Druid Celtic Brehon Law – 2500 BC
Substantive law
Women and marriage
Women, like men, were Brehons.[8] Brehon Laws have a reputation among modern scholars as rather progressive in their treatment of women, with some describing the law as providing for equality between the sexes.[9] However, the Laws generally portray a patriarchal and patrilineal society in which the rules of inheritance were based on agnatic descent.[10] It has sometimes been assumed that the patriarchal elements of the law are the result of influence by canon law or continental practice displacing an older, more egalitarian ancient Celtic tradition, but this is based mainly on conjecture and there is little hard evidence to support such claims.[11]
Cáin Adomnáin, a Christian Law, promulgated by the Synod of Birr in 697, sought to raise the status of women of that era, although the actual effect is unknown.[12] Regardless, although Irish society under the Brehon Laws was male-dominated, women had greater freedom, independence and rights to property than in other European societies of the time. Men and women held their property separately. The marriage laws were very complex. For example, there were scores of ways of combining households and properties and then dividing the property and its increase when disputes arose. Divorce was provided for on a number of grounds (e.g. impotence or homosexuality on the husband’s part), after which property was divided according to what contribution each spouse had made to the household. A husband was legally permitted to hit his wife to “correct” her, but if the blow left a mark she was entitled to the equivalent of her bride-price in compensation and could, if she wished, divorce him. Property of a household could not be disposed of without the consent of both spouses.[13] However, under church law, women were still largely subject to their fathers or husbands and were not normally permitted to act as witnesses, their testimony being considered “biased and dishonest.[14]
Kingship
While scholars have discovered a fair amount of information about how Irish Kingship worked, relatively little is actually related by early Irish laws. In particular, very little material survives regarding succession practices, which have been reconstructed as the system of Tanistry. A section of the Senchas Már tract on status was apparently devoted to succession, although little survives. Most early material on succession was collected by Domnal O’Davoren in the 16th century.[15] Another seemingly important omission is that the laws never mention the High King of Ireland centred at Tara.[16] Likewise, the laws only once mention the practice of individuals being ineligible for kingship if they are blemished (a practice more widely evident elsewhere, especially in Irish mythology). However, that mention is only incidental to a regulation on the compensation for bee stings when the legal tract Bechbretha relates the story of Congal Cáech, who was deposed on account of being blinded by a bee.[17]
A fair amount of the material on kings relates to their position within the Irish laws of status, which see, of which the king is ranked at the top, parallel with the Bishops and the highest level of poets. Three levels of kings are referred to in the status tracts, such as Críth Gablach: rí benn, (the king of peaks) who is identified elsewhere as the rí túaithe (king of a [single] túath), who is below the rí buiden (the king of bands) who is identified with the rí túath (king of [multiple] túaths) or ruiri (overking), who in turn is below the rí bunaid cach cinn (the ultimate king of every individual) who is known also as the rí ruirech (king of overkings) and rí cóicid (king of a province).[18]
To a certain degree, kings acted as agents of the law. However, while other kings in Europe were able to promulgate law, such as Alfred the Great and his Doom book, the Irish had very little authority to do so. They could collaborate on law authored by the church. Cáin Adomnáin has the names of many kings attached to it who apparently enacted and enforced the law. Additionally, a king could issue a temporary law in times of emergency. But kings could not, by their own authority, issue permanent law codes.[19] Kings also acted as judges, although the extent of their power compared to that of professional jurists has been debated. One law tract, Gubretha Caratniad, describes a brithem giving advice to a king (in this case, advice that seems flawed but is actually correct) who then gives it as judgment in a case. It is unclear, therefore, how much kings made judgments by themselves and how much they had to follow professional advice. It is clear, however, that a king had to judge in accordance with the laws. However, the kings do not appear to have stood as judges in all cases, and in some cases the professional jurists took that role.[20]
One subject the laws did cover is how the king fit within the rest of the legal system. The king was not supposed to be above the law. In fact, some stipulations applied specifically to the king. However, as the king was the most powerful individual, and the one with the highest honour in an area, it was difficult to enforce the law against him. Although it might have been possible to proceed against the king as against any other, the laws also had an innovative solution to this quandary. Instead of enforcing against the king directly, a dependent of the king known as an aithech fortha (substitute churl) was enforced against instead, and the king was responsible for repaying the substitute churl.[21] The laws also specified certain cases in which a king lost his honour price. These included doing the work of a commoner, moving around without a retinue, and showing cowardice in battle; again, though, it is unclear how often such stipulations were followed.[17]
Finally, the laws commented on how the king was to arrange his life and holdings and how many individuals should be in his retinue. In particular, Críth Gablach gives a highly schematised and unrealistic account of how the king spends his week: Sunday is for drinking ale, Monday is for judging, Tuesday is for playing fidchell, Wednesday is for watching hounds hunt, Thursday is for sexual union, Friday is for racing horses, and Saturday is for judging (a different word from Monday, but the distinction is unclear).[22]
Status.
