Perceptions of the Irish in Medieval English Writing

1200-1400

Master of Philosophy in Medieval History

2016

Submitted to Dublin University

Kevin John Patrick Thomson

Caoimhín Eóin Pádraig MacThomáis

ii

Declaration

This thesis is entirely my own work and has not been

submitted as an exercise for a degree at this or any other

university. Trinity College may lend or copy the

dissertation upon request. This permission covers only

single copies made for study purposes, subject to

normal conditions of acknowledgement.

Signed:___________________________

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the staff of the Department

of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin for their

encouragement and criticism.

I would particularly like to thank Dr Peter Crooks, my

supervisor, for his support and great constructive

suggestions as well as his prompt and helpful responses

to my queries and needs.

I would like to thank my mother, Patricia, for

supporting me and encouraging me throughout the

process of my Masters.

Míle buíochas chugaibh.

Kevin John Patrick Thomson

31 August 2016

iv

Abstract

The aim of my thesis is to effectively supply a true analysis of the nature of perceptions of

Irish in a way which not only proves the importance of English opinions to the Irish, on both

a day to day and sustained level but also understandings of the Irish. I will also show how

they affected the English political psyche and national identity. Secondly the thesis will also

be able to ascertain why certain stereotypes were thought of the Irish and why it was that they

were to change over time based upon increased interaction.

Chapter One will interpret the evidence given for Ireland and her people from the

imagined geography of the Middle Ages. The evidence given in classical sources shall be

looked at and compared with the evidence of the writers of the two centuries with which I am

interested. Following on from this is a cartographic analysis, including in particular the

Hereford based Mappa Mundi. The chapter shall conclude with analysis of the theory of

Ireland as an otherworld, both in relation to St Patrick’s Purgatory and an analysis of the

associated mythical creatures

Chapter Two features the theory of the Origines Gentium, Pseudohistory and the

Bible. It encapsulates the importance of establishing precedent and the right to rule, in this

case England’s right to rule Ireland. By using old Irish nation origin myths they were able to

effectively create a brand of history which allowed for their overlordship of Ireland. Biblical

references were designed to show the English as the chosen people and the issue of language

shall was offered as proof of English pious behaviour in their dealings with the Irish.

Chapter Three finally will seek to analyse changes in the stereotyping associated with

the Irish in relation to true historical events between 1200 and 1400. The main influences

upon this were the growth of English Nationalism, ecclesiastic power struggles, war and

English legislation, and even a royal visit to Ireland for the first time in 180 years.

v

Table Of Contents

Introduction 1

Chapter I- Ireland in the imagined geography of the Middle Ages 9

Chapter II- Origines Gentium, Biblical References and Pseudohistory 31

Chapter III- English Nationalism and Anglo Irish Relations 45

Conclusion 57

Bibliography 61

1

Introduction

Descriptions of the Irish in Medieval English writing are both plentiful and relatively

untapped as a resource. Indeed with regard to almost the entirety of Irish history the usage of

English literature as a way of gaining an understanding of perceptions of the Irish has been

woefully neglected with a much maligned book by Elizabeth Rambo, the only truly direct

secondary source which I had at my disposal. Another problem with the existing

historiography and indeed many historical works on Irish history in general is a rather

unfortunate over emphasis on certain words such as “barbarism” when describing the Irish.

Largely this is not accompanied with any sort of elaboration or definition of what is meant by

words like this. The purpose of this study is make use of these and extrapolate the exact

nature of English perceptions of the Irish in a bid to gain a greater understanding of the

historical realities, the reasons behind major events as well as seeing the results of historical

events on the perceptions of the Irish which I believe I will find to be a bigger factor the

further I get into this two hundred year period.

My methodology is something which to my knowledge has never been truly attempted before

in relation to Irish medieval history. An analysis of the Irish in English writing will be

delivered with the use of both historical favourites such as chronicles, statutes, calendars as

well countless different facets of literature from Arthurian Legend to religious treatises.

Rambo, perhaps due to her English literature background decided not to adventure into this

sort of analysis. Another difference between my own methodology and that of Rambo is that

I intend as much as possible to mix different genres of literature in the individual chapters of

this work. This will allow me to further prove the flow of ideas and the influences they had

2

on people of different backgrounds, allowing for genuine English perceptions and not just a

chronicler’s or an ecclesiastic’s.

Elizabeth L. Rambo wrote her book from an English literature perspective. Whilst this

offers a different way of looking at the topic from myself, her historical analysis is littered

with some basic errors on key topics.1 This may possibly be due to the fact that she doesn’t

seem to have had access to primary sources relating to the historical background. A number

of the people who have reviewed her book seemed to miss the most important point of the

text, that being that she obviously views perceptions of the Irish in English literature as

something of importance, from both an Irish and an English perspective. John Scattergood2

and Sigmund Eisner3 respectively claimed that her work had an air of irrelevance, due to

England’s fascination in looking eastwards to the continent, especially to France, throughout

the high to late Middle Ages. I can argue against the opinions of both Scattergood and Eisner

to provide the foundation of my dissertation. English opinions of the were Irish very

important to the Irish themselves, who were the subject of many laws and statutes passed

both in Ireland and in England. English perceptions of them could really change the way they

lived. Not only this but reflections on the Irish by the English were also be used as a mirror

through which to view themselves, invariably as a superior nation. Colonial Ireland in

Medieval English Literature is of great significance for my purposes as it can be utilised as

first port of call for finding masses of primary sources. It also offered interesting ways to

interrogate the sources such as dealing with the theory of Ireland as an otherworld.4 She did

have other ways of dealing with this topic which seemed flawed, such as her particular style

1 Elizabeth L. Rambo, Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature (London, 1994), 22. Richard II ascended

to the throne in 1377 not 1389, for example. 2 John Scattergood, “Review”, Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 30. (1996), 131.

3 Sigmund Eisner, “Review”, Speculum, Vol 71. (1996), 480.

4 Rambo, Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature, 50-53.

3

of using hagiographies.5 Others have pointed out that the genre has far too many outside

influences upon it, such as the growth of international cults, but an international influence is

utterly unavoidable if one is to deal with an awful lot of the English literature in this period,

as Classical and even earlier medieval continental sources were very important. Religious

writings about St Patrick can also be used effectively despite the fact that he was of course of

Romano-Britannic descent, provided all of my data is collected on the nature of Ireland and

the Irish people and doesn’t deal as Rambo incorrectly does, with St Patrick himself.6

Writing predominantly about the perceptions of the Irish pre my period of interest, Dr.

Scully’s works were of innate interest even if his actual content was not incredibly useful to

my thesis. Diarmuid Scully’s multiple pieces all hinge on the importance of the Classical and

pre Norman invasion material and what their individual influences were on the historiography

on the Irish during the period. In his piece “The portrayal of Ireland and the Irish in

Bernard’s Life of St Malachy”, Scully suggests that Bernard of Clairvaux’s Life of St

Malachy, was a watershed moment in the presentation of the Irish in international

historiography, claiming it signalled a break from more benevolent opinion of the Irish which

had been fostered by previous ecclesiastic thinkers such as Bede.7 The problem with this,

however, is the fact that there is a very important point which is missed. The perceptions of

the Irish involved in the clergy always had been and would until the Reformation be viewed

as much more commendable than the Irish laity. The real point to be made about the Life of

St Malachy is that the Irish laity became a group of people who are being viewed with the

upmost negativity, and in a negative manner not seen since the acceptance of Ireland as a

Christianised country many centuries earlier.8 The problem was they had not been talked

5 Rambo, Colonial Ireland, 73-97.

6 Ibid, 97-105.

7 Diarmuid Scully, “The portrayal of Ireland and the Irish in Bernard’s Life of St Malachy”, Ireland and Europe

in the Twelfth Century, eds Damian Bracken &Dagmar Ó Riain-Raedel, (Dublin, 2006), 247-8. 8 Ibid, 243.

4

about in great detail in any of the interceding works; Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, for

example, was exactly what it said it was, and as such devoted little vellum to non-Church

related topics. Whilst some works mentioned the “barbarous” Irish in passing, the verbal

attack on them was not sustained and/or all that meaningful. Scully’s awareness of the Life of

St Malachy’s importance is correct but I believe that he has rather mixed up the reasoning as

to why, as it does show the first strong opinion on the Irish general populace for a significant

period of time, but this does not, however necessarily mean that this was a change in feeling

towards the Irish laity, as the lack of written evidence on them cannot be confused with

general contentedness with their behaviour.

Ireland and the Classical World by Philip Freeman was of key importance for me

later on in my studies in order to allow me to identify recurring tropes and furthermore,

where their origins lay. Freeman dealt with the gradual growth of opinions, going from the

naming of Ireland as Hibernia by Julius Caesar to the some of the most negative Classical

opinions, such as Strabo , who placed Ireland at the extreme northern end of possible human

existence, in turn inherently signifying the inhuman nature of the Irish. This was an idea

which prevailed in collective Medieval European ideology when creating stereotypes of most

natios or gens, particularly the less favourable ones, a bracket under which Ireland invariably

fell. The work of Freeman served a very important purpose as part of the geographical

reasoning behind some opinions of Ireland. His piece links in very well with the other

articles by Diarmuid Scully.

Scully’s pieces entitled “At World’s End: Scotland and Ireland in the Graeco- Roman

Imagination” and “Christians, Pagans and Barbarians: The Irish in Giraldus Cambrensis and

the Graeco-Roman Sources” provided me with the very clear understanding that to get to

grips with important opinions on the Irish in my period of interest it was of vital importance

that I wasn’t deceived into looking at only insular sources. Classical sources provided some

5

of the ideas for my period of study, and it would appear that during the later middle ages,

they were one of the most popular genres of literature amongst the learned.9 He does,

however, seem to overplay the importance of Gerald of Wales, the nature of his sources is

that he is one of the first people to write solely about Ireland but he largely seems to have

been a compiler of other peoples’ opinions. Looking back on the second title, “Christians,

Pagans and Barbarians: The Irish in Giraldus Cambrensis and the Graeco- Roman sources”,

the link between a twelfth century ethnographer and Classical ideas is very clear and can

even be used to displace some of the importance of Giraldus as perhaps just an individual

who conflated earlier ideas and in reality added little. Giraldus was significant but by no

means was as important as he is made out to be by modern day historians.

Kim M Phillip’s Before Orientalism is extremely interesting as a possible vehicle of

thinking of ideas of Ireland inside a more global trend during the Middle Ages. Whilst

opinions of the people of the Far East was starting to become more benign, and a better

understanding being reached in general by the fourteenth century10

, (even of thirteenth

century warmongers like the Mongols) as she claims in her book, through my own studies,

opinions of the Irish had in no significant manner improved. Why was this? Was this due to

the fact that unlike the Muslims and Jewish states in the Near East11

, the Irish posed some

sort of threat to the ideals of Christendom and by extension England herself? Another very

interesting point is a methodological suggestion made inside of the book itself that perhaps

we can best understand the opinions made by the English towards others as assisting their

own idea of selfhood and “provide a kind of pleasure through horror”12

for themselves. I was

able to link this back to my own work in a more tangible manner with an article by Aisling

9 Julia C. Crick, The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV, Dissemination and Reception in the

Later Middle Ages, (Cambridge, 1991), 9. 10

Kim M. Phillips, Before Orientalism, (Philadelphia, 2014), 7. 11

Ibid, 2 12

Ibid, 3.

6

Byrne, entitled “West is East: The Irish Saracens in Of Arthour And of Merlin”. In this piece

there are many rather strange elusions to the Irish as “Sarraȝins”. It seems to have been based

of “Lestoire de Merlin”, a French piece which predates the English version.13

The overriding

idea that seems to come out of the piece is that the Irish were heterodox,14

a long established

idea, going back to Bede and possibly further, and one which had featured very heavily

around the contentious issue as to when Easter ought to be celebrated, for instance. A

combination of these two pieces will help me to build up a comparative aspect to my

progression on the topic of stereotypes and the English creation of Irishness.

R.R. Davies was of course, a must read, with his status as one of the ground breakers

in the field of “British” Medieval History. Two of his Presidential Addresses were the best

suited for my purposes. “The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II Names,

Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities” uses his well established and excellent usage of

comparative medieval British history. Davies helps to analyse and show how Ireland was

viewed in comparison to Wales and Scotland in particular making a detailed account about

the links between the Scottish and the Irish,15

something that must be alluded to during the

course of this study. He also ventures that by the thirteenth century the enemies of the

English were the foreigners rather than god, resulting in xenophobic based nationalism. He

also is extremely knowledgeable about the fixation of the English regarding identities and

ethnic descent. Accompanying Davies’ on the following topics is Andrea Ruddick’s English

Identity and Political culture in the Fourteenth Century. Ruddick makes the extremely

interesting point that there was no real England wide idea of what being English was. The

combining factors which made someone English had to be based on their understanding of

13

Aisling Byrne , “West is East; The Irish Saracens in Of Arthour And of Merlin”, Nottingham Medieval

Studies Vol. 55, (2011), 217. 14

Ibid, 228. 15

R.R. Davies, “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II Names, Boundaries and

Regnal Solidarities”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol 5 (1995), 2-7.

7

what they were most definitely not. This was the reasoning behind the nature of descriptions

of Celtic gens.16

Geographical and cartographical modes of expression were very much associated with

myth as well as long held beliefs about certain places that were either founded upon classical,

religious or indeed no evidence at all, the fear from which could be stronger than horrific

knowledge itself. Chapter One therefore will outline how the untamed and ungodly nature of

Ireland could be created in the mind of writers.

Origines gentium and pseudohistory are linked in that they both give propaganda

statements related to ascertaining the rights of a nation, how far their borders spread, who

they ruled and for how long. This means that Chapter Two deals with a key aspect of English

history-making and claiming overlordship over Ireland. This chapter shall also chart the

development of a “British” colonial ideology, which was coupled with biblical references to

boost the standing of the nation and give England the rights she needed to rule and conquer

other countries.

Finally historical trends shall be used in Chapter Three in order to ascertain changes

in opinions of the Irish over the course of the two century time frame of this study. What did

these two hundred years of events and Anglo-Irish interaction do to affect the way in which

the Irish were perceived? Also, what effects did changes in insular English mentalities about

their own country begin to evolve into a nationalism that seeped over into a rather more

negative xenophobia have for the Irish?

