Second Article.
In returning to the subject of the origin of Irish family names, I feel it necessary to adduce two or three additional instances of the erroneous statements put forward by Mr Beauford, as they have had such an injurious influence with subsequent Irish writers on this subject:—
3. “Osragh, derived from Uys raigagh, or the kingdom between the waters, the present Ossory, called also Hy Paudruig, or the district of the country between the rivers, &c., the hereditary chiefs of which were denominated Giolla Paudruig, or the chief of the country between the rivers, called also Mac Giolla Padruic,” &c.
This seems an exquisite specimen of etymological induction, and I have often heard it praised as beautiful and ingenious; but it happens that every assertion made in it is untrue! Osragii is not the Irish name of this territory, but the Latinized form of the name of the inhabitants. Again, Osragii is not compounded of Uys and raigagh; and even if it were, these two vocables are not Irish words, and could not mean what is above asserted, the kingdom between the waters. Again, Ossory was never called Hy Pau-druic, and even if it were, Hy Pau-druic would not mean “district of the country between the rivers.” Next, the hereditary chiefs were not denominated Giolla Paudruic, but Mic Giolla Paudruic (a name afterwards anglicized Fitzpatrick), from an ancestor called Giolla Paudruic, who was chief of Ossory in the tenth century, and who is mentioned in all the authentic Irish annals as having been killed by Donovan, the son of Imar, king of the Danes of Waterford, in the year 975. Moreover, Giolla-Phadruic, the name of this chieftain, does not mean “chief of the country between the rivers,” as Mr Beauford would have us believe, but servant of Saint Patrick, which, as a man’s name, became very common in Ireland shortly after the introduction of Christianity, for at this time the Irish were accustomed to give their children names not only after the Irish apostle, but also after other distinguished saints of the primitive Irish church; and the names of these saints were not at this period adopted as the names of the children, but the word Giolla, or Maol, servant, was generally prefixed to the names of the saints to form those of the children: thus, Giolla Padruic, the servant of St Patrick; Giolla Ciarain, the servant of St Kieran; Giolla Caoimhghin, the servant of St Kevin; Giolla Coluim, the servant of St Columb, &c.
4. “Conmaicne mara, or the chief tribe on the great sea, comprehending the western parts of the county of Galway on the sea coast; it was also called Conmaicne ira, or the chief tribe in the west, and Iar Connaught, that is, west Connaught; likewise Hy Iartagh, or the western country: the chiefs of which were denominated Hy Flaherty or O’Flaherty, that is, the chief of the nobles of the western country, and containing the present baronies of Morogh, Moycullen, and Ballinahinch.”
This is also full of bold assertions, unsupported by history or etymology. Conmaicne does not mean the chief tribe, but the race of a chieftain called Conmac; Conmaicne mara, which is now anglicised Connamara, was never called Conmaicne ira, and Conmaicne mara and Iar Connaught are not now coextensive, nor were they considered to be so at any period of Irish history. Conmaicne mara was never called Hy Iartagh, and O’Flaherty was not the ancient chief of Conmaicne mara, for O’Flaherty was located in the plains of Moy Seola, lying eastwards of Lough Corrib, until he was driven across that lake into the wilds of Connamara by the De Burgos in the 13th century. Again, the surname O’Flaherty does not mean “the chief of the nobles of the western district,” but is derived from Flaithbheartach, who was chief of Hy Briuin Seola, not of Conmaicne mara, in the tenth century; and this chief was not the first who received the name, for it was the name of hundreds of far more distinguished chieftains who flourished in other parts of Ireland many centuries before him, and O’Flaherty became the name of a far more powerful family located in the north of Ireland; which shows that the name has no reference to north or west, but must look for its origin to some other source. Now, to any one acquainted with the manner in which compound words are formed in the Irish language, it will be obvious that the name Flaithbheartach is not derived from a locality or territory, but that it is formed from flaith, a chief, and beart, a deed or exploit, in the following manner: flaith, a lord or chief, flaithbheart, a lordly deed or exploit; and by adding the adjective and personal termination ach (which has nearly the same power with the Latin ax), we have flaithbheartach, meaning the lordly-deeded, or a man of lordly or chieftain-like exploits. According to the same mechanism, which is simple and regular, are formed several other compound words in this language, as oirbheart, a noble deed; oirbheartach, noble-deeded, &c.