According to the introduction to the Senchas Már, the world had numerous problems before the creation of that text. Among those problems was that everyone was in a state of equality.
Unequal status was of great import to early Irish Christian society and it is recorded in many places in the early Irish laws.
The Irish law texts describe a highly segmented world, in which each person had a set status that determined what legal tasks they could undertake and what recompense they could receive when a crime was committed against them. Críth Gablach and Uraicecht Becc are two of the main texts focusing on lay landholders, the latter of which also briefly covers the status of skilled individuals and of clerics.[23] Other texts describe other groups, such as Uraicecht na Ríar, which focuses on the status of poets.
Much depended on status, and each rank was assigned an honour that was quantified in an honour-price to be paid to them if their honour was violated by certain crimes. The types of food one received as a guest in another’s house, or while being cared for due to injury varied based on status. Lower honour-prices limited the ability to act as sureties and as witnesses. Those of higher status could “over-swear” the oaths of those of lower status.[24]
Ecclesiastical grades
In part, the seven ecclesiastical grades originate outside Ireland (as holy orders, later subdivided into minor orders and major orders) although their position in Ireland has been shaped by local thinking. The grades are given in Uraicecht Becc as liachtor (lector), aistreóir (doorkeeper), exarcistid (exorcist), subdeochain (sub-deacon), deochain (deacon), sacart (priest), and escop (bishop)[25] although Bretha Déin Chécht puts the lector in a third position. The seven grades are subsumed into the Irish law of status, but it is unclear to what degree they conformed to all of the various status stipulations. It may be noted however that, according to Críth Gablach, the seven grades of the church are the basis for the theoretical seven lay and poetic grades (see below). At the same time it is clear that the number seven is an insular invention, in the Eastern Church there were normally five or six grades (sometimes more), and the Western Church typically had eight or nine grades.[26]
Although the various groups were theoretically on par with each other, the church apparently had supremacy. Críth Gablach states “Who is nobler, the king or the bishop? The bishop is nobler, for the king rises up before him on account of the Faith; moreover the bishop raises his knee before the king.”[27] This relative ranking is reflected elsewhere. In addition, according to Críth Gablach the ranking of the lay grades was modelled after the ecclesiastical grades in that there should be seven grades, a number rarely met perfectly.
Lay grades
Irish law recognised a number of classes, from unfree to king, which were ranked within the status tracts. Little space was given to the unfree, which reflects the lack of dependence upon slaves as opposed to other societies, such as Ancient Rome. However, the laws discuss slaves, both male and female, and the term for a female slave, Cumhall, became a broader currency term. As unfree, slaves could not be legal agents either for themselves or others.[28] In addition to the wholly unfree, a few individuals were semi-free. The senchléithe (hereditary serf) was bound
to work the land of his master, whereas the fuidir had no independent status nor land of his own, but could at least leave as he might desire.[29]
Others might be of less than full status, based on age or origin. The status of children was based on their parents, and they could not act independently. The rights of sons increased with age, but they did not fully increase until after the death of the father. A young son just out on his own was called a fer midboth (a man of middle huts), apparently someone who occupied a hut on his father’s land. These persons were semi-independent, but did not have the full honour-price of a free man until they reached 20.[30] Even after a certain age, a “Son of a Living Father” was expected to be dutiful to his father and could only set up an independent household with his father’s permission.[31] In addition, those from outside a túath normally had a low status, as status was based not only on property but also on familial connections.[32]
There are two main ranks of commoners, the ócaire (lit. young lord) and bóaire (cow lord), though Binchy thinks the ócaire is a recent offshoot of the latter, who had less property but was still a freeman. In addition are the bóaire febsa (a bóaire of quality who had an honour-price of 5 séts). The highest commoner was the mruigfer (land man). Either of the last, according to Binchy, may be the “normal bóaire who appears within the law texts.[33] The three ranks of commoners, at least according to the status tract, vary in the type of clientship they undertook and the property they could hold, though it is unclear how this worked in practice. Commoners apparently had to co-operate in farming as they did not have enough property to own a whole plough-share or all the rights in a mill.
