. 322–37 (October 1951).

2 Comment. Rinucc, v. 277.

3 Ibid., v. 246 ff.

4 Cf. ibid., v. 244-77.

5 ‘Ad Sacram Congregationem de Propaganda Fide. Modus et authores eversionis Catholicae religionis et regni Iberniae et nonnulla remedia ad conservandum ibi utriusque reliquias. 5 Martii 1658’

6 Comment. Rinucc, v. 297 ff.

7 Ibid., v 301 ff., 422 ff.

8 Ibid., v 288.

9 Ibid., v. 289 ff.

10 The other was by Nicholas French, bishop of Ferns. It was never printed. A copy, entitled ‘Apologia pro se et aliis catholicis’, is to be found in T.C.D. MS 652 (F.4.20), 2. Lynch knew of it at least in 1667. Cf. Alithinologiae supplementum, p. 94. Cf. also Walsh, Peter, Irish remonstrance, first treatise, pp. 13 f.Google Scholar : ’the contents of which book [O’Ferrall’s memorandum] did so estrange Ferns that he sent to London several papers and books of his own study written against that book, though not yet come to public view from the print. As Father John Lynch, a priest of Galway at St Malos, hath already published his Alithinologia dedicated to the same Congregation de propaganda against it’.

11 Cambrensis eversus, ed. Rev. Kelly, Matthew (3 vols, Dublin, Ir. Arch. & Celt. Soc, 1848–52)Google Scholar; Pit Antistitis icon, ed. Rev. Meehan, C.P. (Dublin, Duffy, 1848 Google Scholar; facsimile edition, Dublin, Ir. MSS Comm., 1952); De praesulibus Hiberniae, ed. Rev. O’Doherty, J.F. (2 vols, Dublin, Ir. MSS. Comm., 1944).Google Scholar

12 Comment. Rinucc., v. 418: ‘nobilissima familia natus’; ibid., pp. 430–1 : ’ familia ci tra contro versiam antiquissima et nobilissima… parentibus nobilissimis licet haereticorum persecutione patrimonio spoliatis’

13 Comment, Rinucc., v. 418–31.

14 Ibid., v 420.

15 McNeill, Cf., Publications of Irish interest published by Irish authors on the continent of Europe prior to the eighteenth century, pp. 37–8Google Scholar, and Kavanagh, , in Comment. Rinucc, v. 485.Google Scholar

16 Comment. Rinucc, v 299.

17 Add. MS 33744.

18 Comment. Rinucc, v- 297.

19 Comment. Rinucc, v- 429.

20 Alithinologiae supplementum : Admonitio ad lectorem.

21 Cf. the following biographical notices : (i) Rev. M. Kelly’s introduction to Cambrensis eversus; (ii) the entry in D.N.B. by Thompson Cooper; (iii) Rev- Ρ Boyle, ‘Lynch’s MS De praesulibus Hiberniae’, in I.E.R., series 4, xii. 233–49 (Sept. 1902); (iv) Rev. J F. O’Doherty’s introduction to De praesulibus Hiberniae; (v) Rev Gwynn, A., ‘John Lynch’s “De praesulibus Hiberniae”’, in Studies, 34 37–52 (1945).Google Scholar

22 McNeill’s hypothesis (Publications, etc., p. 37) that he was of the family of Lynch of Staple in Kent would imply that his family had identified themselves very closely with Galway in one generation. Cf. especially Lynch’s Latin poem, ed. Hardiman, in Ir. Arch. & Celt. Soc, Miscellany, i. 90 ff. (1846)Google Scholar, where he speaks of his wish to return from exile and

post fata, sepulchro

inferri, ante meum quod genus omne tegit

and also his description of Francis Bermingham, O.F.M., as ‘a near relative’ (‘Documents from the archives of St Isidore’s college, Rome’, ed. Rev. Jennings, B., in Anal. Hib., 6. 246 (1934)).Google Scholar

On the other hand, the hypothesis that he was the nephew of Francis Kirwan, bishop of Killala, seems unlikely. To the best of my knowledge, Lynch never mentions the relationship, and a careful reading of the document ‘The pedigree of Dr Dominick Lynch’, ed. Hardiman, in Ir. Arch. & Celt. Soc, Miscellany, 1. 44ff. (1846)Google Scholar seems to exclude so close a relationship at any rate. Certain statements in Pit Antistitis icon tend to support this conclusion; e.g., p. 8, where he says that Bishop Kirwan was born in Galway in 1589, but diem eius natalem nondum comperi, which seems extraordinary ignorance in a nephew born in 1599. Cf. also ibid., p. 35.

23 ‘The intimate description he gives of Alexander Lynch’s school in Galway (De praesulibus Hiberniae, ii. 184) provides some support for the view that the master was also our author’s father’ (O’Doherty, loc. cit.). Cf., however, Gwynn, , loc. cit., pp. 38–9.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Comment. Rinucc, v. 181.

25 In the Latin poem already cited, written probably in 1667, he says :

Quindenas hiemes dulcis me Gallia nutrit

tamque diu patriae finibus exul ago.