What all of this leaves is an excellent basis for a more historically sound study which

uses the perceptions of the English as a mode for analysis on both the past and the

contemporaneous Irish populations. The aim of which is to assess how opinions of the Irish in

16

Andrea Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century, (Cambridge, 2013), 48.

8

English acted in a circular motion with both inherited opinions of the Irish and opinions

generated from the historical problems that came about in Anglo-Irish relations. This will

seek to provide the reader with an increased understanding of the importance of the Irish to

the growth of an English identity which was reactionary to what was around them and what

they were not. All the while it will also attempt to prove how foreign opinions of the Irish

guided understandings of the Irish in the English psyche designed to drive fear and loathing

into the interrelations the English and Irish were to have over the course of the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries.

9

Chapter I

Ireland in the imagined geography of the Middle Ages

The imagined geography of the Middle Ages was due to beliefs that were long deep seated

which connected where someone lived with their mentality and way of life. The nature of this

allowed for easily created propagandist style prose as to what it meant to be from a certain

country and the reasons as to why that country was lesser than your own. Organic English

propaganda was the resulting effect of this potent mix, but just how badly did it affect their

perceptions of the Irish?

Geographically based stereotyping dates back to Graeco- Roman times, when Ireland

was envisaged as right on the edge of the habitable world to the far north. Based off this

assertion as to where Ireland was in in the world, suggestions could be made about the nature

of the temperament of the people that lived there. Aristotle in his work Politics stated that

“Those who live in a cold climate and in Europe are full of spirit but wanting in

intelligence and skill, and therefore they keep their freedom but have no political

organization, and are incapable of ruling over others.”1

By the time the Cambro- Norman cleric and writer Giraldus Cambrensis created his map (see

below) at the start of the thirteenth century there had been significant changes in the way

which Ireland was viewed in geographical terms. Rolf Baumgarten, has claimed that by

Cambrensis’ era Classical era “geographical statement[s] concerning Ireland [were]

antiquarian knowledge hardly equatable to then current geographical teaching”.2 This would

seem pretty easy to accept considering the fact that they were separated by a huge swathe of

1 Robert Bartlett, “Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity”, Journal of Medieval and Early

Modern Studies 31:1 (Winter 2001), 46. Alas, perhaps not the freedom part. 2 Rolf Baumgarten, “The Geographical Orientation of Ireland in Isidore and Orosius”, Peritia 3 (1984), 191/2.

10

history and large amounts of improvements in terms of geographical knowledge and

exploration. Indeed Giraldus’ own map at the very beginning of the thirteenth century

represents an incredibly different idea of Ireland compared to the reconstruction of the Greek

geographer and historian Strabo’s opinions in his book dating back to the last century BC/

first century AD.3 Strabo’s opinions on the Irish were of course completely based around

their Northerly placement on a map of the world.4 In most of the classical pieces Ireland is

either the most northerly or only second to the island of Thule. Emperor Julius Caesar in the

same era as Strabo was extremely interested in gathering as much information on the lands

known to the Romans as possible. It was at this time that he officially called Ireland

“Hibernia” which was to further negatively affect perceptions of Ireland as the desolate and

bleak nation whose inhabitants hung on to their existence.5

Fig 1.1 National Library

of Ireland MS 700-

Giraldus Cambrensis

Topographia Hibernica-

Early Thirteenth Century

Version

3 Encyclopedia Britannica- Strabo [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Strabo] (Accessed 9 August 2016).

4 Philip Freeman, Ireland and the Classical World, (Austin, 2001), 49.

5 Ibid, 32/3.

11

Fig 1.2 Artist’s impression of Strabo’s Geography

From the beginning of the thirteenth century from which period Giraldus’ map dates

to the period at the end of the thirteenth/start of the fourteenth century when the Hereford

Mappa Mundi had been created6, Ireland is portrayed as directly to the west of the British

Isles and Europe. This rather significantly placed Ireland at the very edge of the known

world. The problem with this is that despite their placement of Ireland on the global map

having changed there still seems to have been a widespread acceptance with regard to the

nature of the Irish. Opinions largely remained more in line with the established idea of them

living far to the north of the rest of the civilised world. Despite what could be viewed as the

main reason for a negative connotation about the Irish having been removed, the opinions of

Classical geographers still remained very popular. This was probably due to the usage of

6 Hereford Mappa Mundi [http://themappamundi.co.uk/mappa-mundi/] (Accessed 3 June 2016).

12

these sources in the extremely influential Topographia Hibernia (1187) written by Giraldus

Cambrensis.7 The fourteenth century monk based at the Benedictine Abbey of St

Werburgh’s8, Ranulph Higden, writer of the global history, Polychronicon, in his first book

of the collection dealt almost exclusively with global geography. He used the Latin

grammarian and compiler Gaius Julius Solinus, who flourished during the 3rd

century AD, as

his main source when referring to Irish physical geography. In doing so he makes reference to

Solinus’ measurements of Ireland compared to Britain, showing it as much smaller and stated

that Ireland lies across a sea that “is six score myle brood”.9 Despite his usage of Solinus for

other geographical facts he correctly states that “Hibernia omnium insularum

occidentalum…est/ Ireland is the last of all the western islands.” Significantly he still seems

to deem their current geographical positioning as a significant issue. It was directly relatable

to the “manners of the men of that land” 10

which is very much a continuation of opinion

between the Classical period and his own. Indeed this type of stereotyping is not isolated to

just English writers, chroniclers etc. Ineed across Europe opinions of this nature prevailed,

the most common of which was claiming that the Mediterranean region with its warm

temperate climate was the most conducive to civilisation.11

This in a roundabout manner of

course suggests that Ireland and north-western Europe would be quite the opposite. Due to

the fact the Ranulph Hidgen seems to have been extremely well read in works not only back

through time but also from across Christendom12

this would suggest that these ideas would

have been far from inaccessible for the Chester based monk.

7 Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Monachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa

and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century Vol. I, ed. Rev. Joseph Rawson Lumby, (London, 1865), 24 &

328. Ranulph Higden, for example, relies a lot on Giraldus for his coverage of Ireland. 8 Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England ii, c.1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London, 1982), 43.

9 Polychronicon Vol I., 331.

10 Ibid, 328/9

11 Andrea Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century, (Cambridge, 2013), 134.

12 Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 48.

13

Of course, the nature of geographical association has to actually be based, no matter

how loosely, around something regarded as factual. A lot of the earlier classical ideas were

dealing with the Irish despite having never been there which meant that they had to have a

point of reference. For the most part they gained this through comparisons with the Scythians.

The main reason for this was that to Roman scholars the Scythians were the most well-known

northerly tribe. All of Strabo’s supposed knowledge of the Irish came from what he knew

about the Scythians and in no way pretended otherwise, such was the nature of geographical

treatises in his era.13

A quick reference to the artist’s impression of his geography of the

world will show how Ireland and Scythia lay on similar latitudes in his eyes. The Scythian

connection is extremely strong and is something which does not merely disappear after the

fall of the Roman Empire, or indeed in the centuries which were to follow it. In the ninth

century, the ecclesiastic Nennius,14

is thought to have lived in the rural mountains of East

Wales, both close enough to be influenced by Anglo-Saxon ideologies yet not living in their

midst. He wrote in his Historia Brittonum that the Irish themselves were descended from the

Scythians.15

Like the connection between northerly placement on the global map and the mentality

of the people, the Scythian connection remains around until the time period of my research.

Going through time the Irish came to be increasingly associated with the Scythians in terms

of alliances. Even later into my time period the Scythians were slowly replaced by the Picts

who were deemed to have descended from the Scythians. Links of this nature abound in the

Arthurian legend literature and a tale of the arrival of the Scythians into Britain by Geoffrey

13

Freeman, Classical World, 46. 14

David N. Dumville, “Some aspects of the chronology of the Historia Brittonum”, Bulletin of the Board of

Celtic Studies Vol. 25 (1972-4), 439-45. There is some discussion as to whether or not Nennius was the true

author of this this work, stemming from David Dumville’s claim that the preface with the author attribution was

a later addition to the main work. I, however, am assuming Nennius as the author of this work. 15

Nennius, British History and the Welsh Annals, ed. & trans. John Morris, (London, 1980), 20/1.

14

of Monmouth seems to further strengthen their ties over the centuries. It asserted the link in

the Arthurian legend tradition, stating that the Picts who had arrived from Scythia and

rejected as being below par to marry the Britons daughters’,

“transfretauerunt in Hibernuam duxeruntque ex patria illa mulieres, ex quibus creare

sobole multitudinum suam auxerunt/ sailed to Ireland and in that country took wives, whose

offspring increased their numbers.”16

This story is slightly changed in the later study with which this study is interested in,

Higden’s Polychronicon, where he asserts that the Scythians went to Ireland first, before they

invaded Britain.

“Irlond, as Scottes seide, myȝt nouȝt susteyne boþe peple. Scottes sent þe Pictes to

the norþ side of Bretayne, and behiȝte hem help aȝenst þe Bretouns þat wer enemyes, yf þey

wold arise, and took hem to wyfes of here doubȝtres”17

This on a slight side note links very well to Susan Reynolds’s suggestion that only true

hoards lacking all civility were portrayed as self-contained breeding populations regularly in

medieval writings, in what she has referred to as “folk migrations”.18

The Scythian connection having fallen aside and been replaced by the less tenuous

connection of the Picts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had in turn by the end of the

fourteenth century become a phenomenal Celtic alliance, a collective enemy closing in upon

the English. Throughout the period of my interest indeed history tells us that England was

under attack/ at war with Wales, the insurgent Irish and the Scottish to the North. In later

periods such as the time of Malory in the late fifteenth century, King Rion (usually the rebel

16

Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, ed. Michael D. Reeve, trans. Neil Wright

(Woodbridge, 2007), 86/7. 17

Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Maonachi Cestrensis: together with the translations of John Trevisa and of

an unknown writer of the fifteenth century Vol II., (London, 1869), 145. 18

Susan Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium and the Community of the Realm”, History, Vol. 68 (1983),

379.

15

or enemy Irish king) was a King resident in Northern Wales who controlled parts of all three

of these countries.19

The Scythians had at first been a comparison that had come into fruition

because of their similar latitude to the Irish but had become a defining fact, a link between the

different Celtic enemies of the English first and a reason for their unbecoming behaviour

second.

Despite all of these changes a lot of the tropes about the Irish remained the same over

the intervening period between the Classical topics just dealt with and the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries. One trope which was most definitely the exception not the rule and had

as such largely disappeared by the thirteenth century was that of the Irish as cannibals. The

reason for this tropes disappearance has been largely associated with the Christianisation of

Ireland. Strangely enough it does actually does reappear in Polychronicon. This may be due

to the increasingly large amounts of question marks being raised as to how Christian the Irish

really were in my period of interest.20

This is one of only two absolutely unquestionable

references to cannibalism which I found in my study of the two hundred years I have engaged

with; “Refert Solinus…Gens habitu singularis et inculta, victu parce, animo saeva, affatu

aspera, sanguine interemptorum prius hausto vultus suos oblinivit.” Trevisa’s translation of

this into Middle English is not fully direct but he states that the Irish “drinkeþ first blood of

dede men þa beeþ i-slawe, and þan wassheþ here face þerwiþ” 21

The other which I have

come across is a reference in Jean Froissart’s Chronicles, which shall be revisited in this

study at a later juncture.22

It is perhaps surprising that this suggestion did not make a more

pointed resurgence in English literature post invasion, in a period where the very basis of

19

Malory Works, ed. Eugene Vinaver, (Oxford, 1977), 36. 20

Diarmuid Scully, “The portrayal of Ireland and the Irish in Bernard’s Life of St Malachy”, Ireland and

Europe in the Twelfth Century, eds Damian Bracken & Dagmar Ó Riain- Raedel, (Dublin, 2006), 243. 21

Polychronicon Vol I, 352/3. 22

Jean Froissart, Chronicles, ed. Geoffrey Brereton, (London, 1978), 410. “And they never leave a man for

dead until they have cut his belly open to remove the heart, which they take away. Some, who know their ways,

say that they eat it with great relish.”

16

English rule in Ireland as suggested in Laudabiliter was, “to root from them [the people of

Ireland] the weeds of vice”23

. The entirety of Laudabiliter features in Chronica Majora for

example, written by Matthew of Paris (1200-1259), a man of the cloth who despite his second

name was also English, and exemplifies the lack of true Christian morals, beliefs and practice

amongst the Irish.24

An extremely significant point which is very often discussed in relation to Ireland in

the later middle ages is the association of Ireland with monstrous creatures and an assertion

that Ireland indeed was the home to England’s closest entry point into the otherworld. T M

McAlindon has stated that the nature of the otherworld need not be the land of the dead. It

may be an earthly paradise, or simply a different world, much like our own, yet governed by

different rules of time, space and causality.25

Ireland could be drawn into this discussion due

to the fact that St Patrick’s Purgatory was known to exist in Ireland in a far withdrawn part of

the country, at Lough Derg, nowadays in modern county Donegal. Ireland was the perfect

location as it was of course generally viewed to be at the very edge of the known world and

as a result met a lot of the criteria necessary for an entrance to purgatory to exist. This part of

Ireland was an access point to the otherworld, a place where the depths of Irish peculiarity

could truly be explored. Ireland played a rather sizeable part in the western European and of

course English consciousness in the Middle Ages of the unknown. Despite the above

description from McAlindon suggesting that the otherworld could have a plethora of different

connotations, the descriptions of Ireland as an access point were incredibly negative with few

redeeming features. The ways in which Ireland was associated with the otherworld were

numerous. There is a number of what I have chosen to refer to as nonreligious documents,

meaning documents such as romances, legends, chronicles etc. On the opposite side there are

23

Edmund Curtis & R.B. McDowell eds, Irish Historical Documents 1172-1922, (London, 1943), 17/8. . 24

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, Vol II, ed. Henry Richards Luard, (London,

1874), 210-212. 25

T. M. McAlindon, The Treatment of the Supernatural in Middle English Legend and Romance, 1200-1400

(Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1961), 108.

17

visios/visions, a hagiography of St Patrick (which spends a massive amount of time referring

solely to the purgatory) as well as a Cistercian propaganda piece. All of them bar one refer to

the story of Knight Owen (spelling varies). We see in these an exploration of an imagination

about what evil things could possibly dwell in Ireland and to varying degrees the threats

which they posed to the English people, who of course are the ones who all of these pieces

really care about.