Above these are a series of lords who apparently had clients of their own—the primary factor in lordship—as well as more property and a higher honour-price. According to Críth Gablach, each grade of lord increase by 5 séts for each rank, and also increased the number of clients. In addition, when they travelled they were expected to maintain a retinue with them. A lord not only had greater ability, but also needed to take greater steps to preserve their honour, lest they lose their lordship. The order of lords varies, but in Críth Gablach it is as follows: aire déso (lord of vassals), aire ard (high lord), aire tuíseo (lord of precedence), and the aire forgill (lord of superior testimony).
After the normal lords was the tánaise ríg, who was supposed to be heir to the throne. He had higher property qualifications than the aire forgill, but his prime claim to higher status was that he would one day be king. Kings held the highest status that the laws describe. The basic king had an honour price of seven cumals, and higher kings had yet a higher status. Having the highest status, the king especially was expected to be careful to keep his honour. Cowardice, as demonstrated in flight from battle, as well as taking up manual labour might cost him his honour-price.[34]
These grades are generally equated with the seven grades of clerics, although there is some discrepancy as to how the grades line up, with various texts doing it in different ways and selecting only certain lay grades and ignoring others.
The ranking of lay grades has been seen by many scholars as rather schematic and not reflecting realities on the ground. Some of the texts give considerable detail on diet, tools owned, number
of livestock, and even the size of house a person of a given status had. Modern scholars have generally assumed such details rarely match exactly what someone of a given rank had. In addition, Críth Gablach contains the fee a client paid to a lord, according to rank from the lowest free man through the noble ranks, even though no noble would be another’s client.
[35]
Poetic grades
Paralleling the status of the lay grades are the grades of the filid (poets). Each poetic rank corresponds to a particular lay (and ecclesiastical) rank, from Bóaire to king. In Uraicecht na Ríar these are given as fochloc, macfuirmid, dos, cano, clí, ánruth, and ollam.[36] These are given the same status as and the same honour prices as the lay grades, and hence have effectively the same rights. The qualifications for each grade is where the difference occurs. The qualifications fit into three categories, the status of the poet’s parent or grandparent, their skill and their training. Particular number of compositions are given for each rank, with the ollam having 350.
In addition to the seven main ranks, variously named ranks below these seem to be names for unskilled poets, the taman, drisiuc, and oblaires. Their honour prices are no more than a pittance, and their poetry is apparently painful to hear.[37]
Other grades
Other professions could give status based on the profession and the skill, but no professions besides poets could have a status as high as the bishop, king, or highest poet. For instance in one text the jurist or brithem had three ranks, and the highest was given an honour price only half way up the other scales. The ranking of a brithem was based on his skill and whether he knew all three components of law (here: traditional law, poetry, and canon law), or fewer. A craftsman who worked with wood could have similar honour-prices but these were based on his craftsmanship. However, a physician and a blacksmith, among other ranks, had an even lower honour-price—less than half what the brithem could achieve, and the honour-price apparently did not vary based on skill. Other professionals, such as makers of chariots or engravers, had still lower honour-prices (less than that of a bóaire). Finally a few professions received only meagre ranks, as with the lowest poets, and the authors may be actively making fun of some of the professions, such as comb makers.[38]
Change in status
Status in early Ireland was not entirely rigid and it was possible for a family to raise its status. If three consecutive generations—grandfather, father, and son—had the property qualifications of a lord, or the poetic qualifications of a higher level poet, etc., then the member of the third generation became a lord. On the other hand, the son or grandson of a lord, or a poet, etc., who did not have the proper qualifications, did not have that status. However, the grandson of a person with a certain status could have that status themselves, assuming they had the proper qualifications, even if their father did not.
This created an interesting in-between stage. A commoner who had the property qualifications but not the parentage to become a lord is variously referred to as a flaith aithig, (a commoner
lord), a fer fothlai (a man of withdrawal), or an aire iter da airig (an aire [here with a broader meaning than lord] between two [types of] aires). According to Críth Gablach, these individuals had status in between a commoner and a full lord.
