Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
The political situation in Ireland during the pontificate of Innocent III was highly complicated and, if we are to understand the relationship between the pope and the native Irish kings, it is necessary to make a short historical retrogression.
page 17 note 1 The older theory of the Irish clan system, popularised by historians like Joyce and Orpen, was challenged by Eóin MacNeill. He put forward a systematic, but complicated, Irish policy in Phases of Irish History, Dublin 1919Google Scholar (reprinted 1920, 1937), Early Irish Laws and Institutions, Dublin 1935Google Scholar, Celtic Ireland, Dublin 1921Google Scholar, and other writings; for complete bibliography of his writings see Irish Historical Studies, vi (1948) 44 ffGoogle Scholar. This theory was more or less adopted by modern historians, such as Curtis, Edmund in A History of Medieval Ireland, Dublin 1923Google Scholar, reprinted and revised, London 1938. Recently Professor D. A. Binchy has questioned many of MacNeill's theories: ‘The Linguistic and Historical value of the Irish Law Tracts’ (Sir John Rhys Memorial Lecture) 1948; and his essay in Early Irish Society, ed. Dillon, Myles, Dublin 1954, 52–65Google Scholar. For Irish personal, place, and population names I have as a general rule adopted the forms used by Seán Mac Airt in his edition of The Annals of Inisfallen.
page 17 note 2 The kingdom of Bréifne, which, under Tigernán Ua Ruairc played an important part in the events leading up to the coming of the Normans, has been omitted for the sake of simplification.
page 18 note 1 O'Doherty, J. F., ‘Laurentius von Dublin und das irische Normannentum’ (Dissertation, Munich 1935)Google Scholar, summarised in a series of articles: ‘St. Laurence O'Toole and the Anglo-Norman Invasion’ Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1 (1937), 449 ff.Google Scholar, 600 ff., li (1938), 131 ff.
page 18 note 2 The authenticity of pope Adrian's bull and the letters of pope Alexander III has been disputed for many years. Modern scholarship accepts them as genuine: cf. O'Doherty, J. F., ‘Rome and the Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland’ in I.E.R, xlii (1933), 131–45Google Scholar.
page 18 note 3 The three briefs of September 1172 (Quantis vitiorum to the Irish hierarchy; Ubi communi fama to the kings and princes of Ireland; Celebri fama to Henry II) are printed in Hearne, Black Book of the Exchequer, London 1728, 42–7; Foedera, conventiones, litterae et cujuscunque generis acta publica … ed. T. Rymer, new ed. by A. Clarke and F. Holbrooke, London 1816, i. 45; P.L., cc. 883 ff.; an English translation will be found in Irish Historical Documents, ed. Curtis, E. and McDowell, R. B., London 1943, 19–22Google Scholar.
page 19 note 1 For the Latin text cf. Rymer, Foedera, i. 31; Gesta Henrici Secundi, ed. Stubbs, W., London 1867, i. 101–3Google Scholar. An English translation will be found in Irish Historical Documents, 22–4. For a commentary on this treaty see O'Doherty, op. cit., 611–23, 131–8, and Edwards, R. Dudley, ‘Anglo-Norman relations with Connacht’ in I.H.S, i. (1938), 135–53Google Scholar.
page 19 note 2 It is not quite clear what Ruaidrí's position was: Professor Edwards ‘hesitates to say that it was intended to invest Rory with the office of Justiciar’.
page 19 note 3 See Gesta Henrici Secundi, ed. Stubbs, W., London 1867, i. 161–5Google Scholar.
page 19 note 4 Orpen regards the treaty of Oxford as a deliberate violation of the treaty of Windsor: Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans, 1169–1333, Oxford 1911–20, ii. 31 ffGoogle Scholar. O'Doherty, however, explains the violations of the 1177 treaty as annexations necessary for the safety of the treaty position as a whole, and made with the approval of Ua Conchobuir.
page 19 note 5 E. Curtis, A History of Ireland, 90.