The Hereford Mappa Mundi was crafted at Hereford Cathedral, the seat of the Bishop

of Hereford, has generally been agreed to date from around the turn of the end of the

thirteenth and the start of the fourteenth century. After reading multiple sources on the

contents of the map I have still not been able to ascertain exactly the nature of the creature

which appears to be breathing fire on the left of the picture below. It looks like a dragon,

however, there are dragons featured on the far side of the map, which have been identified by

Naomi Reed Kline26

. There are clear differences between this creature and the dragons, the

biggest difference being the presence of horns on the dragons on the far side of the map.

Strangely, despite the fact that what is being blown out of the “dragon’s mouth” being bright

red, it is supposed to be portrayed as blowing the Circius wind. The words beside this state

that the “Circius, also called Thrascias, makes clouds also by the coagulation of hail.”27

This

is borrowed from the sixth/seventh century scholar Isidore of Seville (later St Isidore), the

Archbishop of Seville, well known significantly for our purposes for his work on the origins

of nations. The small S on the inside circle of this sector is the starting letter of Septentrio

meaning North. Ireland’s weather is still very much associated with being far to the north of

the world.

26

Naomi Reed Kline, Maps of Medieval Thought The Hereford Paradigm (Woodbridge, 2001), 95. 27

Scott D. Westrem, The Hereford Map, A transcription and Translation of the Legends with Commentary

(Turnhout, 2001), 18.

18

Whilst it is merely conjecture, the animal, mythical or otherwise, which is blowing the

wind, seems to representative of a standard fear of what lies beyond the edge of the earth, a

fearsome beast. Having engaged with the works of Kline and Westrem, there was one fact

that had become extremely obvious. The map was incredibly dependent upon classical works

as well as works that had been in existence for centuries such as those of Isidore of Seville.

One of the very interesting parts of all of this is that there is in this map a very clear

demarcation between Europe and the Holy Land including Ireland and non-Christian lands

outside of Europe. There are no mythical or fearsome beasts portrayed inside the confines of

Europe. There are also very significant descriptions of the various Scythian tribes to be found

on the map almost all of which come from Solinus. He referred to the Sciotauri Scythians as

people who “kill strangers for religious sacrifice” and the Scitharum gens who drank from

cups made of the skulls of their enemies and in whose society “to be devoid of experience of

slaughtering is a disgrace.”28

In the section of the map featured below we see that in Ireland

there is no scathing tale of a fearsome people, despite the fact that the Irish link to the

Scythians was well attested and instead it features churches and the sacred city of Armagh

amongst other things. Despite a suggestion of there being rather foul weather and perhaps

resultant connotations of a rather unfriendly Irish populace, this map portrays Ireland rather

favourably. One cannot, however, allow this to cloud their judgement in favour of a positive

opinion of the Irish. There does seem to have been an intention to make all of Christendom

look good compared to the rest of known world by the clerics who it would appear created

the map.

28

Reed Kline, Maps of Medieval Thought, 143& 152.

19

Fig 1.3

Hereford

Mappa Mundi

St Patrick’s purgatory was a notion which was to rise in prominence towards the end

of the twelfth century but was to remain prominent in popular writing into the fifteenth

century and in popular culture until this very day. Shane Leslie has gone so far as to refer to

the story as “one of the best sellers of the Middle Ages”.29

The nature of purgatory was

something of a new idea, up until this point Christian belief had been binary in its mind-set,

in that there was heaven and hell, God and the Devil.30

Tales of St Patrick’s Purgatory

became very popular as a result of the long-standing popularity of vision literature. This

progressed this even further with the addition of a real physical place that actually existed and

could be visited.31

The Tractatus de Purgatorio de Sancti Patricii was composed in the early thirteenth

century and seems to have been a Cistercian propaganda piece, composed by Gilbert of Louth

29

Shane Leslie, Saint Patrick’s Purgatory: A Record from History and Literature, (London, 1932), xvii. 30

Graham Roberts Edwards , “Purgatory: “Birth” or Evolution?”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 36 (1985),

646. 31

St Patrick’s Purgatory, Two Versions of Owayne Miles amd The Vision of William of Stranton together with

the long text of Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii, ed. Robert Easting, (Oxford, 1991), xviii.

20

to prove that they were the best people to be left in control of the monasteries in Ireland. One

of the very important points taken from this was that the Irish were so cemented in their

paganistic ways that the only way that St Patrick could convert the Irish was to show them

the dark and fiery pits of Hell.32

Indeed they are referred to as people who are ignorant “of

the people of evil” and “show their animal natures”.33

When they do get down to the fiery pits

of hell one of the things which they meet is the dragons, who are associated with the devil

and vice but equally could represent the boorish nature of Ireland as a whole to an English

observer. The dragons lit sinners on fire and others tore them horribly with their teeth

“Dracones ignite super alios sedebant et quasi c[om]edentes illos modo miserabili dentibus

ignites lacerabant.”34

We know that the nature of the pilgrimage was very much voluntary35

and on multiple occasions we have references to various individuals trying to convince Owen

not to go into Ireland for the pilgrimage, particularly the local bishop.36

The pilgrimage

almost certainly seems to be a type of “super-pilgrimage”, with a serious suggestion that it

was extremely high risk, but in return equally offered a high reward, that of knowledge of

how to reach heaven. Someone even having to journey through Ireland in of itself may have

been viewed as dangerous enough, something backed up by several accounts of foreigners

travelling through Ireland in this era.37

Roger of Wendover (d. 1236), a monk at St Albans and the second of two contributors

towards the chronicle Flores Historiarum/Flowers of History after John of Wallingford

details the nature of St Patrick’s Purgatory. He also details the reason as to why it was that St

32

Carol Zaleski, “St Patrick’s Purgatory: Pilgrimage Motifs in a Medieval Otherworld Vision”, Journal of the

History of Ideas, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1985), 478. 33

St Patrick’s Purgatory, 124. 34

Ibid., 131. 35

Zaleski, “St Patrick’s Purgatory: Pilgrimage Motifs”, 469. 36

Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, (London, 1981), 194. 37

CELT The Journey of Viscount Ramon de Perellós to Saint Patrick's Purgatory

[http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100079A/] (Accessed 30 Aug 2016), passim.

21

Patrick had brought about the purgatory and the reason why it was so severe. He claimed that

Patrick had “sought to reclaim from the works of the devil the bestial people of that country,

by fear of the torments of hell and desire of the happiness of heaven”.38

Knight Owen is

referred to strictly as an Irishman who had served king Stephen and duke Henry, and who’s

behaviour in the field of war seems to be in no way different from the standard behaviour of a

twelfth century knight, as he “repented of the violation of churches, and invasion of

ecclesiastical property” in particular.39

Dragons also feature in Roger of Wendover’s version

alongside serpents and toads,

“Fiery dragons were sitting on some of them [sinners], and gnawing them with iron teeth, to

their inexpressible anguish; others were the victims of fiery serpents, which coiling around

their necks, arms, and bodies, fixed iron fangs into their hearts.”40

The serpents are of course an ever present in religious doctrine representing the snakes in the

story of Adam and Eve who led mankind into sin.

One of the most interesting of the writings which deal with purgatory in Ireland is The

Vision of Tundale as the original version of the story was actually written by an Irish monk,

living in Regensburg. Over time, however, the story gained popularity and there is both an

earlier Anglo Norman version of the story and the late fourteenth century English version

which I have used. The visio was famous around Europe but infamous for the development of

different styles and contexts in the story depending who was writing on the topic. The

fourteenth century English version placed the story in a very similar setting in Ireland to St

Patrick’s Purgatory whilst never precisely stating where the place was that the events take

place. Similarly to other pieces on St Patrick’s Purgatory we have a knight as the main

protagonist in the story, further reinforcing the stereotypes regarding the supposed nature of

38

Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, Vol I. trans & ed. J. A. Giles (London, 1849), 511. 39

Ibid, 510/1. 40

Ibid., 515.

22

the individual who would take part in such an undertaking. In the piece we get quite a

massive emphasis on the Irishness of the situation, and the clear opinion that this Irishness is

now undesirable “Ther was no man lyued worse lyfe”41

claims the visio speaking of both the

main protagonist and one would assume the Irish people in general. One part of this Irishness

which is rather refreshing is a reference to a cow, one of the main staples of rural Gaelic Irish

life for the entirety of the medieval period and very often used instead of an actual coinage.

Accepting the commandments he was forced to bring the “kowe” that “He cheryste þe

koweall þat he myȝte” across a bridge. Unlike in other pieces which feature these types of

scenes, the beasts that linger under the bridge are unfortunately not described in much detail,

dealt with in the one sentence “He sawe þe beestes of þe lake”42

who frightened his cow. The

clerical tone of the piece is incredibly clear throughout and no more so in the section directly

after Tundale’s successful crossing over the bridge, where he meets with some of the greatest

kings in Ireland during his time. The reason for their presence is to prove that even the most

blood thirsty and violent kings in Ireland could get into heaven if they chose to repent.

“These two kynges þat I se here

Sometyme wer men of gret powere;

They wer boþe stowte & kene,

In hem was lytull mercy sene;

Eyþer of hem hatede oþer

As cursede Kaym dyde hys broþer.

Certes, Syr, me þynkeþ folly

How þey myȝte be so wordy

To come to þys ioyfull stede;

41

The Vision of Tundale ed from B.L. MS Cotton Caligula A II, ed. Rodney Mearns (Heidelberg, 1985), 82. 42

Ibid., 104.

23

Me þenkes þey were worþy þe dede.”43

The visio shows clearly the nature of Irish Kings and their unworthiness for salvation, as

expressed in the knights amazement at the presence of those great Kings. It paints a damning

image of Irish kingship and further progresses the theory of an Irish lack of loyalty and

fidelity. Simultaneously it showed that the influence of the church is extremely necessary not

only for English expansionist purposes but in an attempt to curtail the behaviour and violent

and un-chivalric tendencies of the Irish people.

Finally, the court historian Jean Froissart (c.1333-1400), the man closer to the English

monarchy than any other source I have used, having been employed by Edward III and his

sons the Black Prince and Lionel of Clarence deals with the purgatory in his Chronicles. He

very clearly shows the relevance of St Patrick’s Purgatory as one of the first things he asks

Sir William (Guillaume) de Lisle when he realizes he has been to Ireland, is with regard to

the Irish Otherworld access point.

“I then asked him about the place called St Patrick’s Hold, and whether the stories told about

it were true. He said they were and that when the King was in Dublin he and another English

knight has been to it and had spent the whole night there from sunset to sunrise” when he

entered the cavern “a kind of heaviness came over us. We sat down on the stone steps and, as

soon as we had done that, we were overcome by a strong desire to sleep and we slept the

whole night through”.44

Sir William’s description of being in the purgatory is not only much shorter than other

accounts it is also a lot more peaceful with him waking in the morning and simply strolling

43

The Vision of Tundale, 134. 44

Froissart, Chronicles, 405/6

* Froissart was of course born in France but throughout the vast majority of his life was writing for the King of

England and was largely Anglophone in his writings, regardless, Sir William de Lisle seems to have been

English.

24

out of the cavern. It does, however, through Froissart’s clear interest in the topic reinforce St

Patrick’s Purgatory’s status as one of the most important things about Ireland in the minds

eye of an English* writer. Froissart seems to be including this in his Chroniques to see

whether what he had heard was correct and to expel any doubt surrounding of the existence

of the phenomena in his mind. All of this despite the fact that De Lisle seems to have been

relatively unimpressed by his entire experience.45

It is quite possible that its inclusion is

entirely surrounding Froissart’s interest and to feed a public obsession with exoticism and

marvel. It is also perhaps interesting to note that Froissart’s source on St Patrick’s Purgatory

is like the original version of the story a knight. Is there a link in the sort of people who were

expected to go on pilgrimage to St Patrick’s Purgatory? In the original cases valour seems to

have been a prerequisite for this endeavor whereas in Sir William de Lisle’s case it seems to

have been largely unnecessary in reality. Perhaps it may have been viewed as important

before his experience, which may provide a reason for his rather listless and rather

unenthusiastic description of the events.

Another key creature which features heavily in stories of otherworldly significance in

Ireland is the giant. Darryl F. Lane has claimed in his PHD thesis that a giant “is invariably

evil and inimical to humankind. Often, the giant is associated with narratives of national

origin; a race of giants must be defeated before a new culture or country can be established.

He also functions as a religious enemy, and must be destroyed by a virtuous champion of

Christianity.”46

Through this understanding the presence of giants in references to tales about

Ireland is extremely useful for understanding the English propagandist perspective; this may

help understand their presence in many of these stories.

45

Claire Sponsler, “The Captivity of Henry Chrystede: Froissart’s Chroniques, Ireland and Fourteenth Century

Nationalism”, Imagining A Medieval English Nation ed. Kathy Lavezzo (London, 2004), 316. 46

Darryl F Lane, An Historical Study of the Giant in the Middle English Metrical Romances, (Ph.D. diss,

University of New Mexico, 1972), iv.

25

Prior to the Tractatus and similar treatises in the twelfth century, Geoffrey of

Monmouth in his The History of the Kings of Britain, makes reference to the presence of

mythical beasts in Ireland. In medieval understandings of the Otherworld it was generally

accepted that there was a stretch of water which separated the otherworld from our own

world, similar to the old classical idea of the River Styx. In this case the Irish Sea performed

the same function as the Styx.47

Suddenly a rather bizarre reference in Geoffrey’s work

becomes very significant.

‘Advenerat namque ex partibus Hibernici maris inauditae ferritatis belua, quae incolas

iuxta maritima sine intermissione devorabat/ A beast of incredible ferocity came from the

region of the Irish Sea and began to devour without respite those living near the coast.’48

It is possible he had, as a cleric himself, heard about St Patrick’s Purgatory at this earlier date,

but this historian would hypothesise that this would be rather unlikely. Along with this there

is also in his coverage of the reign of Aurelius a reference to a stone formation in Ireland on

Mount Killaurus that is referred to as a ‘chorea gigantum/ giant’s ring’49

(I would translate it

as giant’s dance). He possibly could have come up with these ideas due to the fact that

Ireland was at the very edge of the earth, and beyond her shores lay the unknown and the

possibility of fiendish creatures hiding in the sea around her or even living on the land.