[39] In the case of poets, a poet with skill qualifications but who did not have proper training was a bard. (However, it has been suggested that poets who were not allied with the church were given this rank for that reason).[40]
In addition, there were ways that, in extraordinary circumstance, an individual could achieve higher status without having parents with such qualifications. Someone who chose to become a briugu (hospitaller) could have twice the normal property qualifications of a lord of whatever grade (and this can extend, in theory, up to the qualifications of a king). Further, a briugu had to open his house to any guests. This included feeding them, no matter how large the group—he could lose his status if he ever refused a guest.[41] Because of that stipulation, the position of briugu was potentially ruinous, and this outcome is portrayed in a number of tales such as in Togail Bruidne Da Derga and Scela Mucce Meic Datho. A commoner might also ascend to the status of a lord if he is a aire échta (lord of violence). Such a person helped individuals to avenge deaths committed in another túath for a limited time after the cessation of hostilities, although the details are unclear.[42] A poet who had the skill and training of a rank, but not the proper familial qualifications received half the honour price that his skill and training otherwise earned.[43]
Clientship
A member of the property-owning classes could advance himself by becoming a “free client” of a more powerful lord, somewhat akin to the Roman system of clientship. The lord made his client a grant of property (sometimes land, but more usually livestock) for a fixed period of time. The client owed service to his lord, and at the end of the grant period returned the grant with interest. Any increase beyond the agreed interest was his to keep. This allowed for a certain degree of social mobility as an astute free client could increase his wealth until he could afford clients of his own, thus becoming a lord.
A poorer man could become a “base client” by selling a share in his honour-price, making his lord entitled to part of any compensation due him. The lord could make him a smaller grant of land or livestock, for which the client paid rent in produce and manual labour. A man could be a base client to several lords simultaneously.
Physical injury
On account of the structure of early Irish society, all law was essentially civil and offenders had to answer only to the victim or the victim’s representative. This is important to point out, as in case of serious injury it is in stark contrast to most modern legal systems.
Payment for wounding
Although early Irish law recognised a distinction between intentional and unintentional injury, any type of injury was still normally unlawful and requiring compensation. The main exception is injuries received when the victim has gone into a place where injury is likely. In all other casesan injurer was responsible for paying a fine. The legal text Bretha Déin Chécht “The Judgments of Dían Cécht” goes into considerable detail in describing the fines based on the location of the wound, the severity, and in some cases the type.[44] According to that text, the payment was decided by a physician after nine days. Prior to that, the victim was cared for by his family and a physician. Some suggest that effects of the wound would be clear to a physician at that point if not before. First, either the victim would have died if such was likely, or it would be clear that the patient was in danger. If the first was the case, the injurer had to face punishment for murder, and in the second he had to pay a heavy fine called a crólige báis, “blood-lying of death.”[45] If the victim had recovered but his wound was still present, it was measured and a fine paid. Bretha Déin Chécht describes that the wound was measured according to how many grains of a certain plant fit in the wound. The higher status one was, the smaller the grain used. Thus, there are nine grains mentioned in the text, from a grain of wheat to a bean.[46] If the wound did not heal, and thus the physical blemish was a problem for the victim’s honour, further payments were required.[47]
Early Irish law saw certain locations, known as the “twelve doors of the soul” were considered particularly severe. It has been suggested that this is because the potential for such wounds to turn deadly, although the law texts do not suggest any reason. In such cases the physician was entitled to a greater share of the fine—one half. Similarly, if the wound is one of “the seven principal bone-breakings,” or if it causes constant vomiting or bloody urine the physician also received a greater fee.[47]
Sick maintenance.
If it seemed that the patient would recover but still needed nursing, the injurer was responsible for that. This was known as sick maintenance, rendering variously crólige, folog n-othrusa, folog, or othrus in different texts. Bretha Crólige goes into great detail about this process, describing how the injurer had to find a suitable location and move the victim. Then the injurer had to pay for food for the victim and a retinue—which could be considerable depending on the victim’s rank.[48] The injurer also had to provide someone to fulfill the victim’s duties while he was incapacitated. He also had to pay a fine for the missed opportunity for procreation if appropriate.[49] Bretha Crólige also goes into the importance of keeping a proper environment for the victim during his sick-maintenances. Largely this means that anything that might cause loud noise was prohibited in the vicinity. This included fights by men as well as by dogs, the playing of games and even the disciplining of children.[50] However, it is also clear from the law tracts that the practice of Sick Maintenance was being discarded. Thus, while Críth Gablach mentions some of what each individual is entitled to while being nursed according to his rank, it also mentions that the practice was no longer in use, and instead an additional fine encompassed the same provisions the injurer would have had to pay for under sick maintenance.[51] Bretha Crólige does not mention anything about the practice being obsolete. However, it does mention that certain types of person could not be maintained because of the difficulty in doing so. Thus it was very hard to provision those of the highest rank and obviously impossible to find a substitute to do their work. Certain professionals could similarly be difficult. On the other hand, a number of persons could cause difficulty to the people maintaining the victim. Such troublesome individuals included the insane and women likely to cause trouble for those nursing them.[52]
Murder and avoidance of capital punishment.