Finally, Mr Beauford is wrong in the extent which he gives to Conmaicne mara. He is wrong in giving Morogh as the name of a modern barony, for there is none such in existence; and we have the most indisputable evidence to prove that the territory of Conmaicne mara, now called Connamara, never since the dawn of authentic history comprised more than one barony. It is to be regretted that these etymological phantasies of Mr Beauford about the country of O’Flaherty are received as true history by the O’Flahertys themselves, and repeated in modern topographical and literary productions of great merit.
I shall give one specimen more of this writer’s erroneous mode of explaining topographical names, and I shall then have done with him.
5. “Cairbre Aobhdha, or the district on the water, from cairbre, a district, and aobhdha, waters; the present barony of Kenry, in the county of Limerick. This country was also denominated Hy dun na bhan, or the hilly district on the river; the ancient chiefs whereof were called Hy Dun Navan or O’Donovan, that is, the chiefs of the hilly country on the river.”
Here every single assertion comprises a separate error. Cairbre does not mean a district, and aobhdha does not mean waters. This territory was not otherwise called Hy Dunnavan; and even if it were, that name would not mean “the hilly district on the river.” Again, the territory of Cairbre Aobhdha is not the barony of Kenry, neither is it a hilly district, but one of the most level plains in all Ireland; and lastly, the name O’Donovan does not moan “chiefs of the hilly district on the river,” for this family name was called after Donovan, the son of Cathal, chief of the Hy Figeinte, a people whose country extended from the river Shannon to the summit of Slieve Logher in the county of Kerry, and from Bruree and the river Maigue westwards to the verge of the present county of Kerry. He flourished in the tenth century, and was killed by the famous Brian Boru in a pitched battle, fought in the year 977; and his name was derived, not from his “hilly country on the river” Maigue, as Mr Beauford would have us believe (though it must be acknowledged that he resided at Bruree, which is a dun-abhann, or dun of the river), but from the colour of his hair; for the name is written by Mac Firbis and others Dondubhan, which signifies brown-haired chief.
I trust I have now clearly proved the fallacy of Mr Beauford’s mode of investigating the origin and meaning of the names of Irish families and territories. It is by processes similar to the five specimens above given that he has attempted to demonstrate his theory, that the names of Irish tribes and families were derived from the territories and localities in which they dwelt, a theory never heard of before his time; for up to the time of the writers of the Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, all were agreed that the Irish tribes took their surnames from certain distinguished ancestors, while the Saxons and Anglo-Normans took theirs generally from their territories and places of residence. For further information on this subject I refer the reader to Verstegan’s work, entitled “Restitution of Decayed Intelligence” and Camden’s “Remains.” The learned Roderic O’Flaherty, in his Ogygia Vindicated, p. 170, speaks on this subject in terms which Mr Beauford could not have mistaken. “The custom of our ancestors was not to take names and creations from places and countries as it was with other nations, but to give the name of the family to the seigniory by them occupied.”