page 20 note 1 For this period there are serious gaps in the series of royal enrolments: the Patent, Close, Charter, and Fine Rolls for the eleventh to the thirteenth years of John's reign are missing. With the aid mainly of the Prestita Roll it is possible to get a fairly accurate account of king John's itinerary and of his relations with the barons. For his relations with the Irish kings we have to rely mainly on the Irish annals and these give short and often conflicting accounts. For a good account of John's visit of 1210 see Orpen, op. cit., ii. 235–77; also the valuable itinerary of king John which T. D. Hardy includes in his introduction to Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, London 1835Google Scholar; L'Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ed. Mayer, P., Paris 1891–1901, ll. 14250 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 20 note 2 There had been opposition from the barons to the centralising policy of John's justiciar, Myler FitzHenry. The advent of William Marshall in 1207 gave the leadership which the baronial clique required. John tried to break the Marshal; the details of the intrigue may be read in the chanson de geste edited by Meyer, op. cit., ii. 13346 ff. Having failed, John changed his policy, wisely it may be thought, in view of the possibilities for rebellion afforded by the Interdict. In 1208 the earldom of Leinster was entrusted to William Marshall, the earldom of Ulster to Hugh de Lacy, the earldom of Meath to Walter de Lacy, and the honour of Limerick to William de Braose.
page 20 note 3 He brought with him scarlet robes to present to them: Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, ed. Hardy, T. D., London 1844, 67Google Scholar.
page 20 note 4 For details from Irish sources see, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. O'Donovan, J., Dublin 1848–51Google Scholar (abbreviated reference A.F.M.); The Annals of Inisfallen, ed. Airt, Sean Mac, Dublin 1951Google Scholar (Ann. Inisf.); The Annals of Loch Cé, ed. Hessessy, W. M., London 1871, Dublin 1939 (A.L.C.)Google Scholar; The Annals of Clonmacnoise, being annals of Ireland from the earliest period to A.D. 1408, translated into English, A.D. 1627, by Conell Mageoghagan, ed. Murphy, D., Dublin 1896Google Scholar (Ann. Clon.); Mac Carthaigh's Book in Miscellaneous Irish Annals, ed. Ó hInnse, Séamas, Dublin 1947Google Scholar. Ann. Inisf. state that Donnchad Cairprech was recognised by John as king of Limerick. However, the evidence of the Prestita Roll makes it virtually certain that it was the elder brother who received recognition : when John's expedition halted at Jordan de Sackville's castle at Ardglass on 12 July 1210 a prest of 10 marks was made to ‘Mariadac, king of Limerick’: Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, ed. Hardy, T. D., London 1844, 196Google Scholar.
page 21 note 1 The succession in both Cork (Desmond) and Meath is obscure at this period. In Cork the death of Domnall Mor MacCarthaig in 1206 gave rise to a succession war. The chief contestants were Fingen, brother of the late king, and Diarmait son of Domnall Mór. Diarmait had Norman support and was married to an English woman, Petronilla Bloet; Royal letters sent to ‘the magnates and kings of Ireland’ in 1221 included his name. In Meath it is possible that the Normans recognised Mael Sechnaill Bec Ua Maíl Shechnaill as titular king of a small portion of the old kingdom of Meath. There was opposition from other members of the Ua Maíl Shechnaill family. The Ann. Clon. record that in 1206 the sons of Art Ua Maíl Shechnaill laid waste part of Meath and were opposed by the English forces and those of Mael Sechnaill Bec. In 1212 Cormac Ua Maíl Shechnaill inflicted a defeat upon the justiciar, John de Grey. In the following year a purely Irish combination led by Muirchertach Ua Briain, Domnall Ua Maíl Shechnaill, Domnall Ua Gilla Pátraic, and Culen Ua Dímusaig, defeated Cormac. Orpen gives this reasonable conjecture: ‘These chieftains had all probably made terms with the English’, op. cit., ii. 298, n.i. He further states, I have been unable to discover on what authority, that Domnall Ua Maíl Shechnaill was ‘the recognised tanist’ of Mael Sechnaill Bec. See also Walsh, P., ‘The Ua Maelechlain kings of Meath’ in I.E.R, lxii (1941), 165 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 21 note 2 Cathal's refusal to give his son as a hostage enraged John; he seized four of Cathal's retinue as hostages and dismissed him without concluding a treaty. Late in 1210 the justiciar led an expedition into Connacht. Cathal came to terms, though the treaty does not seem to have been ratified until 1215. In 1210–11 Cathal assisted John de Grey in his expedition to Tír Conaill; in 1211 the Connacht hostages were returned.
page 21 note 3 The account in A.F.M. seems to imply that Aedh Ua Néill took part in the expedition against de Lacy. The Ann. Inisf. state that Ua Néill did homage, but that ‘two or three of the nobles of the foreigners were held by his followers as a guarantee of his safe return from the king’. It is not clear why Ua Néill refused to give hostages. The Histoire des Ducs de Normandie et des rois d'Angleterre, ed. Michel, F., Paris 1840, 112–13Google Scholar, tells how John tried to catch Aedh in a trap but was outwitted by the Irish king. Domnall Ua Domnaill is probably to be reckoned among the kings mentioned by Wendover as dwelling in inaccessible places and scorning to come to the king: Rogeri de Wendover flores historiarum as reproduced in Mattaei Parisiensis Chronica maiora, ed. H. D. Luard, London 1872–84, iii. 233.