Regardless, we see in later romance and legend literature references to a similar idea

of Ireland and of the Irish. The chivalric romance King Horn, dated to somewhere between

47

H.R. Patch, The Other World According to Descriptions in Medieval Literature (Cambridge, Massachusets,

1950), 8. 48

Monmouth, History of the Kings of Britain, 61/2. 49

Ibid, 172/3.

26

1225 and 1275, is seemingly based around an Anglo Norman romance from the previous

century, Romance of Horn c. 1170. Ireland actually features very prominently in the piece,

with the main character being forced into Ireland in exile,50

which is in itself something that

is often associated with Ireland, both in writing as well as in real life.51

It emphasizes Ireland

as a less desirable place to live. King Horn represents Ireland in both a positive and a

negative light, something which is not very common for English medieval writing. When

they do appear as the enemy they are portrayed as giants.52

These giants seem to be from

Ireland and are enemies of the Irish King with whom Horn was in alliance. The giant motif is

indeed something that is very prominent in a lot of different King Arthur pieces despite King

Horn most certainly not being a tale of King Arthur but instead having been clearly

influenced by the cult of King Arthur.

The anonymous Of Arthour And of Merlin, has been the subject of a lot of debate with

regard to its dating but the latest conclusion has been that it was written somewhere around

the turn of the fourteenth century. Linguistics experts have suggested that it was probably

from south eastern England. It is pity that we don’t know more background information about

the text as it is quite possibly the most damning piece that I have to rely upon in relation to

the Irish. Of Arthour And of Merlin seems to have been based off of the French vulgate

Lestoire de Merlin. The main difference between the two versions of these were that the

English version, unlike the French, portrayed the Irish as non-Christian as well as gigantic.53

50

King Horn Robbins Library Digital Projects, University of Rochester

[http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/Salisbury-king-horn] (Accessed 29 Aug 2016) , lines 115-125. 51

The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, trans Sir Herbert Maxwell, (Glasgow, 1913), 183.

J.S. Hamilton, “Piers Gaveston and the Royal Treasure”, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British

Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2 (Summer, 1991), 202. Piers Gaveston, the favourite and supposed lover of Edward II was

sent there by his King. 52

King Horn Robbins Library Digital Projects, lines 808 and 858. 53

Aisling Byrne, “West is East: The Irish Saracens in Of Arthour And of Merlin”, Nottingham Medieval Studies

Vol. 55, (2011), 219.

27

These Irish Kings were all giants and were led by their apparent High King, Rion. There were

twenty giant Irish kings, four of whom attacked London

“Hadde ywarnist toun and tour

Þat þe cuntre aboute Lounde

Slowen and brent to þe grounde….

Man and wiif and children bo

No hade þai no pite to slo”54

They are portrayed as marauding heathens who cared little for the destruction and loss of life

they were causing. The war between Rion with his twenty odd giant kings against Arthur’s

knights provides us with an excellent description of the knights and their varying heights,

with King Canlang towering at 15 feet55

and King Clarion who was 14 feet,56

whilst Rion

unsurprisingly was one of the largest at 17 feet tall.57

Despite the might of these giants they

are simpletons who are overthrown by superior English ability, asserting another victory of

English brains over Irish brawn, fitting into opinions of both giants in a broader context

according to T M. McAlindon58

as well as a broader Irish trope. The Irish in this particular

piece it is important to stress are referred to as Sarraȝins59

, a phrase used in relation to the

Irish on a plethora of occasions60

. I shall come back to this idea in a later chapter, but it seems

to further stress the intense heathenism of the Irish, and perhaps further stresses the nature of

the Irish as hated religious enemies of the English. It also furthers an already incredibly

strong sense that they ought to be taken seriously in war and be feared, comparing the Irish to

the most fearsome enemy the English were likely to have faced.

54

Of Arthour And of Merlin [http://auchinleck.nls.uk/mss/arthur.html] (Accessed 09 June 2016), lines 4732-8. 55

Ibid, lines 5965-8. 56

Ibid, lines 5995-8. 57

Ibid, line 8975. 58

T M. McAlindon, “The Emergence of a Comic Type in Middle English Literature: the Devil and Giant as

Buffoon”, Anglia 81 (1962), 368. 59

Of Arthour And of Merlin, passim. 60

Byrne, “West is East”, 221.

28

Accompanying the giant Irish “Sarraȝin” kings were a series of different coloured

dragons “dragouns”. They provide a more easily associable version of Ireland as a country

wallowing in vice and in some way assimilable to the fiery pits of hell.

“Þe tayle of þe dragoun rede

Þat is so long & so vnrede

Signifieþe þe wicke stren

Þat schal com out of þi kin

& of þi wiuves fader Angys

Þat schal be ded & lessen his pris;

His kin & eke þin

Schal don wo to Bretouns kin.

Þat heued of þe white tayle

Signifieþ gret conseyle

Þat schul held wiþ þe kings blod

Of þe gentil men & gode.”61

These dragons are representatives of both sides of the conflict with the red

representing the Sarraȝin Irish King, with its “wicked strength” that shall do “woe to the kin

of the Britons”, whilst the white tailed dragon, white supposedly representing purity

representing the king and “genteel men and God”. The red dragon was originally a dragon of

the Bretons62

and to this day is represented in the flag of modern day Wales, however, over

the course of the middle ages it came to be associated with all of the Celtic enemies of the

English.63

The white dragon was originally associated with the Saxons but later came to

61

Of Arthour And of Merlin, lines 1665-76. 62

The History of the Britons by Nennius by J. A. Giles (London, 1841), xxvii/xxviii 63

Ernest Ingersoll, Dragons and Dragon Lore, (New York, 2005), 147-150.

29

represent the post 1066 English kingdom.64

The first known reference to this appears in

Nennius’ Historia Britonnum.65

We can regard tales of dragons and giants as metaphorical tools to show the island of

Ireland as still being held in bondage by the evils of heathenism as a result of her people’s

inability to become heterodox members of the church. 66

Or we could leave it open for a more

simple evaluation, emphasizing just how wild Ireland and her people were and as to why the

English should be wary of their Western neighbours. This in many ways it could be argued is

irrelevant. The fact of the matter was that alongside the tales of St Patrick’s Purgatory the

mythical creatures come together, to give a religious, moral and martial sense of superiority

to an Englishman. The fact that the giants and dragons which are associated with the Irish in

these stories are defeated by English heroes strengthens an image of the English as David

having slain Goliath, a story which showed David as the true King of Israel67

and as a result

the English as the true kings and overlords.

64

History of the Britons, xxvii/xxviii. 65

Ibid, 24/5. 66

Byrne, “West and East”, 228. Bede seems to be the man who first commits this problem of the Irish to paper.

Project Gutenberg- Historia Gentis Anglorum [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38326/38326-h/38326-h.html]

(Accessed 20 June 2016), 139. 67

Bible Gateway, 1 Samuel 17 [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV]

(Accessed 15 August 2016).

30

Chapter II

Origines Gentium, Pseudohistory and the Bible

One of the most important political phenomena in the medieval period was that of the Nation

Origin Myth. A Nation Origin Myth is an inspiring tale as to how the nation came to be,

which often tries to overemphasise the power and glory of the country. National origin myths,

of course, came about around the period of the creation of nations in Europe and were

particularly important in providing a political solidarity that was, in reality, either

nonexistent, as was the case for England, or otherwise hard to define. England was not only

one of the earliest countries to come into being but definitely was one of the most

sophisticated, post 1066 at least. By the time period which I am dealing with the Kings of

England had centralized control, a well-developed governmental system and ability to collect

taxes better than any other country in existence.1

Of course, one of the most obvious problems with a country like England was that, as has

already been alluded to, its people were divided amongst themselves with many different

ideas of what constituted their own specifically different pasts.2 Before the Norman Conquest

the native population had been made up of Saxons, Angles and Britons to name but a few.

Indeed in his Polychronicon, Ranulph Higden actually refers to Northern based Anglo-

Norman families as being different and indeed in some way inferior in comparison with their

southern counterparts, due to the fact that their English dialect “shrills so crudely, that we

1 Susan Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium and the Community of the Realm”, History, Vol 68 (1983), 381

2 R.R. Davies, “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II. Names, Boundaries and

Regnal Solidarities”, Transactions of The Royal Historical Society, Vol. 5 (1995), 7.

31

Southerners, are scarcely able to understand it”,3 this he clarifies, was primarily due to the

fact that they lived closer to the Scots. This, despite the fact that he too was seemingly of

Anglo-Norman descent. This provided English nation myth-makers with a potential problem.

How to create a theory of harmony and collective history when the reality had been quite the

opposite? The answer was that they could only define themselves against what they were

most definitely not. Whilst this is never actually referenced directly, there is a very clear lack

of a description of an English person. There is no clear definition as to what an English

person was but what we do have in abundance is derisory references to other groups, which

informs us of the nature of inferior groups and their exploits.

The way in which Celtic and of course Irish backwardness is portrayed invariably

involved a certain degree of English conceitedness. Previous references which I have already

made show this in abundance. The reference in both The History of the Kings of Britain and

Polychronicon to the formation of an Irish-Pict alliance purely based on the suggestion that

the Britons thought of both groups as inferior, makes for an excellent example.4 According to

Susan Reynolds the origin of descriptions of the “barbarian” nations of Europe can be dated

back to the sixth century Byzantine “Frankish Table of Peoples” and was to become very

popular in Western Christendom over the following centuries.5 Indeed in Before Orientalism

by Kim M. Philips, the author aims to place Edward Said’s famous, or perhaps infamous,

Orientalism into a medieval context, whilst minimizing the racial biases of Said himself.

Philips suggests that there was an emerging sense around Europe during this period that

viewing the “Other”, the ones who did not conform, helped to grow a sense of togetherness

3 Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Monachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa

and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century Vol. II, ed. Rev Joseph Rawson Lumby, (London, 1869), 166. 4 Elizabeth L. Rambo, Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature, (London, 1994), 31.

5 Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium”, 375.

32

and identity as well as providing a kind of pleasure through horror.6 This seems to be very

strong in England from the evidence we have at our disposal. In this context Ireland, despite

clearly not belonging to the Orient geographically, is more likely to be described in a way

which is not dissimilar to the eastern societies such as the Indian kingdoms, for example.

There was a significant change from an English ideology to a “British” one in the

Arthurian legend literature. Britain was the home of King Arthur, the king of all of the lands

in the British Isles. In Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon, Chapter 39 was entitled “De

Britannia. Majori jam Anglia dicta/ Of Great Britain now called England”7 and in this

chapter Higden goes on to deal with the ancient history of England and King Arthur. The

years after the Norman invasion of England had, as already mentioned, experienced a

creation of togetherness and an English identity. The difference between the English identity

and this British identity was that the British identity was very much colonial in its nature

which, of course, was due in no small part to the nature of the narrative of King Arthur. The

British ideology allowed for a larger amount of land to be controlled by the English and as

such was largely English dominated in its references by authors.8 Only on one occasion

during a period of English weakness in the regency and kingship of Edward II, do we see

even the slightest suggestion of a Scottish dominated idea of Britain, with invasions of

Ireland, northern England and the possibility of alliances with rebels in Wales during the

reign of Robert I (the Bruce).9 Openly supremacist and overindulgent in theories of easy

victory, Brut, the work of the poet priest, Laȝamon, dated to somewhere between 1190 and

1215 and named after Britain’s mythical founder Brutus, perfectly sums up the nature of this

6 K. M. Philips, Before Orientalism, (Philadelphia, 2014), 3.

7 Polychronicon Vol II, 2/3.

8 Philips, Before Orientalism, 5. Andrea Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth

Century, (Cambridge, 2013), 16. 9 R.R. Davies, “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100-1400: IV Language and

Historical Mythology”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol 7 (1997), 16/17.

33

British ideology. When re-telling the story of Arthur’s invasion of Ireland he refers to the

Irish as

“almost naked, with only spears and axes and sharp knives. Arthur’s men let fly

arrows without number, and assailed the Irish force and slaughtered many; they could not

hold out by any means, but many thousands fled speedily away. And Gillomar the king took

flight and made off, and Arthur went after him and seized the king: he took the king of the

country captive.”10

The Normandy based poet, Wace had written his Brut or Roman de Brut, from whom

Laȝamon's work is based, somewhere in the region of half a century earlier and featured an

utterly bloodless and incredibly easy overthrow of not only Ireland but Iceland, Gotland and

many more.11

The fact that both of these works pay homage to the legend of Brutus, whose

origins seem hazy, is significant. Regarded seemingly as more of a legend than genuine

history than King Arthur in the later medieval period, the ninth century Wales native,

Nennius, had simply claimed that “the Irish, who do not know their own origin, wished to be

under him [Brutus]”12

with Brutus being a ruler of all of Britain. Whilst Laȝamon’s Brut is

most definitely more about King Arthur than about Brutus, his association with the name

suggests Laȝamon’s clear “British” credentials and his interest in creating an imperialistic

vision of the past.

Without equivocation, it is a running theme in Arthurian legends in general and it is

very much the case in Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, Laȝamon and many others that the Irish

kings and their men are always courageous or at least combative at first, before being

defeated convincingly. They also usually lack any chivalric traits that would have been

10

Laȝamon’s Arthur: The Arthurian Section of Layamon’s Brut, eds William Raymond Johnston Barron and

S.C. Weinberg, (Exeter, 2001) 99. 11

Wace’s Roman de Brut: a History of the British: Text and Translation, trans & ed. Judith Weiss, (Exeter,

2002), 243-245. 12

Nennius, British History and The Welsh Annals, ed. & trans. John Morris, (London, 1980), 18. It is, however,

important to point out that Nennius in no way speaks favourably of Brutus. This seems to come in later English

versions.

34

associated with even the earliest rough connotations of the word and are generally rebellious,

untrustworthy and largely less amenable to an English lifestyle. With the key words to

describe the Irish being conniving, dishonorable, rapacious and vengeful. Indeed, in Roger of

Wendover’s version of the story of Gillomanius, King of Ireland at the end of the fifth

century, many of these traits are visible. Despite having been defeated in battle, the events of

which are incredibly dealt with in one single line,13

within six years Pascentius, son of

Vortigern, who was at war with the then King Aurelius Ambrosius, sought “succor against

Aurelius, which Gillomanius readily promised.”14

Rather unsurprisingly Gillomanius and

Pascentius were both defeated and killed. It was predictable but useful for instilling an image

of an inferior people with inferior intellect and ability.