To prove that I am not alone in the estimate that I have thus formed of the speculations of Mr Beauford, I shall here cite the opinions of a gentleman, the best acquainted of all modern writers with this subject, the venerable Charles O’Conor, of Belanagare, who, in a letter to the Chevalier Thomas O’Gorman, dated May 31, 1783, speaking of two tracts which he had published, to refute some errors of Dr Ledwich and Mr Beauford, says—
“Both were drawn from me to refute very injurious as well as very false representations published in the 9th number of the same Collectanea by Mr Ledwich, minister of Achaboe, and Mr Beauford, a schoolmaster in Athy. Little moved by any thing I have written against these gentlemen, the latter published his Topography of Ireland in the 11th number, the most flagrant imposition that I believe ever appeared in our own or in any age. This impelled me to resume the subject of our antiquities, and add the topography of Ireland, as divided into districts and tribes in the second century; a most curious record, preserved in the Lecan and Glendalough collections, as well as in your Book of Ballymote. I have shown that Beauford, a stranger to our old language, had but very slight materials for our ancient topography, and distorted such as he had to a degree which has no parallel, except perhaps in the dreams of a sick man in a phrenzy.”[1]
Again, the same gentleman, writing to his friend J. C. Walker on the same subject, expresses himself as follows:—
“Mr Beauford has given me satisfaction in his tract on our ancient literature, published in the Collectanea, and yet, in his ancient topography of Ireland, a book as large as his own might be written to detect his mistakes.”
It is quite obvious from the whole testimony of authentic Irish history that the names of tribes in Ireland were not derived from the territories and localities in which they dwelt, but from distinguished ancestors; for nine-tenths of the names of territories, and of the names of the tribes inhabiting them, are identical. The tribe names were formed from those of the progenitors, by prefixing the following words:—
1. Corc, Corca, race, progeny, as Corc-Modhruadh, now Corcomroe in Clare, Corca-Duibhne, now Corcaguinny in Kerry.
2. Cineal, race, descendants; cineal Eoghain, the race of Eoghan; cineal Conaill, the race of Conall. This word is translated Genus throughout the Annals of Ulster.
3. Clann, children, descendants; as clann Colmain, the tribe name of a great branch of the southern Hy-Niall.
4. Dal, tribe, descendants, as Dal-Riada, Dal-Araidhe, Dal-g-cais, Dal Mesincorb, &c. This word has been explained by the venerable Bede, and from him by Cormac Mac Cullenan, archbishop of Cashel, as signifying part or portion in the Scottic language; but from the manner in which it is used in Irish genealogies, this would appear to be but a secondary and figurative meaning. O’Flaherty seems to doubt that this word could be properly translated part; but Charles O’Conor, who gave much consideration to the subject, writes in a note to Ogygia Vindicated, p. 175, “that dal properly signifies posterity, or descent by blood; but in an enlarged and figurative sense it signifies a district, that is, the division or part allotted to such posterity: that of this double sense we have numberless instances, and that in this second sense Bede’s interpretation is doubtlessly admissible.”
5. Muintir, family, people; as Muintir Murchadha, the tribe name which the O’Flahertys bore before the establishment of surnames.
6. Siol, seed, progeny; as Siol Aodha, seed of Hugh, the tribe name of a branch of the Mac Namaras in Thomond; Siol Maoluidhir, the progeny of Maeleer, a great tribe in Leinster, who gave name to the territory of Shelmalier, in the county of Wexford.
7. Tealach, family; as Telach Eathach, the family of Eochy, the tribe name of the Magaurans in Breffney.
8. Sliocht, posterity; as Sliocht Aodha Slaine, the progeny of King Hugh Slany in Meath.
9. Ua, grandson, descendant; nominative plural, ui; dative or ablative, uibh. This prefix in its upright uninflected form appears in the names of Irish tribes oftener than any of the other seven. Some ignorant Irish scribes have supposed that it signifies a region or country, and some of the modern transcribers of Keating’s History of Ireland have taken the liberty to corrupt it to aoibh, a form not to be found in any ancient or correct MS. In support of the meaning above given may be adduced the high authority of Adamnan, abbot of Iona in the 7th century, who, in his life of his predecessor St Columbkille, invariably renders ua, ui, uibh, nepos, nepotes, nepotibus, in conformity with his habitual substitution of Latin equivalents for Irish tribe names, as often as he found it practicable. Thus, in the 16th chapter of the second book, he renders Ua Briuin, nepos Briuni; in the 5th chapter of the third book he translates Ua Ainmirech, nepos Ainmirech; in the 17th chapter of the same book he translates Ua Liathain, nepos Liathain; in the 49th chapter of the first book he renders Ui Neill, nepotes Nelli, i.e., the race of Niall; and in the 22d chapter of the same book he translates Ui Tuirtre, nepotes Tuitre.