page 22 note 1 Reg. Vat. 5 fol. 2 v; P.L., ccxiv. 875; letter undated, but appears between letters dated Id.Oct.–xv Kal. Nov. of the third year of the pontificate.
page 22 note 2 Rubric of letter is to be found in Vetera monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, historiam illustrantia, ed. Theiner, A., Rome 1864, 67Google Scholar. This letter is one of a group discovered by Hampe in the National Library, Paris, and published by him in 1902: ‘Aus verlorenen Registerbänden der Päpste Innocenz III und Innocenz IV’ in Mittheilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, xxiii (1902), 564–5Google Scholar. Hampe's text is reproduced in Dunning, P. J., ‘Letters of Pope Innocent III to Ireland’ in Archivium Hibernicum, xii (1947), 27–44Google Scholar.
page 22 note 3 Theiner, op. cit., letters 226–7.
page 22 note 4 Reg. Vat. 8 fol. 152v; P.L., ccxvi. 825.
page 22 note 5 Letter of 17 September 1198: Reg. Vat. 4 fol. 101v–102r; P.L., ccxiv. 342.
page 22 note 6 Reg. Vat. 5 fol. 47r–v, 48r; P.L., ccxiv. 1066.
page 23 note 1 In his letter of 19 March 1221 to the papal legate, James, the pope states: ‘Fuit etiam ex parte ipsius regis propositum coram nobis, quod ab eo tempore, quo Anglici de mandato apostolice sedis intrantes Yberniam, ipsam ecclesiae Romane obedientiae subiecerunt’. The pope accepts this account as normal.
page 23 note 2 Some details of these and similar cases will be found in Dunning, P. J., ‘Pope Innocent III and Ireland: some unnoticed letters’ in Bulletin of the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, No. 36 (February 1945)Google Scholar, and ‘Norman clerical aggression in Irish south-eastern dioceses, 1198–1218’, ibid., No. 52 (May 1947).
page 23 note 3 Before his accession John is addressed as ‘nobili viro comite de Mauritania’; after his accession usually as ‘illustri Anglorum (or Angliae) regi’.
page 23 note 4 A distinction was usually made when papal legates were sent: separate legates were sent, one for England and Wales, the other for Ireland and Scotland.
page 24 note 1 30 December 1198, and 4 January 1200; P.L., ccxiv. 828, 835, 945.
page 24 note 2 Reg. Vat. 8 fol. 140v, 141r–v; P.L., ccxvi. 817 ff.
page 24 note 3 Reg. Vat. 8 fol. 142r, 142v, 144r; note that a mistake has been made in the pagination of the register: fol. 144r should follow fol. 142v; P.L., ccxvi. 823 ff.
page 24 note 4 Reg. Vat. 8 fol. 142v.
page 24 note 5 This information was sought for me by Mgr. Dominic Conway of the Irish College, Rome. He writes: ‘Professor Batelli says that the reading is very probably Mindien; Professor Kempf says “There is no doubt, the reading is Mindien’”.
page 25 note 1 For example see Innocent's letter to his legate in Ireland, cardinal John of Monte Coelio, where the bishop of Meath is mentioned on several occasions: Reg. Vat. 8 fol. 47r–v, fol. 48r; P.L., ccxiv. 1066 ff. Eubel (Hierarchia Catholica) and Gams (Series Episcoporum) mention a medieval German diocese of Minden or Minda; they give the diocese of Meath as ‘Miden al. Minden’.
page 25 note 2 In a series of articles by Gwynn, Fr. Aubrey: ‘Ireland and Rome in the eleventh century’ in I.E.R., lvii (1941), 213 ff.Google Scholar; ‘Ireland and the continent in the eleventh century’ in I.H.S., viii (1953), 193–216Google Scholar; ‘Gregory VII and the Irish Church’ in Studi Gregoriani, iii (1948), 105–28Google Scholar.
page 25 note 3 The pilgrimage of Flaithbertach Ua Néill is recorded by almost all the Irish annals under the year 1030. For the series of Irish pilgrimages see Gwynn, Fr., ‘Ireland and the continent in the eleventh century’ in I.H.S., viii (1953), 193–216Google Scholar.
page 25 note 4 Muirchertach was present at the Synod of Kells in 1152 presided over by cardinal Paparo; in 1157 he presided over the consecration of the abbey church at Mellifont and gave the monastery large endowments; in 1162 he consented to the election of Lorcán Ua Tuathail as archbishop of Dublin.