The story of King Arthur was a true history in the minds of English writers, as

Elizabeth Pochoda has correctly pointed out in her book, Arthurian Propaganda. It was

something that had indeed happened in the past15

but undoubtedly was interpreted in different

ways, not exactly something that should be all that foreign to modern day historians.

Chroniclers often place events ascribed to King Arthur to a variance of different centuries.

For example Matthew of Paris in his Chronica Majora, makes reference to Arthur as having

invaded Ireland in the year 525 “Anno gratiae DXXV Rex Arthurus, parata classe maxima,

Hyberniae insulam petivit./ In the year of grace 525 King Arthur, the greatest of the fleet was

ready, asked for the island of Ireland.”16

In the use of King Arthur they were involving

themselves with something which has been referred to by John Huizinga to as an “Historical

life ideal”, which was the projection of excellence onto the past, something that ought to be

13

Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History Vol I, trans & ed. J.A. Giles (London, 1849), 23. “Straightaway both

parties engaged, but the victory remained with the Britons.” 14

Ibid, 27. 15

Elizabeth T Pochoda, Arthurian Propaganda, (University of North Carolina, 1971), 30. 16

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora Vol I, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London,

1872), 237.

35

replicated and was indeed the pinnacle of political and regal perfection.17

This included any

of the problems Arthur faced, the way in which he dealt with them was an example of the

best possible way to deal with those problems. Examples of how Arthur could be best used

were during times such as Civil War like those that were experienced in the period known as

“The Anarchy” in the twelfth century, during which Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing and

later on in “The Wars of the Roses”, encapsulated very well in Malory’s Works.18

One could

also imagine that periods of unrest such as the reigns of Edward II as well as of Richard II

both inside of my time period would also have helped to strengthen the rose tinted nature of

any “historian”.

All of this aside, Ireland’s place in the stories of King Arthur becomes very important

when we view Arthurian legend as history. This history allowed for an idea of retrospect.

Ireland had once been in England’s possession, therefore it was perfectly valid for them to

still lay claim to Ireland.19

Some of the Arthurian legends of this period chose to go

significantly beyond the birth of King Arthur and tell the story of the kings that came before

him. During these stories there is the tale of the King of all of Britain, Gurguint Barbtruc

(spelling varies). In this tale we see an English version of a nation myth surrounding Ireland

which fits the narrative of English dominance over Ireland very well. Despite being from the

pre-invasion period, the first reference to this story seems to have been in Geoffrey of

Monmouth. It is later re-used by Ranulph Higden, with a clearly very different point to its

inclusion and new found importance in “British” nationalistic rhetoric and propaganda.

Gurguint Barbtruc returning victorious from war arrives back at the Orkney Islands where he

17

Pochoda, Arthurian Propaganda, 30. 18

Ibid., 108. Julia C.Crick, The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV Dissemination and

Reception in the Later Middle Ages, (Cambridge, 1991), 1. 19

Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England ii, c1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century, (London, 1982),

50.

36

“came upon thirty ships filled with men and women, when he asked the reason for their

coming, their leader, named Partholoim, came and bowed low before him asking for his

pardon and for peace. He said that he had been expelled from Spain was roving these waters

to find a new home. He asked for a part of Britain to live in and so bring an end to his

tiresome voyage…. Gurguint send them with guides to Ireland, an island at that time devoid

of inhabitants, which he granted to them. They increased and multiplied there and have

occupied the island ever since, up to the present day.”20

Ranulph Higden’s version translated by John of Trevisa reads that Gurguint “fond by þe

ylond Orchades pretty schipes ful of Basclenses þat þider were i-dryve out of Spayne side,

and he sente hem and here Duke Bartholomewe into Irlonde, þat so þo voyde and no man

[wonede] þerynne.”21

In another part of his History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey, after the

afore-referenced tale of the Picts and the Scots and their intermarrying, dismisses the

importance of the history of the Irish, stating “But enough of the Picts since it is not my

intention to write their history of that of the Scots who are descended from them and the

Irish.”22

Unsurprisingly, there was no such statement in Higden’s Polychronicon for whom

the story had become very significant in underlining Ireland as an island colonised by an

English (British)* king. Ireland was, therefore, in its most basic form a subsidiary kingdom

that owed allegiance to his king since antiquity.

Irish and Scottish Nation Building Myths are extremely similar in nature and in parts

are actually derived from the same story. As suggested above in a reference from Geoffrey of

Monmouth, in medieval times they were often viewed to have come from the same lineage.

20

Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, ed, Michael D. Reeve, trans. Neill Wright

(Woodbridge, 2007), 60. 21

Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden maonachi Cestrensis:together with the English translations of John Trevisa

and of an unknown writer of he fifteenth century Vol. III, ed. Rev Joseph Rawson Lumby, (London, 1874), 329. 22

Monmouth, History, 86.

* By this I mean British in ideology, with its colonial suggestions/implications.

37

Of course we now know that this is to a large extent true, a result of invasions from Ireland

around 400AD and onwards. The fact that there is so often such massive confusion caused in

a medievalists mind when they come across the word “scoti” in manuscripts, is that it could

just as easily refer to Irish individuals as it could to Scottish individuals. Indeed, Brian Ború

referred to himself as Imperator Scotorum “Emperor of the Scots/Scoti”23

whilst three

centuries later Robert I was Rex Scotorum “King of the Scots”.24

This association comes

from the fact that both the Irish and the Scottish were established to have been descendants of

the daughter of an Egyptian Pharoah, Scota. In the English mind, the Irish and the Scottish

also were linked through the aforementioned Scythian links in chapter one. This meant that a

caricature of these two Celtic nations was very possible and allowed for further inclusion of

the Welsh. The Irish National Origin Myths had been established many centuries earlier as

had the Scottish. The Irish tradition dated back to the sixth century high king Diarmait, son of

Cerball, who wished to clarify his rights as king and document his illustrious lineage but was

not to reach its fullest expression until the text of Lebor Gabála Érenn in 1050.25

Scottish

equivalents had been in existence since the seventh century. The Welsh national origin myth

seems to have come into life in the ninth century with Nennius in his Historia Britonnum.

The English were not to have a well-established national origin myth until a significant

amount of time after their Celtic neighbours, which was both advantageous and

disadvantageous in seemingly equal measure.

All of the English population it has been attested, despite the fact of their clearly

disparate pasts, were completely accepting of the origin myth by the end of the thirteenth

23

Seán Duffy, “Brian Boru: imperator Scotorum”, History Ireland, Vol. 22, No.2, (March/April 2014), 10/11. 24

G.W.S. Barlow, Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages, (London, 1992), 36. 25

John Carey, “Native Elements in Irish Pseudohistory”, Cultural Identity and Cultural Integration Ireland and

Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Doris Edel (Dublin, 1995), 47.

38

century.26

John Fordun seems to unequivocally back this up as he explained in the fourteenth

century that his home nation of Scotland was made up of two gentes but one natio, two

clearly identifiable groups who made one identifiable country.27

As seen in the Declaration of

Arbroath, Buldred Bisset makes reference to the most well-known Scottish Origin Myth,

which claimed that upon arrival into the northern part of Britain she drove out all of the

Britons from that land, and emphatically states that the Egyptians had a greater claim to rule

over Scotland than the English did.28

Similarly, in Ireland in the fourteenth century, the

Remonstrance of the Irish Princes in 1317 made reference to the fact that “a hundred and

ninety seven kings of our blood have reigned over the whole of Ireland”.29

What we are

seeing in both Irish and Scottish instances is the clash and recurring fight between different

propagandistic opinions, emanating from the twelfth century. During the twelfth century the

English, roughly a century after the Norman invasion, had started to create their own

inclusive National Origin Myths30

, exemplified in William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum

Anglorum (1125), Henry of Huntington’s Historia Anglorum (c. 1129) and Geoffrey of

Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (late 1130’s). All of these contributed to a strongly

reactionary history of not only England but the British Isles, whilst relying strongly on the

influence of Bede’s works from many centuries earlier.31

The most well-known and, indeed, most studied by medieval scholars outside of

Ireland of the Irish origin myths, was of course Lebor Gabála Érenn which features Scota in

the story. She was the daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh and mother of Goídel, the creator of

26

Susan Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium”, 382. 27

Robert Bartlett, “Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity”, Journal of Medieval and Early

Modern Studies 31:1 (Winter, 2001), 48. 28

Davies, “Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities”, 2. 29

Ibid, 20. 30

Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium”, 381. 31

Davies, “Language and Historical Mythology”, 19.

39

the Gaelic language, whose descendants in turn are the first to arrive in Ireland.32

The book

also includes a reference to Partholoin, the name given to the Basque leader found at the

Orkney islands in the English nation building myths. In the Lebor he is leader of the second

of six settlements in Ireland33

with less importance placed upon him than the last Míl Espáne

or Milesians.34

Gerald of Wales in his Topographia Hibernica is the first person who seems

to make a clear claim to Ireland post invasion from a nation origin myth point of view. He

uses an amalgamation of the aforementioned Irish source, Lebor Gabála Érenn and his own

sources such as Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth.35

He adds onto these established time-

lines that at the time the Basque region, which the people at the Orkney islands claimed to

have come from, was also currently “on the boundary of Gascony, and belongs to it….[and]

rejoices in the same rule as Britain.”36

This is not a suggestion that reappears in later works

one would think due to the loss of large parts of that region by the English to the French

during the course of the fourteenth century. It also does not really come across as the

strongest of arguments and may have simply featured to please the English royal court and

Henry II, who was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine at the time.

Ranulph Higden in his discourse of the history of Ireland makes significant usage of

Gerald of Wales’ ideas and theories even at one stage thanks him “Giraldus Cambrensis, qui

descripsit Topographiam Hiberniae, Itinerarium Walliae et Vitam regis Henrici Secundi sub

triplici distincione/ Gerald of Wales who has the threefold distinction of the Topography of

Ireland, “Itinerary”[Circuit/Journey] of Wales and the Life of King Henry II ”.37

At the start

32

Lebor Gábala Érenn, {https://archive.org/stream/leabhargabhlab01cluoft#page/2/mode/2up] (Accessed 22

August 2016), 194/195. 33

Ibid, 24. 34

Carey, “Native Elements in Irish Pseudohistory”, 48. 35

Rambo, Colonial Ireland, 27/8. Gerald of Wales, The History and Topography of Ireland, trans and intro by

John J O’Meara, (London, 1982), 99/100. 36

Gerald of Wales, Topography of Ireland, 99/100. 37

Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden maonachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa

and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century Vol I, (London, 1865), 24.

40

of his section entitled “De Hibernia”, chapter 32 of book one he also states that “Erat Hiberna

ab olim Britanniae jure dominie concorporata, quam, duce Giraldo in sua Topographia/

Hibernia, that is Ireland, was of olden times incorporated into the lordship of Britain,

according to Gerald in his Topography”.38

We know that Higden had read a significant

amount of Cambrensis’ work even if his version of the story of the British King Gurguint

Barbtruc mirrors that of Geoffrey of Monmouth more closely. Higden does, however, seem to

revert back to Giraldus when he talks about the Milesians.

“Hibernia omnium insularum occidentalium novissima sic dicta est ab Hibero

Hispanico, frater scilicet Hermonii, qui duo simul juncti eam conquisierunt vel dicta est ab

Hibero flumine Hispaniae occidentali/ Ireland is the most westerly island which took its name

from Hiberus brother of Hermonius, as these two brothers had gained this land by conquest or

it was named after the river Hiberus in the west of Spain.”39

Whilst he is most likely to have gained this from Giraldus, Nennius could just as easily have

been Higden’s source as both of them deal with this story. Indeed, rather ironically, Nennius

seems to have been the first person to properly catalogue the stories of the people who arrived

in Ireland before the full publication of Lebor Gabála Érenn.40

The true birth point of this

story seems hazy with John Carey’s suggestion that it came from an assertion by Julius

Caesar in the first century that one side of Britain “tends towards Spain, and the setting sun;

on this side is Ireland” seeming the most likely. This later seems to have been picked up by

both Isidore and Orosius, some of the foremost scholars of the seventh century, to whom Irish

scholars of the era definitely had access to.41

Note also Fig 1.1 for the placement of Spain

close to Ireland. Spain, therefore, seems to be a natural place from which Ireland could have

38

Polychronicon, Vol. I, 328. 39

Ibid., 328/30. 40

John Carey, “Did the Irish Come from Spain? The Legend of the Milesians”, History Ireland, Vol. 9, No.3

(Autumn, 2001), 8. 41

Ibid, 10/11. The problem of Ireland being both far to the North and closest to Spain at the same time in the

geography of the time of Caesar is not something which has evaded me. It is, however, something which I

unfortunately cannot explain.

41

been inhabited. Whether or not Ranulph Higden thought he was making a bigger point with

this suggestion, will have to remain open to conjecture due to a lack of any substantial

evidence. The river Ebro, which the river Hiberus in Higden’s quote makes reference to, does

flow through the right part of northern Spain and the Basque country for a reference to

Giraldus’ earlier “Gascony” claim to be possible but without any concrete facts, this would

be an extremely speculative claim to say the least. What it does show, however, is the

longevity of a belief that does not seem to hold any real historical clout.

As all medieval historians must be aware, biblical connotations and reasoning can

never be too far away from key points of understanding in the medieval mind. Some of the

key points in relation to the creation of nation origin myths are often found in the latter parts

of the Old Testament and most significantly around the sections directly after the Flood. The

reason for this was that large numbers of nations based their claim to nationhood from either

Noah or his relatives.42

When dealing with the idea of a nation, the ideal was invariably of

Israel. Literary images of England abounded in the literature of this period of their country a

second promised land. Ideas of England as a land of agricultural plenty “flowing with milk

and honey” to quote Andrea Ruddick, were hallmarks of English writing and had been since

the twelfth century.43

This of course was to imbue English writers with a feeling of self-

importance as well as a major national ego boost in comparison to other countries.

One of the most significant points which is highly conspicuous in its absence from the

damning written material in relation to the Irish gens from the era is language. All of this

despite the fact that language in English self-identity and, indeed, in the identities of most

people, was viewed as paramount to retention of their Englishness. Henry of Huntington, the

42

Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium”, 377. 43

Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, 282.