Early Ireland has the distinction of being one of the first areas to shun capital punishment. While a murderer might be killed for his/her crime, this was the option of last resort. Instead the murderer typically had to pay two fines. One is the fixed éraic or cró, that is either a “body fine” or a “wergild”, and the other is the Log nEnech, an honour price owed to the kin of the victim that varied according to the status of the kinsman to whom it was owed and the closeness of his relationship to the victim. Should the murderer be unable to pay by himself, his family was normally responsible for paying any amount the murderer could not pay. Should the family be either unable or unwilling to pay, the victim’s family took custody of the murderer. At this point, the victim’s family had three options. They could await payment, sell the murderer into slavery, or kill the murderer. Even then, the monetary possibilities may have discouraged capital punishment in some cases. In certain cases, though, where the murderer and victim were relatives, capital punishment could not be carried out as it would make the executioner commit fingal or kin-slaying.
Another situation where the murderer could be killed was when the murderer was at large and the fines had not been paid. The victim’s family apparently was responsible to launch a blood feud.[53] It is unclear how often capital punishment was carried out in situations where it would be licit without any records other than the legal tracts. However, it is clear that that punishment could be avoided in most cases.
The origin of this particular legal provision is as unclear as the rest of Irish law. However, the so-called “Pseudo-Historical Prologue to the Senchas Már”, a late introduction to the main collection of Irish law, makes a claim on how this came about. It declares that prior to the coming of St. Patrick, Irish law demanded capital punishment in all cases of murder. However, Christianity was supposed to preach forgiveness. The two fines are apparently a compromise so that the murderer is both punished and forgiven.[2] However, it is at least dubious whether or not this is a valid historical account, given the lateness of the story (originating hundreds of years after Patrick’s time).
Kinship
Early Irish law recognised a number of degrees of agnatic kinship, based on a belief that there was common male ancestor. The closest kin group that is defined is gelfine (bright-kin)—descendants of a common grandfather (including the grandfather’s relationships to his descendants and his children). This is followed by the derbfine (certain-kin)—descendants of a common great grandfather, iarfine (after-kin)—descendants of a common great great grandfather, and the indfine (end-kin), all of which contain the old Irish word for kin or family, fine.[54] The derbfine is, by far, the kin-group most commonly mentioned.[55]
The leader of the kin-group was known either as ágae fine (pillar of the family) or cenn fine (head [literally] of the family). He apparently was a senior member selected from the kin-group based on various qualifications. One of his main duties was to take responsibility for members of the kin-group, acting as a surety for some of the actions of members, making sure debts are paid (including for murder). If the member could not be made to pay, the fee was normally be paid by members of the kin-group. He was also responsible for unmarried women after the death of their fathers.[56] As mentioned above, the actions of a member could require other kin to pay a fine. However, in certain cases the kin-group could refuse liabilities, although in some cases only after they been proclaimed as a non-member, which might occur if the member did not carry out his responsibilities to the kin. One particularly heinous crime in early Irish law was fingal (kin-slaying), because it was against a group that had some right to trust. The killer had to give up their kin-land, but was still liable for fines incurred by other members of the kin.[57] An undutiful son might also be excluded from certain kin rights as well, especially as sons of a living father generally did not have significant rights of legal actions except as permitted by the father.[58]
Inheritance
Early Ireland practised partitive inheritance whereby each of the sons received equal portions, and any grandsons whose father predeceased their grandfather equally split their father’s portion. When the Normans entered Ireland and saw the Irish practice they called it Gavelkind, the Saxon inheritance in Kent to which it seemed similar.[59] Early Irish law typically did not distinguish between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children, so any recognised, even those of concubines, received a portion. On the other hand, disobedient sons were automatically excluded. In addition, adopted children could receive a portion of kin land, though status as an inheritor, and the inheritance amount had to be explicitly stipulated.[60] The division of land is somewhat obscure. One maxim suggests that the youngest son divided the land into equal parts. The eldest chose first, followed by the second and so on until the youngest received the remaining land. The intent was to make division of land equal. Other laws suggested that the eldest son had automatic claims to the buildings. However, there are some hints that this only happened if a younger son challenged a division. The normal practice was that the eldest son both divided and chose first, but had to divide equally.[61] More rarely, a father might divide the land for his sons in his lifetime.[62] While a daughter with brothers did not normally receive a portion of the inheritance in land, she could inherit movable property. However, should there be no sons, some of the law tracts allow the daughter to inherit a limited portion. However, unless her husband was a foreigner to the túath and had no land of his own, the land did not descend to her sons, but instead went to the other members of her agnatic kin group. However, there was apparently pressure for a woman with land to marry a relative to keep the land within the kin group.[63]