Every time a check is available, we find him in St Malo: 1661 (cf. ‘Instructions for William Burgat’, in ‘Miscellaneous documents III’, ed. Rev. Jennings, B. in Archiv. Hib. 15 (1950) 39 Google Scholar; c. 1666 ( Walsh, cf., Irish remonstrance, preface to the reader, p. xliii with First treatise, pp. 13–14)Google Scholar; after 1667 (John Lynch to Francis Harold, O.F.M., in ‘Documents from the archives of St Isidore’s college, Rome as above) ; 1669 (publication of PU Antistitis icon in St Malo in that year).

26 De praesulibus Hiberniae was completed ‘late in 1672’ (O’Boyle, loc. cit.). ‘The pedigree of Dr Dominick Lynch ’ gives the impression that he was dead in 1674.

27 Comment. Rinucc, in. 355.

28 Comment. Rinucc, v. 19.

29 Hardiman, as above.

30 It is especially noteworthy how he tries to avoid controversial issues in the lives of contemporary bishops in De praesulibus Hiberniae; while Pit Antistitis icon passes over almost entirely Bishop Kirwan’s activities in the confederation.

31 The fact that both Alithinologia and Alithinologiae supplementum carry neither place of publication nor author’s name (apart from the pseudonym ‘Eudoxius Alithinologus’) raises no great difficulty. Lynch was naturally anxious to avoid any proof that he was the author, but he hints at it, e.g., Alithinologiae supplementum, Praefatio ad Hibernos and p. 216; and in any case it must have been clear to many, from the style and content, that the author was the person who had written Cambrensis eversus. In the private letter to Francis Harold already referred to (Anal. Hib., vi. 246), he enquires how his books against O’Ferrali were received in Rome. Peter Walsh, we have seen, knew that John Lynch was the author; so, for that matter, did Robert O’Connell (Comment. Rinucc, v. 432). The place of publication can hardly be other than St Malo, in view of the fact that Lynch’s exile was so closely associated with it. A typographical comparison with Pit Antistitis icon, which is imprinted ‘Maclovii apud Antonium de la Mare’ suggests that both came from the same printing-house.

32 For a full account of Lynch’s historical formation, cf. Gwynn, as above, pp. 48 ff.

33 Chapter xvii.

34 This is, of course, exaggerated. The frequency with which this title was used is shown from the fact that he himself slips into the usage once, Alithinologia, p. 40. There are, however, indications that it was sometimes used to denote those Irish who supported the English religious and political interest, and that O’Ferrall was not the first to make the suggestion that in this sense it included all who were not of the Old-Irish stock. For a striking example, cf. H.M.C. Franciscan MSS, pp. 87 ff.

35 Alithinologia, pp. 3, 4, 8–10, 55, 64, 138.

36 Alithinologia, pp. 7, 9, 47; Supplementum, p. 35.

37 Alithinologia, pp. 15–22.

38 Cf. Alithinologia, pp. 6, 14, 136.

39 Cf. Alithinologia pp. 26 ff., 50 ff., 137; Supplementum, pp. 7, 17, 25 ff., 40, 59. This question is treated at much greater length in Cambrensis eversus, ch. xxii–xxvii. It cannot be said that Lynch is committed to any particular theory concerning the king’s rights. He is normally content to appeal to the fact that these rights exist and have been repeatedly accepted. The influence of current theories can be seen, however, in that he will not admit that authority, once accepted, can be repudiated.

40 Cf. Alithinologia, pp. 12, 40 ff.; Supplementum, pp. 31 ff., 184–209.

41 Alithinologia, pp. 23 ff., 44 ff. ; Supplementum, p. 35.

42 Alithinologia, pp. 23, 38 ff.; Supplementum, pp. 195 ff.

43 Alithinologia, pp. 12 ff.

44 Alithinologiaj pp. 17 ff., 25, 136, 140; Supplementum, Praefatio ad Hibernos.

45 One passage in particular, Alithinologia, pp. uff., does seem to suggest that the plantation in Ulster was beginning to cause him some searching of conscience.

46 Alithinologia, pp. 47 fi., 66; Supplementum, pp. 5 ff.

47 Alithinologia, pp. 49–53, 66.

48 Alithinologia, pp. 57, 62 f., 66–9, 77, 119; Supplementum, pp. 5 f., 60–63, 74, 95, 138–45.

49 Alithinologia. pp. 34 f., 61, 68, 73, 122–7; Supplementum, pp. 39, 63, 97..

50 Alithinologia, pp. 61 74, 94 f., 112; Supplementum, pp. 39–41.

51 Supplementum, pp. 39–41.

52 Alithinologia, pp. 73 f., 89 ff., 94, 102; Supplementum, pp. 72, 75, 212–6.

53 Ibid., pp. 70–74.

54 Ibid., pp. 74–83.

55 Ibid., pp. 84–100, 129 ff.

56 Alithinologia, pp. 74–83.

57 Ibid., pp. 109–112.

58 Ibid., pp. 74, 130–5; Supplementum, pp. 148–60.