42

innately Anglo-Norman English nationalist and Archdeacon of Lincoln, had in the early

twelfth century, remarked about the importance of language. He referenced the disappearance

of the Pictish gens stating that

“the extinction of their kings and princes and the people itself and the passing away of

the Pictish stock and language… what is truly astonishing is the disappearance of their

language, that God created, among the rest, at the origin of languages.”44

Henry of Huntington, whilst establishing the importance of language to one’s freedom and

ethnic groups, makes a key reference to the bible. The part of the bible to which he is making

reference is Genesis II: 1-9, which tells the story of the Tower of Babel. Men build a tower to

try to reach God’s heaven, so God confuses their language, so that men no longer understood

one another meaning that there was natural division between mankind. Thus mankind is

“scattered” and broken up into a great number of nations.45

This meant that people having

different languages was something that was ordained by God and, therefore, attacks on the

Irish language outright and Irish usage of it by English writers is something that is not seen

on a regular basis.

Language, however, was still very much relevant. Whilst there was a certain degree of

tolerance, the importance of English as a language is something which was to be stressed

from an early date in the twelfth century right up into the fourteenth century. Writers in the

fourteenth century were acceleration of English literature and the growth of the use of the

language. In 1362, for example, it was ruled that oral pleadings in the king’s courts were to

be in English rather than in French. Just in the process of the completion of this dissertation I

used a number of Middle English literature pieces, a number of which had clear nationalistic

44

Bartlett, “Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race”, 49. 45

Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis A Commentary (Norwich, 1972), 149/150.

43

tendencies. Whilst Geoffrey Chaucer is referred to as “The Father of English Literature”, he

was only one person in a larger movement seen as a revolution in national literary culture and

with it an English national identity.46

In Ireland, English was the clear language of preference for anybody who regarded

themselves as English. An “Englishman” who didn’t have any English, could face very

severe charges including a loss of his own access to the common law. A letter close dated to

3 February 1360 attested that

“the King has ordained that after the Nativity of St John the Baptist next [24 June

1360] no one of the English race, under pain of losing English liberty, is to converse with

other Englishmen in the Irish manner of speaking; rather, in the meantime, each Englishman

is to learn the English language”.47

Following on along this line of thought, Froissart’s recounting of his meeting Henry

Chrystede in his Chronicles becomes a story of innate interest. Chrystede was bilingual and

got a job which was to “direct and guide in the ways of reason and the customs of this

country those four Irish kings who have made their submission to the English crown”. The

four kings “prove[d] to be very uncouth and grossminded people. I had the greatest difficulty

in polishing them and moderating their language and characters….On many occasions they

still slip back into their rough ways”. Later on in the process “two days before our king

intended to make them knights, they were visited by the Earl of Ormonde, who knows their

language well”. The language was no real problem if a man of such high standing as the Earl

of Ormond used it. The eradication of Irish behaviour and lifestyles were the problem.

Chrystede informs us of his interest in the language by stating that he taught Irish to his

England dwelling grandchildren.48

Interestingly in his book A View of the Present State of

46

Ruddick, English Identity and Political Culture, 156/7. 47

CIRCLE Close Roll 34 Edward III 3 Feb. 1360 Dublin [https://chancery.tcd.ie/roll/34-Edward-III/Close]

(Accessed 22 August 2016). 48

Jean Froissart, Chronicles, ed. Geoffrey Brereton (London, 1978), 413-15.

44

Ireland, Edmund Spenser seems to have looked back on my period of study with regret.

When making reference to the degeneration of the Anglo-Irish he stated that “it is unnatural

that any people should love another’s language more than their own”.49

During my time

period of interest, however, official royal guidelines seemed to suggest that a knowledge of

Irish was not problematic, merely the use of it between two Englishmen or lack of any

English at all were the true problems.

The nature of the Origines gentium was to provide one’s country with a self-

aggrandising history which allowed for sovereignty as well further expansion and English

origin myths did exactly that with their clearly defined “British” ideology. Brutus and later

King Arthur, provided an excellent basis from which to assert English dominance over

Ireland in writing and created excellent propaganda in a typical medieval style, by

establishing precedent. By dealing directly with Irish origin myths and adapting them for

their own usage they were able to usurp the stories for themselves, especially when it comes

to the story of Partholoin. Finally, through the use of the bible and it’s doctrines they had

chosen not to attack the Irish language directly. By egotistically writing about England as the

new chosen land, they were able to create an image of themselves as the scripture abiding

Christian reformers of a godless land filled with people that needed their aid.

49

Edmund Spenser, A View of the Present State of Ireland ed. W.L. Renwick (Oxford, 1970), 67.

45

Chapter III

English Nationalism and Anglo Irish Relations

If we charge ourselves with discussing how stereotypes towards the Irish changed during the

course of the thirteenth and fourteenth century in England the discussion leaves one open for

a more in depth understanding as to the powers that were at work in creating opinions. This

can therefore bring us one step further towards greater understanding as to what the cycle of

thought was in relation to the creation of English policy towards Ireland. In order to grasp

this properly it only seems right that we take examples from both England and Ireland

respectively and marry them to the trends in English writing throughout the period. By

looking at the key political jousts, statutes and legislations enacted and ecclesiastic politics of

these two centuries, a better understanding can be reached as to why certain opinions of the

Irish were to change over the course of the two centuries and differences between clerical and

lay writers will also be laid bare. The main purpose is to prove the importance of English

opinions and perceptions of the Irish to the Irish way of life and imposition of law in Ireland.

As has been suggested in earlier chapters, England was a nation which was changing

drastically in terms of its own self-image. What it meant to be English was being constantly

questioned and constantly changed. Language, of course, played a huge part in all of this.

English nationalism was to develop during the course of the thirteenth century and was to

reach its zenith during the reign of Edward I, rather tellingly also referred to as “The Hammer

of the Scots”. During the course of the thirteenth century, English xenophobia went hand in

hand with a growth of nationalism and Englishness which had never been experienced since

the Norman invasion. This is clearly seen in intentions to thwart the ambitions of aliens,

46

particularly those that were seen to be dominating the royal court.1 The thirteenth century

also saw the loss of Normandy and failures in war on the continent which was to further

boost xenophobia.2 The idea of true Englishness in England and amongst men who thought of

themselves as English featured a reasonably prominent place for the use of the English

language. Indeed, in 1263 in Flores Historiarum, there is a comment which states that

“whoever did not know the English tongue was despised by the masses and held in

contempt”.3 There have been suggestions made that there was some sort of divorce between

clerical and lay writing on these sort of matters, it does seem, however, to be the case that for

the most part it was the perceptions of the clergy would then trickle down into lay writings.

Generally, English audiences in this era seemed to be in agreement that these sorts of

opinions were not only needed but were to be received warmly. These sort of sentiments were

ones which started to appear in political documents, towards the end of the century.4

Edward I seems to have viewed Ireland as stable enough for him to show little or no

interest in the country for large parts of his reign. He was, however, the first king of England

to be innately interested in the story of King Arthur and indeed to a certain extent actually

viewed himself as a pseudo King Arthur or King Arthur reincarnate. He was well known for

his crushing victories over the Welsh and his many wars against the Scots. Sir Maurice

Powicke stated that Edward “knew….how to appeal to history. He tried to comprehend in his

own rule the traditions of his land.” His interest was dictated by expediency, by political

considerations. The association with King Arthur for the Kings of England one would

presume started with Geoffrey of Monmouth dedicating his Historia Regum Britanniae to

King Stephen in 1136 but in reality only began with Edward. He even had a round table and

1 R.R. Davies, “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II. Names, Boundaries and

Regnal Solidarities”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 5 (1995), 14. 2 Susan Reynolds, “Medieval Origines Gentium and the Community of the Realm”, History, Vol. 68 (1983),

385. 3 Flores Historiarum Vol II, ed. Henry Richards Luard, (London, 1890), 481.

4 Reynolds, “Origines Gentium”, 378.

47

exhumed and moved the bones of “Arthur and Guenevere”.5 In 1301 in reply to Scottish

claims to independence from England to Boniface VIII, Edward substantiates the rights of the

English crown over Scotland, using King Arthur’s success as his tool.

“Item, Arturus, Rex Britonum, princeps famosissimus, Scotiam sibi rebellem subject,

& pene totam gentem delevit & postea quemdam, nomine Anguselum, in Regem Scotiae,

servitium pro regno Scotiae exhibens debitum, gladium Regis Arturi detulit ante ipsum; &

successive omnes Reges Scotiae omnibus Regibus Britonum fuere subjecti.”6

Traditionally the uproar of the fourteenth century seems to have been compared to the

thirteenth century, making the earlier century seem like an era of peace and tranquillity as a

result. The realities of the thirteenth century were actually very different. It was an era of

intense ecclesiastic and political debate with reasonably large amounts of dissent from the

Irish chieftains in Ulster, in particular. It is true, however, that the level of actual warfare was

less endemic than it was to be in the fourteenth century. In the thirteenth century, Ireland as a

colony posed little to no real threat to the established English lordship and by the end of

Edward I’s reign the colony was at the biggest extent it was to ever reach. After over a

century of English rule the seeds of discontent had well and truly been sewn by this era. From

the very beginning of the colony, the Irish had become even more determined to retain Irish

traditions, both in their everyday lives and in terms of the church in the face of strong

attempts to impose common law as well as the Consuetudines Ecclesie Anglicana (Customs

of the English Church).7 In the late 1270’s there had been a movement which had garnered a

reasonable level of support for the Irish to be given access to English law, with the legislation

5 Roger Sherman Loomis, “Edward I Arthurian Enthusiast”, Speculum Vol. 28 No. 1 (Jan., 1953), 114/5.

6 Ibid., 121/2.

7 Maurice Sheehy, “English Law in Medieval Ireland” Archivium Hibernicum Vol. 23 (1960), 167.

48

put forward by the Irish Archbishop of Cashel being given the go ahead by Edward I in

1277.8 After three years of debate it seems to have been finally dismissed in 1280.

9 Whilst

one might tend to be inclined to think of the Bruce Invasion in the 1310’s, there were already

signs of discontent with the Irish from the English at the end of the thirteenth century.

There had been an uneasy tension within the Irish church and divisions were

emerging between Irish and English men of the cloth. This problem was summed up very

well in a letter from the Archdeacon of Meath to the Bishop of Bath and Wells dated to 1285.

The Archdeacon stresqses that the Irish oppress and “subvert the rights of their church. The

Irish are hostile to the English and cease not to disturb their peace.”10

Towards the end of the

century, the Irish Archbishop of Armagh, Nicholas Mac Mael Íosa, almost personified this

movement, actively employing a pro-Irish employment system for offices within his control

and even, on occasion, from an English perspective outside of his jurisdiction.11

The

Parliament of Ireland 1297 was fundamentally a massive moment in Anglo-Irish medieval

relations, a watershed in terms of a conversion of attitude within the English community in

medieval Ireland.12

Significant amounts of these statutes deal with preventative measures

against “felones hybernici”13

“Irish felons” who “waste lands”, “perpetrate robberies,

homicides, and other mischiefs upon the English”14

. The degenerate English were also dealt

with and the end solution was to have two magnates assigned in each county in which there

were Irish dwelling.

8 Edmund Curtis & R. B. McDowell, Irish Historical Documents 1172-1922, 31/2.

9 Otway-Ruthven, Jocelyn, “The Native Irish and English Law in Medieval Ireland”, Irish Historical Studies,

Vol.7 No. 85 (Mar. 1950), 14. 10

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland III (1285-1292), ed. H.S. Sweetman (London, 1879), 145. 11

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland Vol II (1252-1284), ed. H.S. Sweetman (London, 1877), 515. 12

Seán Duffy, “The Problem of Degeneracy”, Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin

Parliament of 1297, ed. James Lydon (Dublin, 1997), 105. 13

Philomena Connolly, “The Enactments of the 1297 Parliament”, Law of Disorder in Thirteenth- Century

Ireland The Dublin Parliament of 1297, ed. James Lydon (Dublin, 1997), 154. 14

Curtis & McDowell, Irish Historical Documents, 33/4.

49

“Assignentur de cetero in quolibet comitatu et qualibot libertate ubi hibernici sunt

inhabitants duo magnates qui cum capitalis justiciarius in remotis partibus extiterit cum

hybernici parcium illarum… ad guerram se ponentibus licite tractent pro bono pacis”

“assigned in each county and liberty where the Irish are living, who when the chief justiciar is

in remote parts….may lawfully treat for the good of peace with those placing themselves at

war”.15

With this background one could probably expect a more robust and negative

perception of the Irish from the English clerical writer, in particular with regard to the

thirteenth century. Matthew of Paris, refers in great detail to a massive war instigated by the

Irish at “war with the king of the English”, led by Aedh King of Connacht in 1230, who

expected to drive “omne genus Anglorum ab Hyberniae finibus/ all the race of the English

from Ireland”. The Irish are true to normal form in English portrayals outwitted by the

combined brains of Richard de Burgh and Walter de Lacy but by Paris’ estimations killed

“viginti millia virorum bellatorum/ twenty thousand men of war”.16

This is not last the

reference that the cleric of St Albans makes. In the year 1257 he states

“Et quia minabatur eisdem dictus Edwardus, quod Hibernienses eos quasi vas figuli, quos

jam vocaverat, irrestaurabiliter confringent, hadebant Walenses praemuniti galeias, piraticis

armis et victualibus communitas, ut Hiberniensibus hostiliter et potenter in mare obviarent.”

The Irish are actually used as a deterrent message against the rebellious Welsh who were

murdering, looting and committing arson at the time.17

Whilst references to the Irish to

appear in some of the other English chronicles of this period there are none which deal

15

Connolly, “The Enactments of the 1297 Parliament”, 161/2. 16

Matthaei Parisiensis, Moanachi Sancti Albani,Chronica Majora Vol III, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London,

1876), 196/7. 17

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani Chronica Majora Vol V, ed. Henry Richard Luard (London,

1880), 633.

50

contemporaneous events in Ireland to the extent that Matthew of Paris does, especially in the

first reference I have mentioned above.