We have also for the same interpretation the authority of the annalist Tigernach, who, in his Annals of Ireland at the year 714, translates Ui Eachach (now Iveagh, in the county Down), nepotes Eochaidh.
On this subject it may not be uninteresting to the reader to hear the opinion of the learned Roderic O’Flaherty. Treating of the Hy Cormaic, a tribe located near Lough Foyle, in the present county of Londonderry, he says—
“Hy or I (which calls for an explanation) is the plural number from Hua or O, a grandson, and is frequently prefixed to the names of progenitors of families, as well to particularize the families as the lands they possess, as Dal, Siol, Clann, Kinel, Mac, Muintir, Teallach, or any such name, pursuant to the adoptive power of custom.”—Ogygia, Part III. Chap. 76.
Besides the words above enumerated, after which the names of progenitors are placed, there are others to be met with after which the names of territories are placed, as Aes, people; Fir or Feara, men; Aicme, tribe; and Pobul, people; as Aes Greine, i.e., the people of Grian, a tribe located in the present county of Limerick; Aes tri Magh, the people of the three plains, in the same county; Feara Muighe Feine, the men of Moy Feine, now Fermoy, in the county of Cork; Fir Rois, the men of Ross, the name of a tribe in the present county of Monaghan; Feara Arda, i.e., the men of Ard, a tribe in the present county of Louth; Pobul Droma, in Tipperary.
Many other names were formed by a mode not unlike the Latin and Greek method, that is, by adding certain terminations to the name or cognomen of the ancestors of the tribes. These terminations are generally raighe, aighe, ne, and acht, as Caenraighe, Muscraighe, Dartraighe, Calraighe, Ciarraighe, Tradraighe, Greagraighe, Ernaidhe, Mairtine, Conmaicne, Olnegmacht, Connacht, Cianacht, Eoghanacht, &c. &c. This is the usual form of the tribe names among the descendants of the Belgic families enumerated in the Books of Lecan and Glendalough, as existing in Ireland in the first century, and it is not improbable that the tribe names given on Ptolemy’s Map of Ireland are partly fanciful translations, and partly modifications of them.
It appears from the authentic Irish annals, and the whole tenor of Irish history, that the Irish people were distinguished by tribe names only up to the period of the monarch Brian Boru, who published an edict that the descendants of the heads of tribes and families then in power should take name from them, either from the fathers or grandfathers, and that these names should become hereditary and remain fixed for ever. To this period we must refer the origin of family names or surnames.
Previously to this reign the Irish people were divided into various great tribes commanded by powerful chieftains, usually called kings, and these great tribes were further sub-divided into several minor ones, each commanded by a petty chieftain, but who was subject to the control of the Righ, or head of the great tribe. Thus, in Thomond the name of the great tribe was Dal Cais, from Cormac Cas, the progenitor of the regal family, and of all the sub-tribes into which this great race was divided. Immediately before the establishment of surnames, Brian Boru, whose descendants took the name of O’Brien, was the leader and supposed senior representative of this great race; but there were various other tribes under him, known by various appellations, as the Hy-Caisin otherwise clann Cuileain, who after the reign of Brian took the name of Mac Namara; the Kinel-Fearmaic, who took the name of O’Dea; Muintir Iffernain, who took the name of O’Quin; the Kinel Donghaile, who took the name of O’Grady; the Sliocht Dunchuain, who took the name of O’Kennedy; the Hy-Ronghaile, who took the name of O’Shanaghan; the Hy-Kearney, who took the name of O’Ahern, &c.
The chiefs of these tribes had generally the names of their fathers postfixed to their own, and sometimes, but not often, those of their grandfathers; but previous to the reign of Brian in the tenth century, these appellations changed in every generation.
The next article shall treat of surnames.
[1] Original in possession of Messrs Hodges and Smith, College Green, Dublin.