Finally, if a man died with no children, the property was distributed between his nearest kin—first the descendants of his father, and if there were no such descendants, then between the descendants of his grandfather, and so on. Any extra land that daughters could not inherit because of female inheritance limits also went to the wider kin.[64] The head of a kin group was entitled to extra property since he was liable for debts a kinsman could not pay.[65]
Land rights of kin. The potential for inheritance by even distant kin meant that, in Early Irish law, those kin all had some sort of right in the land. Land that had been inherited was known as finntiu (kin-land). Certain rights of use of land by the owner’s kin seem to have existed. Moreover, it was possible that land could be redistributed if a certain branch of the family had few descendants and hence larger shares in the land per person. In such a case, even some more distant cousins could acquire the land, though they benefited less than closer kin.[66] Apparently because of these potential claims it could apparently be difficult to alienate kin-land. However, even when selling land that an individual had acquired separately from inheritance, a portion went to his kin.[67]
Legal theory
Changes in the legal system
Ireland had no regular central authority capable of making new law and hence the Brehon laws were entirely in the hands of the jurists. As such some early scholars felt that the legal system was essentially unchanging and archaic.[68] However, more recently scholars have noticed that some methods of change were laid out within the Brehon laws. In particular, Cóic Conara Fugill mentions five bases on which a judge must base judgment, and at least three offer some room for change: fásach (legal maxim), cosmailius (legal analogy), and aicned (natural law) (the other two are roscad, a type of legal verse jurists were trained to create to mark a statement made by someone who knows the law[69] and teistimin (scriptural testimony)). However, it has not yet been studied in detail how exactly these three innovative methods were used.[70]
Maxims.
The Use and application of maxims is clearly a location where the principles of Irish law could be recorded. Any number of maxims may be found within the Early Irish Laws and perhaps the reason why we are unable to derive a coherent theory of law from them is because there are a great many different topics. Some do seem to represent a legal theory, such as the maxim in Bechbretha that “no-one is obliged to give something to another for nothing” and that in Bretha Crólige that “the misdeed of the guilty should not affect the innocent”. These maxims do say more than one might think since legal systems often have problems balancing the interests of all.[71] The majority of maxims, however, treat with more specific problems. The main problem, however, with our understanding of maxims is that while one law text tells us that they were used as a basis of judgment we know little else about them; we do not even know how exactly maxims could be used for judgment. A further complication is that we know very little about the origin of maxims (or even what the jurists thought was the origin) and similarly we do not know whether jurists were introducing new maxims regularly or whether all maxims were supposed to be from time immemorial.
Natural law.
Early Irish law mentions in a number of places recht aicned or natural law. This is a concept apparently borrowed from, or at least akin with, European legal theory, and reflects a type of law that is universal and may be determined by reason and observation of natural action. Neil McLeod identifies concepts that law must accord with: fír (truth) and dliged (right or entitlement). These two terms occur frequently, though Irish law never strictly defines them. Similarly, the term córus (law in accordance with proper order) occurs in some places, and even in the titles of certain texts. The laws tell stories of how truth could apparently cure a person and falsehood could cause blisters. These were two very real concepts to the jurists and the value of a given judgment with respect to them was apparently ascertainable. McLeod has also suggested that most of the specific laws mentioned have passed the test of time and thus their truth has been confirmed, while other provisions are justified in other ways because they are younger and have not been tested over time.[72]
References
Sources
Primary
• Binchy, D. A., ed. (1979) [1941]. Críth gablach. DIAS. ISBN 1 85500 002 4.
• Binchy, D. A., ed. (1978). Corpus iuris Hibernici: ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum. DIAS. Six Volumes:- Vol.I: Introduction + pages 1–337; Vol. II: 339–744; Vol. III: 745–1138; Vol. IV: 1139–1531; Vol. V: 1532–1925; Vol. VI: 1926–2343.
• Charles-Edwards, Thomas; Kelly, Fergus, eds. (1983). Bechbretha: an Old Irish law-tract on bee-keeping. Early Irish law. Vol.1. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
• Kelly, Fergus (1997). Early Irish farming. Early Irish Law. Vol.4. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. ISBN 1855001802.
Secondary
• Baumgarten, Rolf (1985). “The Kindred Metaphors in ‘Bechbretha’ and ‘Coibnes Uisci Thairidne'”. Peritia. 4: 307–327. doi:10.1484/J.Peri.3.112.
• Breatnach, Liam (2005). A Companion to the Corpus Iuris Hibernici. DIAS. ISBN 1855001845.
• Breatnach, Liam (1987). Uraicecht na Ríar: the poetic grades in early Irish law. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. ISBN 9780901282897.