The fourteenth century, as has previously been suggested was very much the century

of the Gaelic revival, the non-conforming Irish ecclesiastics were attacked by Edward II, very

early on in the century. By the time Archbishop Nicholas Mac Mael Íosa died in 1303, the

same year as the death of Edward I, all of the sees under his control were in the hands of

native ecclesiastics.18

Edward II was then quoted as having said that he thought it was “very

dangerous to have an Irishman promoted to a see inter anglicos.”19

He meant it as there was

only to be one Irishman in the see, David O’Hiraghty until the reign of Henry VIII.20

The

loyalty of Irish clerics had been correctly in the eyes of most historians questioned and they

were to be systematically obstructed. The Remonstrance of the Irish Princes some years later

in 1317 also refers to this problem. The alleged writer of the remonstrance, Donal O’Néill,

had had cordial and efficient relations with the aforementioned deceased archbishop. Donal

actually attacks his successor, Archbishop Roland de Jorse, claiming that he was “a man of

little sense and no learning”.21

This was at the height of Irish aggression against the English

since their arrival in Ireland and most definitely one of the most well worked and sustained

wars. In the struggle they decided to “give up [their] right and transfer it to another, all the

right which is recognized to pertain to us in the said kingdom as its true heirs we have given

and granted to him by our letter patent so that he may dispense judgement with justice and

equity there, which as a result of the inadequacy of the prince have utterly failed there.”22

They transferred their allegiance to the brother of the Scottish king, Edward Bruce. In this era

18

Thomas Matthews, The O’Neills of Ulster, Their History and Genealogy, Vol II, (Dublin, 1907), 140. 19

J.A. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland, (Cambridge, 1970), 185. 20

Matthews, The O’Neills of Ulster, 141. 21

Walter Bower, Scotichronicon Vol VI ed. D.E.R. Watt, (Aberdeen, 1991), 393. 22

Ibid, 401.

51

the Welsh princes had engaged with Robert and Edward Bruce and they could easily have

become involved in the war in Ireland, gaining Welsh allies was far from an impossibility.23

Something which was very interesting about the start of the fourteenth century in

English writing in relation to Ireland is that it saw a massive change in the ways in which

Ireland was perceived. There is no example better for this than Of Arthour And of Merlin

through which to give a clear exhibition of this change. As Aisling Byrne has, in this

historian’s opinion, correctly pointed out, the poem represents a manifest reaction to recent

events in Ireland and a condemnation of Irish behaviour in not living peacefully under their

English king.24

The Irish had over the course of the preceding century become enemies of the

English through the use of their law, in ecclesiastic matters and in open warfare. At this stage

the Christian nature of the Irish is thoroughly questioned. The Sarraȝin nature of the Irish

which is very prominent in the poem as previously referenced in chapter one was the most

extreme way possible of asserting the Irish as heathens against whom no quarter was asked

nor given when fought against. In the poem King Rion, the leader of the Irish had four

elephants on his standard and the Irish swore to Mahoun another name for the Prophet

Muhammad, instead of the usual Christian God.

“Euerich payen þo was sori

And criden a grisely crie]

“As armies for Mahouns sake!”

Þat þus traitour were ytake.”25

23

Robin Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170-1450, (London, 1998), 77. 24

Aisling Byrne, “West is East: The Irish Saracens in Of Arthour And of Merlin”, Nottingham Medieval Studies

Vol 55, (2011), 228. 25

Of Arthour And of Merlin [http://auchinleck.nls.uk/mss/arthur.html] (Accessed 09 June 2016), lines 4861-4.

52

The Irish are referred to as Saracens on no less than 77 occasions. Fights against the Irish are

understandably placed into the context of a crusade. Indeed, as can be seen in Before

Orientalism the Far East in general was seen as full of decadent and pleasure based societies,

whereas the Middle East was treated far more sternly, probably due to the fact of their

military threats that those civilisations posed to Christendom.26

Undoubtedly the Irish were

not seen by the English as people who threatened the entirety of Christendom but what could

have been perceived as a genuine threat was the degeneracy issue they posed for the English

based in Ireland. Some sort of very rational fear based around the fact of English integration

into lifestyles during the period in which the poem was written.

We see English nationalism at its absolute strongest in Of Arthour And of Merlin. Arthur’s

kingdom is named “Inglond” at every given opportunity and constantly emphasises the

greatness of the English people.27

Not only this, but it is clearly extremely interested and very

quick to over-emphasise the invasions of “Inglond” by King Arthur’s enemies. Chief

amongst these are the Saracen Irish as well as the Saxons and the Danes.28

Indeed King

Bramangue of the Danes was the “first cousin” of King Rion. Bramangue was lord of part of

Denmark and Ireland.29

The Danes had also been one of the biggest threats to the English,

having overcome vast areas of England under King Cnut and after a brief English resurgence,

some of his successors, and many attacks on English lands in the preceding centuries.

Later on in the century, further advancements were made on the legislation of the

1297 parliament. In the 1350’s the justiciar Thomas de Rokeby went on a mission of

reconquest in Ireland and by late 1351 he had created, at a great council in Kilkenny, a series

of ordinances later known as De Rokeby’s Ordinances. These attempted to deal more

26

Kim M. Philips, Before Orientalism, (Philadelphia, 2014), 2/3. 27

Byrne, “West is East”, 218. 28

Ibid, 219. 29

Ibid, 223.

53

efficiently with many of the same problems that had been addressed over half a century

earlier, such as the aforementioned case of the escape of Irish felons into different

jurisdictions.30

This formed a precursor to the strongest legislation for abstention of the

English from an Irish way of life and rejection of their values, that being the Statutes of

Kilkenny in 1366 instituted by Lionel of Clarence.31

The reason for the Statutes was due to

the fact that “the Irish enemies exalted and raised up contrary to right”32

with the penalty for

breaking any of these laws being a “sentence of excommunication”33

None of this was to

work however, and by the 1390’s the situation in Ireland had denigrated so much that the

King of England had to visit Ireland himself for the first time since 1210 in the reign of King

John. Whilst in Ireland he brought the Irish kings to the negotiating table including Niall Óg

O’Néill, the foremost king of Uladh and Art Óg MacMurrough Kavanagh, from the foremost

dynasty in Leinster. O’Néill claimed to observe his “allegiance and fealty to the Lord our

King… he bound himself if he should violate the said oath in whole or part that he would pay

to the Papal Curia 20,000 marks of English money”.34

These oaths were largely meaningless

and Richard was to return to Ireland only a few years later to deal with further problems, his

resulting absence from England has been suggested by many to have greatly aided Henry

Bolingbroke’s (future Henry IV) theft of his crown.

A source which, not only directly references the presence of Richard and his men in

Ireland, but offers very clear and damning portrayals of Irish warfare in the mid to late

fourteenth century was Henry Crystede35

as featured in Froissart’s Chronicles. He said of

Irish acts of war that they “hide in the woods and forests, where they live in holes dug under

30

Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven, “Ireland in the 1350s: Sir Thomas de Rokeby and His Successors”, The Journal of

the Royal of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 97, No. 1 (1967), 49. 31

Curtis & McDowell, Irish Historical Documents, 52-59. 32

Ibid., 52 33

Ibid, 59. 34

Ibid, 65. 35

Jean Froissart, Chronicles, ed. Geoffrey Brereton (London, 1978), 409. Crystede seems to have been equated

with the King’s Esquire during this period, Henry Kyrkestede.

54

trees, or in bushes and thickets, like wild animals” from which they “can attack the enemy

when it suits them”. They “never leave a man for dead until they have cut his throat like a

sheep and slit open his belly to remove his heart, which they take away. Some who know

their ways, say that they eat it with great relish.”36

Rather interestingly this equates very

closely to classical cannibalistic accusations of the Irish and even corresponds to descriptions

of the Scythians which were found on the Mappa Mundi, which made references to the skulls

of the enemies being used as bowls. Chrystede’s use of reported speech at the end of this

section, however, could absolutely allow one to question some of this more gory content. The

fact that Crystede professed to havelived amongst the Irish for seven years37

does loan some

strength to this argument. Crystede makes references to the justiciarships of both Edward

III’s son Lionel of Clarence (1361-1367) and William of Windsor (1369-73) but his ownfirst

hand experiences of Ireland seem to be from the 1350’s to the mid 1360’s, being repatriated

most likely a few years before the Statutes of Kilkenny. If Crystede was correct in asserting

that it was during a battle with the “King of Leinster, Arthur McMurrough” that he was

repatriated, this can be dated to 1361. The Annals of the Four Masters for this year state that

“Art MacMurrough, King of Leinster, and Donnell Reagh, heir apparent to the throne of

Leinster, were treacherously made prisoners by the son of the King of England. They

afterwards died in prison.”38

So the facts regarding a decent alibi for Crystede’s existence are

reasonably impressive and give us one of our best and most likely honest first-hand accounts

of the Irish throughout this historical period.

Thomas of Walsingham d. 1422 continuing the fine institution of St Alban’s tradition

of writing chronicles and the history of England in his Historia Anglicana covers the vast

majority of the fourteenth century and was to be one of the most Anglo-centric in terms of his

36

Froissart, Chronicles, 410. 37

Ibid., 412. “In my seventh year of my living among the Irish”. 38

CELT Annals of the Four Masters [http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005C/index.html] (Accessed 18

Aug 2016), 1361.2.

55

coverage of events in comparison to his predecessors. References to Ireland are sparse to say

the least despite the fact that Ireland probably was the most deserving it had ever been of note

in the fourteenth century. His references to the Bruce invasion are to make reference to

Edward’s death and to assert that they caused a great deal of destruction in Ireland. He makes

no real reference to Irish compliance apart from mentioning that Edward Bruce had been

made their king, “Per idem tempus Edward le Brus, frater Regis Scotorum, qui jam per

triennium Hiberniam infestaverat, et se ibidem i regem coronaverat”.39

Perhaps living up to

the fact that it was called “Historia Brevis” by other chroniclers and writers at the time

substantial references are few and far between, that is until we get to the era of Richard II and

his involvement with Ireland. This, of course, was contemporaneous to Thomas’ own

lifetime. His coverage of this period was in many ways the traditional route, with the

rebellious Irish playing the role of the unwelcome distraction that was important in Richard

II’s downfall.

“Unde contigit quod meri Hibernici, Anglorum adversarii, partem insulae quae paruerat Regi

Angliae vastaverunt, nemine resistente./ And so it happened that the Irish the opponents of

the English, destroyed the part of the island which obeyed the King of England and there was

no one to oppose them”.

He scared them so much that he “compelled a number of the princes of the land to submit”.40

He throughout portrays Ireland as a den of uncivilised behaviour, lacking any semblance of

loyalty and as a time-consuming irritant that cost the English king his crown and ultimately

his life.

39

Thomas of Walsingham, Historia Anglicana Vol I (A.D. 1272-1381), ed. Henry Thomas Riley (London,

1863), 154. 40

Thomas of Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, Vol II, (A.D. 1381-1422), ed. Henry Thomas Riley (London,

1864), 215.

56

The course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries saw a massive amount of change

in perceptions of the Irish. By the end of the fourteenth century the idea of an Irishman had

deteriorated significantly despite the fact that at the beginning of the thirteenth century one

would have scarcely believed that the descriptions could have gotten any worse. The events

of the fourteenth century meant that the Irish were dealt with in a more serious manner. The

Irish enemies as they were to be called hit the King of England’s coffers hard, with an

astonishing loss of revenue, as Thomas Walsingham himself admits.41

This came directly as a

result of the loss of massive quantities of their land to the Irish over the course of the

fourteenth century. Richard II’s visit to Ireland seems to prove this change in perceptions of

the Irish, from easily controlled and perhaps even malleable to a malevolent and powerful

beast.

41

The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham (1376-1422), trans. David Preest, ed, James G. Clark,

(Woodbridge, 2005), 292. “For when that illustrious king Edward III, put his bench with judges and the

exchequer in Ireland, he received from there £30,000 annually for the royal cofers. But lately, because of the

absence of men and the unchecked power of the enemy, no revenues had come from Ireland, but year-by-year

the king had paid from his own purse 30,000 marks to his own disgrace and the heavy losses of his treasure

chest.” We of course know that Edward III too was not making money from Ireland for most of his reign, but

Walsingham’s point was still very valid.

57

Conclusion

“The ideas about Ireland and the Irish which seem to emerge in Middle English literature

cannot represent the entire range of opinions held by people living in England, they are only

images that would have been available to many of those who might have read or heard

them.”42

At the beginning of this research, this study was an attempt to show that perceptions of the

Irish by English scholars was invaluable both in terms of what it meant to the English at the

time as well as the implications it had for the Irish, both as the colonial subjects but more

often as the rebels and felons.

The main arguments were to prove that the English needed to have people like the

Irish in order to establish their own national identity. I believe I proved this by showing that

they were able to establish what they were emphatically not, Irish Sarraȝin felons. It is hard to

see how else such a disparate group of people would have been able to come together to form

such a nation otherwise and gain a semblance of unity. On this topic I find myself to

generally be in concurrence with Elizabeth Rambo, who stated,

“[T]he “wild Irish” are but one of these distinct (though often overlapping or

interconnected) images of Ireland and the Irish which manifest themselves…. [these

manifestations] also reflect England’s alienation from Ireland and the Irish.”43

Furthermore, in the last chapter in particular, but also in the preceding two, the nature of what

it meant to be Irish in a colonial setting was made perfectly clear. Even if the Irish had tried

to integrate themselves more into an English style of society, there were mental barricades

erected to this by the English, created through perceptions of the Irish in the writing of

42

Elizabeth L. Rambo, Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature, (London, 1994), 117. 43

Ibid, 119.

58

English scholars. An increase in the discourse of Irish “barbarism”, as seen in the writing of

this dissertation as well as interactions with them in real life meant that a deeper

understanding of what it was to be Irish was created which was innately and overwhelmingly

negative. From this, legislation such as the Statutes of Kilkenny were written and enacted, out

of fear of the heathen warrior Irish people whose influence may have furthered the

degeneration of the English living in Ireland. By the fourteenth century we see the end of the

cycle in a trend that had begun with perceptions of the Irish being forged in England by

writers and ended with people coming back from Ireland and giving their perceptions to

writers, as we see in Froissart’s Chronicles.

The methodology which I used in using literary sources as well as chronicles and

other traditional historical primary sources seems to have worked out to excellent effect.

Arthurian legends with their highly romanticised content provided a very good source for

emotive descriptions of the Irish. The discussion of Ireland as an entrance into the

Otherworld at St Patrick’s Purgatory in particular benefitted greatly from the use of a

multitude of different source styles. The works of clerics and lay-people blended nicely but

also served as a great way to get a flavor of what the average Englishman in general thought

of the Irish. The advantage that this had over Rambo was that it allowed for a conversation on

one aspect of the Irish, instead of having a section of only clerics talking about the one aspect

and all generally concurring, as has happened in parts of Rambo’s work. This work is by no

means exhaustive, this I am willing to admit, but this sort of eclectic source mixture, is

something that I feel is worthy of further study.