page 25 note 5 Cardinal Vivian seems to have become implicated in Irish political affairs on his arrival in the north of Ireland in 1177. This was the year when de Courci began his conquest of Ulaid. William of Newburg records that the legate encouraged the Irish kings to fight for their possessions: see Historia rerum Anglicarum Willelmi de Newburgh, ed. Hamilton, H. C., London 1856Google Scholar, and Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Howlett, R., London 1884–89Google Scholar, under the year 1177.
page 26 note 1 The legate arrived in the north of Ireland early in 1202 and went to Armagh to learn the details of the disputed election which took place after the death of archbishop Tomaltach Ua Conchobuir in 1201. He then made his way to Dublin; spent some time in Meath; held a synod at Athlone; and returned to Rome in 1203–04.
page 26 note 2 All the evidence from Irish sources goes to show that Aedh Ua Néill refused to recognise John. However, the Irish Pipe Roll for 14 John records on more than one occasion the receipt of a considerable number of cows ‘from the fine of O'Néill’. It is difficult to understand such entries in the Pipe Roll. After John's departure the justiciar, John de Grey, in conjunction with the king of Connacht, led an expedition into Tír Conaill. They did not venture far beyond the Connacht border and were content to strengthen the border by building a castle at Caoluisge on the Lower Erne. Early in 1211 de Grey was summoned to take part in the Welsh campaign. On his return to Ireland he made plans for a campaign against the northern kings, especially against the king of Tír Eóghain. De Grey advanced through Louth to Clones where he built a castle to use as a base of operations, and then sent expeditions into Fermanagh and Tír Eóghain. About the same time, and presumably according to a preconceived plan, Thomas earl of Athol led a naval force to Derry in an attempt to divide Ua Néill's forces. The outcome of these campaigns is not quite certain. The Irish annals state that Ua Néill defeated de Grey. The entry in the Pipe Roll for 14 John might indicate that Ua Néill bought off the invaders but that no treaty was concluded and formal recognition was not granted. See ‘The Irish Pipe Roll of 14 John, 1211–12’, ed. Davies, O. and Quinn, D. B. in Ulster Journal of Archaeology, iv (1941), Supplement, 1–76Google Scholar.
page 26 note 3 Reg. Vat. 5 fol. 2v: ‘Illustri Regi Conectie’; note also the phrase, ‘Inter alia que nobis regalis prudentia suis litteris intimavit’; P.L., ccxiv. 875 ff.
page 27 note 1 Innocent frequently indicates the formal style used for prelates: see the letter to the archbishop of Antivari rebuking him for accepting as genuine a spurious letter; P.L., ccxiv. 910. In another place he points out that a letter was false because in it an archdeacon was placed before a dean; P.L., ccxv. 1178. For forgeries see P.L., ccxiv. 322 ff.; also Introduction to Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, ed. Cheney, C. R. and Semple, W. H., London 1953Google Scholar.
page 27 note 2 ‘Mémoire sur les actes d'Innocent III’, Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, xix (1858), 1–73Google Scholar; ‘Forme des abréviations et des liaisons dans les lettres des papes au XIIIe siècle’, ibid., xlviii (1887), 121 ff.
page 27 note 3 For example, ‘Illustri Regi Angliae … serenitatem tuam monemus et exhortamus’; P.L., ccxvi. 1150: ‘Illustri Regi Aragonum … tua quidem regalis serenitas non ignorat’, P.L., ccxv. 1342: ‘Regi Castellae … monemus serenitatem regiam’; P.L., ccxv. 82: ‘Regi Danorum … monemus igitur serenitatem tuam’; P.L., ccxv. 196 ff.
page 27 note 4 For example, ‘Nobili viro Comiti Dunecano … nos igitur nobilitatis tue precibus annuentes’; P.L., ccxv. 96: ‘Nobili viro duci Zaringie … nobilitatem tuam rogandum duximus’; P.L., ccxvi. 1150.
page 27 note 5 For examples of the mode of address to princes cf., ‘Nobili viro duci Austrie’, ‘Nobili viro duci Wladislao’, ‘Nobili viro duci Zaringie’, ‘Nobilibus viribus ducibus in Polonie constitutis’; P.L., ccxiv. 344, 1159, ccxv. 1359, 1060, ccxvi. 1150.