• Kelly, Fergus (1988). A Guide to Early Irish Law. Early Irish Law Series 3. Dublin: DIAS. ISBN 0901282952.
• Jaski, Bart (June 2013). Early Irish Kingship and Succession. Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1-84682-426-5.
• Kleefeld, John (2010). “From Brouhahas to Brehon Laws: Poetic Impulse in the Law” Law and Humanities 4(1): 21–61.
• Lyall, Andrew (2000). Land Law in Ireland. Roundhall Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 9781858001999.
• MacNeill, Eoin (17 December 1923). “Ancient Irish Law: the law of status or franchise”. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature. 36: 265–316. (subscription required (help)).
• Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (1995), Early Medieval Ireland 400–1200, Longman.
• Power, Patrick C. (1976). “Sex and Marriage in Ancient Ireland”, Mercier.
• Katherine Simms (2004). Gaelic military history and the later Brehon law commentaries, Unity in diversity, 51–67.
• Katherine Simms (2007). “The poetic Brehon lawyers of early sixteenth-century Ireland” Eiru 57, 212–132.
• Wylie, John C.W. (2013). Irish Land Law, 5th ed, Bloomsbury Professional.
Citations[edit]
1. Jump up ^ Lyall 2000[page needed]
2. ^ Jump up to: a b John Carey, “An Edition of the Pseudo-historical Prologue to the Senchas Már”, Ériu 45 (1994) 1–32.
3. Jump up ^ D.A. Binchy, “Irish History and Irish Law”, Studia Hibernica 15 (1975)
4. Jump up ^ D.A. Binchy, “Celtic Suretyship, a Fossilized Indo-European Institution?” Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, ed. Hoenigswald and Senn Cardona
5. ^ Jump up to: a b Kelly 1988, pp.231–232
6. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp.232 forward.
7. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp.242 forward.
8. Jump up ^ Flannery, Pat (4 June 2007). “Brehon Laws part 2”. Irish history. Youtube. 6m55s.
9. Jump up ^ “Brehon law”. Heritage. Courts Service of Ireland. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
10. Jump up ^ Duffy, Sean (ed.). “Brehon Laws”. Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia. p. 72.
11. Jump up ^ C. E. Meek and K. Simms, The Fragility of Her Sex: Medieval Irish Women in their European Context, page 25, ‘Marriage Laws in the Early Middle Ages.’ Historian Bart Jaski compares the earlier Pagan marriage law to early Roman ‘manus’ marriage, implying an improvement in the status of Irish women over time.
12. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 79
13. Jump up ^ “Cáin Lánamna”. CELT.
14. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 207 quoting and translating Binchy 1978, p.45 l.3 and p.1421 l.30
15. Jump up ^ Jaski 2013, Appendices 1 and 2.
16. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p.18
17. ^ Jump up to: a b Kelly 1988, p. 19
18. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, 104–105
19. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 21–22
20. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 23–25, 52
21. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 25–26
22. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979 pp. 21, 37, 105
23. Jump up ^ MacNeill 1923 gives a translation of these two texts
24. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, various pages.
25. Jump up ^ MacNeill 1923
26. Jump up ^ Breatnach 1987, p. 85–86
27. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979 line 604–606. Partially translated by Kelly 1988, p. 41
28. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 95, 112–113
29. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 11
30. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 82
31. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 81–82
32. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 5–6
33. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, pp. 76–77, 101–102
34. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 18–19
35. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, p. xix
36. Jump up ^ Breatnach 1987, p. 81 ff
37. Jump up ^ Breatnach 1987, p. 113
38. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 52 forward
39. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 28
40. Jump up ^ Liam Breatnach, Uraiccecht na Ríar
41. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 36–37
42. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, pp. 70–72
43. Jump up ^ Liam Breatnach, Uraiccecht na Ríar, pp96–97.
44. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 131 ff
45. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 129–130.
46. Jump up ^ D.A. Binchy, Bretha Déin Chécht, pp 22–23.
47. ^ Jump up to: a b Kelly 1988, pp. 132.
48. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, pp. 91–92.
49. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 131.
50. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 130.
51. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979 page 93.
52. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 133.
53. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 125–127
54. Jump up ^ Baumgarten 1985. It should be mentioned that the translation of the last name is uncertain in the Dictionary of the Irish Language.[dubious – discuss]
55. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, 12
56. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, 13–14
57. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, 13.
58. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp.80–81
59. Jump up ^ Lyall 2000[page needed]
60. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp. 102–105
61. Jump up ^ Jaski 2013, 115
62. Jump up ^ Kelly 1997, 412–413
63. Jump up ^ Kelly 1997, 416–417
64. Jump up ^ Kelly 1997 p. 413–414
65. Jump up ^ Jaski 2013, 119–120
66. Jump up ^ Baumgarten 1985, pp 312–313
67. Jump up ^ Kelly 1997, pp. 399–400
68. Jump up ^ D.A. Binchy, “Linguistic and Historical Value of the Irish Law Tracts”, in Celtic Law Papers, (Aberystwyth, 1971) p, 93.
69. Jump up ^ Robin Chapman Stacey, Dark Speech: the Performance of Law in Early Ireland
70. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 196–197, which does give some examples of what may be meant by each
71. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 236
72. Jump up ^ Neil McLeod, The Concept of Law in Ancient Irish Jurisprudence, in “Irish Jurist” 17 (1982)
73. Jump up ^ Binchy 1979, p. 70
74. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 171–172.
75. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p 169
76. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 168–171.
77. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 172–173.
78. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp 234–235, 281 and elsewhere.
79. Jump up ^ Binchy 1978, p ix
80. ^ Jump up to: a b Breatnach, Liam (1984). “Canon law and secular law in early Ireland: the significance of Bretha Nemed”. Peritia. 3: 439–459. doi:10.1484/J.Peri.3.78. ISSN 0332-1592.
81. ^ Jump up to: a b Donnchadh Ó Corráin et al., “The Laws of the Irish” in Peritia 3 (1984)
82. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 232 forward discusses the outlines of this argument
83. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, Appendices 2 – 7.
84. Jump up ^ Charles-Edwards and Kelly 1983, pp 27 and forward
85. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, pp 242–243
86. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, p. 344
87. Jump up ^ Neil McLeod “A True Companion to the Corpus Iuris Hibernici”, Peritia 19 (2005)
88. Jump up ^ Senchus Mor, Rolls ed. pages 5–16.
89. Jump up ^ John Carey, The two laws in Dubthach’s judgment, in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, (1990) number 19 and Kim McCone, “Dubthach maccu Lugair and a Matter of Life and Death in the Pseudohistorical Prologue to the Senchas Már” in Peritia 5 (1986)
90. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, 286–287; Kelly 1988, pp. 178 and forward.
91. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 29 and forward.
92. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 70, 93. Bart Jaski, Translation of Cáin Lánamna at http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/keltisch/CL-translation.htm
93. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005 and Kelly 1988 respectively. The text can be found in D.A. Binchy, ed., Corpus Iuris Hibernici, vol. 1: 90.33 – 93.30; vol. 2: 520.1 – 536.27; vol. 3: 903.37 – 905.5; 411–1479; vol. 5: 1812.33 – 1821.27; vol. 6: 2045.37 – 2046.28, 2045.37 – 2046.28
94. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 42
95. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, p. 291
96. Jump up ^ Charles-Edwards and Kelly 1983, pp. 27–28
97. Jump up ^ Charles-Edwards and Kelly 1983, pp. 32 forward
98. Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, p. 303
99. Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 246
100.Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, 268–269
101.Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, pp. 316–317
102.Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 278
103.Jump up ^ Robin Chapman Stacey, The Road to Judgment: From Custom to Court in Medieval Ireland and Wales
104.Jump up ^ Binchy 1979. The only reliable translation of the text is Mac Neill 1923 pp. 265–316
105.Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, pp 242–243. This poem is translated at ancienttexts.org, where it is misleadingly termed the Crith Gablach, and the translation attributed to D.Binchy.
106.Jump up ^ Neil McLeod, Early Irish Contract Law
107.Jump up ^ Breatnach 1987
108.Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 251
109.Jump up ^ Breatnach 2005, pp 100 forward
110.Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 279.
111.Jump up ^ Kelly 1988, p. 280
112.Jump up ^ Charles-Edwards and Kelly 1983, p. 68
113.Jump up ^ Richard Sharpe, ed., Life of St. Columba, p. 189 forward
114.Jump up ^ “Cora Harrison, The Burren Mysteries”. Retrieved 2014-02-12.
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Brehon Laws.
• Ancient laws of Ireland … Published under direction of the commissioners for publishing the ancient laws and institutes of Ireland published 1865-1901, accessible through HathiTrust
• The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook by Laurence Ginnell, 1894
• The Law of the Couple: translation of an Irish legal text on marriage
• Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies – School of Celtic Studies Catalogue of relevant publications
• Solarguard Brehon Precis of Fergus Kelly’s A Guide to Early Irish Law
• The Brehon Laws – Catholic Encyclopedia article