An analysis of the Perceptions of the Irish in Medieval English Writing was one

which seemed to be capable of extending far beyond the scope of this dissertation. Problems

with some of the key secondary sources included a strange desire to either engage with the

sources which influenced the later medieval sources which I have used which were either

59

insular or from the continent, but strikingly never both. Rectifying this was of course, rather

simple. Usage of both of these allowed for me to chart a very interesting flow of ideas and

show how some stereotypes from pre-invasion times were capable of fading whilst an

incredible majority of them proved to be extremely resilient in the face of increased

interaction and contact with the Irish.

There are a number of pre-existing views which I believe have been challenged by

this paper. The stranglehold which Giraldus Cambrensis’ Topographia Hibernica has had

over Irish Medieval Historiography as the most important piece in relation to the founding of

opinions in relation to Ireland, I think seriously needs to be revised. Whilst the work is of

interest and usage of it in this study was nigh on unavoidable, its over-usage has been chronic

in recent years. As has been shown on many occasions in this paper originality of thought

was something of an irrelevance in medieval writing, and to this Giraldus was no exception,

taking his knowledge of the Irish people from Solinus, the Lebor Gabála Érenn, Nennius and

Geoffrey of Monmouth to name but a few. Geoffrey, who wrote in twelfth century just before

my period of interest garnered massive popularity in the middle ages, inspired massive

quantities of Arthurian legend literature, a lot of which I have dealt with in this essay. As well

as this, despite taking inspiration from Nennius, his originality of thought is very much

evident. For this, and his significant references to the Irish, I believe he should not be

overlooked. This, however, gets us to the crux of the problem, the apparent phobia of using

medieval literature pieces in a historical study. Arthurian legend in particular is a goldmine of

interesting insights, written by individuals who when they were writing believed they were

retelling the history of nation. Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon, whilst also making no

claims to originality, in fact, quite the opposite in openly referencing his sources, is an

60

exciting and underutilised source. Ireland is more than sufficiently covered for a global

history and could also prove extremely fruitful if some more research were to be done on it.

61

Bibliography

Primary Sources

An East Midland Revision of the South English Legendary ed. M. Goerlach, (Heidelberg,

1976).

Bible Gateway, 1 Samuel 17

[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV]

(Accessed 15 August 2016).

Bower, Walter, Scotichronicon VI, ed. D.E.R. Watt, (Aberdeen, 1991).

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland Vol. II (1252-1284), ed. H.S. Sweetman (London,

1877).

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland Vol. III (1285-1292), ed. H.S. Sweetman

(London, 1879).

Calendar of Ormonds Deeds Vol. I, ed. Edmund Curtis (Dublin, 1932).

Calendar of Ormonds Deeds Vol. II, ed. Edmund Curtis (Dublin, 1934).

CELT Annals of the Four Masters [http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005C/index.html]

(Accessed 18 Aug 2016).

62

CELT The Journey of Viscount Ramon de Perellós to Saint Patrick's Purgatory

[http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100079A/] (Accessed 30 Aug 2016).

Connolly, Philomena, “The Enactments of the 1297 Parliament”, Law and Disorder in

Thirteenth-Century Ireland in the Thirteenth Century ed. James Lydon (Dublin,

1997), 139-162.

CIRCLE Close Roll 34 Edward III 3 Feb. 1360 Dublin [https://chancery.tcd.ie/roll/34-

Edward-III/Close] (Accessed 22 August 2016).

English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, ed. Harry Rothwell, (London, 1975).

Flores Historiarum Vol II, ed. Henry Richards Luard, (London, 1890).

Froissart, Jean, Chronicles, ed. Geoffrey Brereton, (London, 1978).

Gerald of Wales, The History and Topography of Ireland, trans and intro by John J O’Meara,

(London, 1982).

Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, ed. Michael D. Reeve, trans.

Neill Wright (Woodbridge, 2007).

Hereford Mappa Mundi [http://themappamundi.co.uk/mappa-mundi/] (Accessed 3 June

2016).

63

Historia Gentis Anglorum [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38326/38326-h/38326-h.html]

(Accessed 21 Jan. 2016).

King Horn Robbins Library Digital Projects, University of Rochester

[http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/salisbury-king-horn] (Accessed 29 August 2016).

Lebor Gábala Érenn, {https://archive.org/stream/leabhargabhlab01cluoft#page/2/mode/2up]

(Accessed 22 August 2016).

Lazamon’s Arthur: The Arthurian Section of Layamon’s Brut, eds William Raymond

Johnston Barron and S.C. Weinberg, (Exeter, 2001).

Malory Works, ed. Eugene Vinaver, (Oxford, 1977)

Parisiensis, Matthaei, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora Vol I-V, ed. Henry Richards

Luard (London, 1872-80).

Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Maonachi Cestrensis: together with the translations of John

Trevisa and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century Vol. I-VIII, ed. Joseph

Rawson Lumby, (London, 1865-82).

Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, Vol I&II, trans & ed. J.A. Giles (London, 1849).

64

St Patrick’s Purgatory, Two versions of Owayne Miles and The Vision of William of Stranton

together with the long text of the Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii, ed. Robert

Easting, (Oxford, 1991).

The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham (1376-1422), trans. David Preest, ed. James G.

Clark (Woodbridge, 2005).

The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, trans. Sir Herbert Maxwell (Glasgow, 1913).

The History of the Britons by Nennius ed. J. A. Giles (London, 1841).

The Riverside Chaucer, ed. Larry D. Benson, (Oxford, 2008).

The South English Legendary: Edited from Corpus Christi College Cambridge Ms 145 and

British Museum Ms. Harley 2277 with variants from Bodley Ms. Ashmole 43 and

British Museum Ms. Cotton Julius D. IX: Charlotte d’Evelyn and Anna J. Mill,

(London, 1956-9).

The Vision of Tundale ed. From B.L. MS Cotton Caligula A II, ed. Rodney Mearns,

(Heidelberg, 1985).

Thomas of Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, Vol. I, (A.D. 1272-1381), ed. Henry Thomas

Riley, (London, 1863).

65

, Historia Anglicana, Vol. II, (A.D. 1381-1422), ed. Henry Thomas

Riley (London, 1864).

Wace’s Roman de Brut, A History of the British: Text and Translation, trans. and ed. Judith

Weiss (Exeter, 2002).

Secondary Sources

Encyclopedia Britannica [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Strabo] (Accessed 9 August

2016).

Barlow, G.W.S., Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992).

Bartlett, Robert, “Gerald’s ethnographic achievement”, The Expansion of Latin Europe,

1000-1500; Medieval Ethnographies, ed. Joan-Pau Rubiés, (Farnham, 2009), 231-

272.

, “Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race and Ethnicity”, Journal of

Medieval and Early Modern Studies 31;1 (Winter 2001), 39-56.

Baumgarten, Rolf, “The Geographical Orientation of Ireland in Isidore and Orosius”, Peritia

3 (1984), 189-203.

Bliss, Alan, “Language and Literature”, The English in Medieval Ireland ed. James Lydon

(Dublin, 1984), 27-45.

66

Byrne, Aisling, “West is East: The Irish Saracens in Of Arthour And of Merlin”, Nottingham

Medieval Studies Vol 55, (2011) 217-229.

Carey, John, “Native Elements in Irish Pseudohistory”, Cultural Identity and Cultural

Integration Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages ed. Doris Edel (Dublin,

1995), 45-60.

, “Did the Irish Come from Spain? The Legend of the Milesians”, History

Ireland, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), 8-11.

Crick, Julia C., The Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV Dissemination

and Reception in the Later Middle Ages, (Cambridge, 1991).

Curtis, Edmund, A History of Ireland; From Earliest Times to 1922, (London, 2002).

Davies, R.R., “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. IV

Language and Historical Mythology”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,

Vol 7 (1997), 1-24.

, “Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II.

Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities”, Transactions of the Royal Historical

Society, Vol 5 (1995), 1-20.

Duffy, Seán, “Brian Boru: imperator Scotorum”, History Ireland, Vol. 22, No. 2

(March/April, 2014), 10-11.

67

, “The Problem of Degeneracy”, Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland

The Dublin Parliament of 1297 ed. James Lydon (Dublin, 1997), 87-106.

Dumville, David N., “Some aspects of the chronology of the Historia Brittonum”, Bulletin of

the Board of Celtic Studies Vol. 25 (1972-4), 439-45.

Eisner, Sigmund, “Review of Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature”, Speculum,

Vol 71. (1996), 479-480.

Frame, Robin, English Lordship in Ireland 1318-1361, (Oxford, 1982).

, Ireland and Britain 1170-1450, (London, 1998).

Freeman, Philip, Ireland and the Classical World, (Austin, 2001).

Gransden, Antonia, Historical Writing in England ii, c.1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century,

(London, 1982).

Hamilton, J.S., “Piers Gaveston and the Royal Treasure”, Albion: A Quarterly Journal

Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 23. No.2 (Summer, 1991), 201-207.

Hand, G.J., “English Law in Ireland, 1172-1351”, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, Vol. 23

No.4, (Winter, 1972) 393-422.

68

Haren, Michael & de Pontfarcy, Yolande eds., The Medieval Pilgrimage to St Patrick’s

Purgatory Lough Derg and the European Tradition, (Enniskillen, 1988).

Hastings, Adrian, The Construction of Nationhood, (Cambridge, 1997).

Ingersoll, Ernest, Dragons and Dragon Lore, (New York, 2005),

Kennedy, Beverly, “Gawain and Heroic Knighthood in Malory”, Gawain; A Casebook, eds

Raymond H. Thompson & Keith Bushy (Abingdon, 2006), 287-96.

Kimble, George H.T., Geography in the Middle Ages, (London, 1938).

Lane, Daryl F., An Historical Study of the Giant in the Middle English Metrical Romances,

(Ph.D. diss, University of New Mexico, 1972).

Le Goff, Jacques, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, (London, 1981).

Lydon, James, “Ireland in 1297: ‘At peace after its manner’”, Law and Disorder in

Thirteenth-Century Ireland The Dublin Parliament of 1297 ed. James Lydon (Dublin,

1997), 11-24.

MacNiocaill, Gearóid, “The Contact of Irish and Common Law”, Northern Ireland Legal

Quarterly Vol. 23 No. 1 (Spring, 1972), 3-15.

69

Matthews, Thomas, The O’Neills of Ulster, Their History and Genealogy, Vol II, (Dublin,

1907).

McAlindon, T.M., “The Emergence of a Comic Type in Middle English Literature: the Devil

and Giant as Buffoon”, Anglia 81 (1962), 365-371.

, The Treatment of the Supernatural in Middle English Legend and

Romance, 1200-1400 (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1961).

Otway-Ruthven, Jocelyn, “Ireland in the 1350s: Sir Thomas de Rokeby and His Successors”,

The Journal of the Royal Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 97, No. 1 (1967), 47-59.

, “The Native Irish and English Law in Medieval Ireland”, Irish

Historical Studies, Vol. 7 No. 25 (Mar. 1950), 1-16.

Patch, H.R., The Other World According to Descriptions in Medieval Literature, (Cambridge,

Mass., 1950).

Philips, Kim M., Before Orientalism, (Philadelphia, 2014).

Pochoda, Elizabeth T., Arthurian Propaganda, (University of North Carolina, 1971).

Rambo, Elizabeth L., Colonial Ireland in Medieval English Literature, (London, 1994).

70

Reed Kline, Naomi, Maps of Medieval Thought The Hereford Paradigm, (Woodbridge,

2001).

Reynolds, Susan, “Medieval Origines Gentium and the Community of the Realm”, History,

Vol. 68 (1983), 375-390.

Roberts-Edwards, Graham, “Purgatory: “Birth” or Evolution?” Journal of Ecclesiastical

History, 36 (1985), 634-646.

Ruddick, Andrea, English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century,

(Cambridge, 2013).

Scattergood, John, “Review of Colonial Ireland in Medieval Literature”, Irish Historical

Studies, Vol. 30 (1996), 130-32.

Scully, Diarmuid, “At World’s End: Scotland and Ireland in the Graeco-Roman

Imagination”, Ireland (Ulster) Scotland: Concepts, Contexts, Comparisons, eds. Edna

Longley, Eamonn Hughes and Des O’Rawe (Belfast, 2003), 164-170.

,“The portrayal of Ireland and the Irish in Bernard’s life of St Malachy”,

Ireland and Europe in the Twelfth Century, eds Damian Bracken & Dagmar Ó Riain-

Raedel, (Dublin, 2006), 239-256.

Sheehy, Maurice, “English Law in Medieval Ireland”, Archivium Hibernicum Vol. 23 (1960),

167-175.

71

Sherman Loomis, Roger, “Edward I Arthurian Enthusiast”, Speculum, Vol. 28 No. 1 (Jan,

1953), 114-127.

Speed, Diane, “The Saracens of King Horn”, Speculum Vol. 65 No. 3 (July. 1990), 564-595.

Spenser, Edmund, A View of the Present State of Ireland (1596) ed. W.L. Renwick (Oxford,

1970).

Sponsler, Claire, “The Captivity of Henry Chrystede: Froissart’s Chroniques, Ireland, and

Fourteenth Century Nationalism”, Imagining an English Nation ed. Kathy Lavezzo

(London, 2004), 304-339.

Stanford, Mabel, “The Sumner’s Tale and Saint Patrick’s Purgatory”, The Journal of English

and Germanic Philology, 19 (1920), 377-81.

Haslanger Vaneman, Karen, “Of Arthour And of Merlin: Arthour’s Story as Arena for the

Conflict of Customs and Common Law”, Quondam et Futurus Vol. 8 No. 2 (Winter,

1988), 8-18.

Von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis A Commentary, (Norwich, 1972).

Watt, J.A., The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland, (Cambridge, 1970).

72

Westrem, Scott D., The Hereford Map, A Transcription and Translation of the Legends with

Commentary, (Turnhout, 2001).

Zaleski, Carol G., “St Patrick’s Purgatory: Pilgrimage Motifs in a Medieval Otherworld

Vision”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 46, No.4 (1985), 467-485.