page 27 note 6 ‘Universis clericis cathedralium ecclesiarum Regni Conactie, quod Regium assensum in suis electionibus non recusent’; ‘Regi Conactie, quod huismodi gratia sibi concessa nullatenus abuatur’: rubrics of letters 226, 227 from the fourth year of the pontificate, in Theiner, , Vetera monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, Rome 1864, p. 1Google Scholar; Dunning, P. J., ‘Letters of Pope Innocent III to Ireland’, in Archivium Hibernicum, xii (1947), 29. 35Google Scholar.
page 28 note 1 By the terms of this treaty Ua Conchobuir was recognised as high-king, though holding his title as a vassal of Henry; cf. ut supra.
page 28 note 2 P.L., ccxvi. 926 ff.; ccxvii. 224 ff.
page 28 note 3 See Hampe, op. cit., 565; Dunning, op. cit., 42–3.
page 28 note 4 Letter of 17 September 1198, Reg. Vat. 4 fol. 101v–102r; P.L., ccxiv. 342.
page 29 note 1 This case was outstanding from the pontificate of pope Celestine III. It was a most complicated case, and there were three claimants. Innocent's letter simply describes them as ‘D. clericus … dilecti filil Flor. et E. monachi’. The ‘D. clericus’ is probably to be identified with bishop Daniel of Ross who witnessed the inquisition of the possessions of the see of Limerick made by Meyler FitzHenry and William de Burgh on the orders of king John in 1201, and who was present at a synod in Limerick in 1205: The Black Book of Limerick, ed. MacCaffrey, J., Dublin 1907, No. xxiii. 25–7, No. xxiv. 27–9Google Scholar.
page 29 note 2 When news of the vacancy reached Dublin the justiciar, Meyler FitzHenry, ordered the archdeacon of Armagh to summon the electors to meet at Drogheda. Only two of the suffragan bishops (one being Simon Rochford, the Norman bishop of Meath) and the abbot of Mellifont met the archdeacon at Drogheda. They chose three candidates for submission to the king's confirmation, all of them from the ‘english’ nation: bishop Simon of Meath, Ralph Petit the archdeacon of Meath, and Master Humphrey of Tikehil, one of the king's clerks. King John's first choice was Master Humphrey. A short time afterwards a different assembly met at Armagh. Here all the electors, with the exception of the bishop of Meath and the abbot of Mellifont, were present. They chose as their archbishop the abbot of Bangor, Echdomm Mac Gille Uidhir, and without waiting for any further confirmation proceeded immediately to the consecration of the new archbishop. It is clear from the pope's letter that these bishops were determined to prevent the forced election of an Anglo-Norman candidate; it is also clear that racial feeling was strong on both sides: Reg. Vat. fol. 48r; P.L., ccxiv. 1066 ff.
page 30 note 1 See letter to the archbishop of Armagh and other judges: Reg. Vat. 7 fol. 35r–v; P.L., ccxv. 681 ff.
page 31 note 1 For English translation see Irish Historical Documents, 38–46. Curtis gives a good description of the mentality of the Irish kings of the early thirteenth century: ‘In their own minds they were still the old Gaelic Rí, living in the native tradition of monarchy, and desiring nothing better than the old Gaelic life, the local independence, the continuance of the hero-age of their ancestors, hunting, fighting, dwelling in the open air. And this view of life in due time after the conquest had failed their descendants did in fact resume; moreover they infected the Normans themselves with it’, op. cit., 118. The word ‘infected’ in the above quotation could be regarded as an unhappy choice; the merits of the old Gaelic civilisation must not be disparaged.
page 31 note 2 A good example of the pope's judging matters on the principle of the interest of the Church, as also of his disinterestedness in racial and political matters, is the final advice which he gave to cardinal John of Monte Coelio on the Armagh controversy: he tells the legate that if he finds it necessary in justice to annul the election of Echdonn Mac Gille Uidhir, he is to appoint some suitable person who is neither Irish nor English; and if this should be impossible, ‘ipsi ecclesie praefici facias in pastorem, per quem ei melius consulatur’.
page 31 note 3 There exists what at first sight seems to be strong contemporary evidence for this view. For instance the Brut y Tywsog yon states that in 1212 Innocent III absolved three Welsh princes from their oaths of fealty, and commanded them to make war against king John: Brut y Tywsogyon, or The Chronicle of the Princes, ed. Jones, T., Cardiff 1952, 87Google Scholar. However, Professor Cheney argues convincingly that such contemporary accounts of pope Innocent's encouragement of the Welsh, as well as contemporary accounts of the deposition of king John, were but current rumours and were in fact historically untrue: Cheney, C. R., ‘The Alleged Deposition of King John’ in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke, Oxford 1948, 100–16Google Scholar.
