User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh/draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fingal mac Gofraid, and his father, Gofraid mac Sitriucca (died about 1070), were late eleventh-century rulers of the Kingdom of the Isles.[note 1] Although one source states that Gofraid's father was named Sitriuc, there is reason to suspect that this could be an error of some sort. There is also uncertainty as to which family Gofraid belonged to. He could have been a member of either the Meic Amlaíb or the Meic Ragnaill, rival Norse-Gaelic dynasties who bitterly contested control of Dublin and the Isles in the eleventh century. The former family appears to have cooperated with Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó, King of Leinster, whilst the latter was closely connected with Diarmait's bitter adversaries, the Uí Briain.

If Gofraid was a member of the Meic Amlaíb, he may well have been installed as king by Diarmait after the latter oversaw the expulsion of Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, the previous Meic Ragnaill King of Dublin and the Isles. Gofraid's membership in the Meic Amlaíb could also explain apparent amiable relationship that he and Fingal appear to have enjoyed with Gofraid Crobán, their immediate successor in the Isles. Gofraid's membership with this family would also explain attack on Mann in 1073, conducted by the Uí Briain and a possible member of the Meic Ragnaill.

If Gofraid was a member of the Meic Ragnaill, it is possible that he is identical to Gofraid ua Ragnaill, King of Dublin, a contemporary Meic Ragnaill who is known to have reigned in Dublin during a period of Uí Briain overlordship after Diarmait's death. This identification could mean that Gofraid immediately succeeded Echmarcach in both Dublin and the Isles after the latter's fall. Gofraid's membership with the Meic Ragnaill would mean that the aforesaid invasion of Mann in 1073 was instead a Meic Amlaíb incursion—albeit one with Uí Briain backing—rather than a Meic Ragnail initiative.

Gofraid is stated in one source to have died in about 1070, after which Fingal succeeded him. At some point in the 1070s the kingdom was conquered by Gofraid Crobán, although the circumstances of this event are uncertain. Although it is possible that the latter overthrew Fingal, this is by no means certain. In fact, the throne may well have been vacant when Gofraid Crobán conducted his campaigns to gain the kingship. Whatever the case, there is reason to suspect that descendants of Fingal ruled the Kingdom of the Rhinns following his demise.

Uncertain parentage and identity[edit]

An excerpt from folio 32v of British Library MS Cotton Julius A VII (the Chronicle of Mann): "Godredum filium Sytric".[1] Note the marginal note: "Fingal".[2]

Gofraid is specifically mentioned twice by the Chronicle of Mann: once as "Godredum filium Sytric", and once as "Godredus filius Sytric".[3] Although these passages seem to show that his father's name was Sitriuc, the first instance of "Sytric" is crossed out, and the corresponding marginal notes beside both passages read "Fingal".[4] These passages, therefore, may be evidence that Gofraid was either the son of a man named Sitriuc, or else the son of a man named Fingal.[5] In fact, it is also possible that the marginal note refers to a place name rather than a personal name. For example, the notes could refer to Fine Gall, Dublin's northern hinterland. The notes, therefore, could be evidence that Gofraid was a native Dubliner rather than a Manxman.[6] If Gofraid's father was indeed named Sitriuc, there are several contemporaneous candidates.[7]

One particular candidate is Sitriuc mac Ímair, King of Waterford (died 1022), although there is no evidence that he had a son named Gofraid.[8] Another candidate is Sitriuc mac Amlaíb, King of Dublin (died 1042).[9] Although this man is known to have had a son named Gofraid, the latter is recorded to have been killed in 1036.[10] This Sitriuc, however, is known to have had two sons named Amlaíb, one who died in 1013, and the other who died in 1036.[11] In fact, it was not uncommon for parents to have several children with the same name,[12] and it is possible that Sitriuc mac Amlaíb was the father of not only two Amlaíb's but two Gofraid's as well.[13] Another candidate is a descendant of Sitriuc mac Amlaíb's brother, Glún Iairn mac Amlaíb, King of Dublin (died 989). Specifically, according to a genealogical tract preserved by the seventeenth-century scribe Dubhaltach Óg Mac Fhirbhisigh (died 1617), Glún Iairn had an otherwise unknown son named Sitriuc, a man who cnceivably could have been Gofraid's father. In fact, this Sitriuc mac Glún Iairn may be identical to the unnamed man who slew Sitriuc mac Amlaíb's aforesaid slain son, Gofraid, in 1036.[14][note 2]

Another possibility is that Gofraid is identical to the contemporaneous like-named King of Dublin, Gofraid ua Ragnaill.[16] The latter's name is recorded variously in the Irish annals: the Annals of Inisfallen call him "Goffraid mc. meicc Ragnaill",[17] and "Goffraid h-ua Regnaill",[18] whilst the Annals of Ulster call him "Gofraigh mc. Amhlaim uel mc Raghnaill".[19] Although the evidence regarding Gofraid ua Ragnaill could indicate that his father was named Amlaíb, who was in turn the son of a man named Ragnaill,[20] the latter annal-entry literally states that he was the "son of Amlaíb or son of Ragnaill", potentially indicating confusion in regard to his parentage.[21] Whatever the case, the annal-entries suggest that Gofraid ua Ragnaill was a member of the Meic Ragnaill, and closely related to Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, King of Dublin and the Isles (died 1064–1065),[22] perhaps a son of a brother either named Amlaíb or Sitriuc,[23] or else a son of Echmarcach himself.[24]

Background[edit]

In the mid eleventh century, Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó, King of Leinster (died 1072) extended his authority into Dublin and the Isles at Echmarcach's expense. Specifically, the Leinsterman conquered Dublin in 1152, assumed the kingship, and thereby forced Echmarcach to flee "over the sea".[25] About ten years later, Echmarcach appears to have been driven from Mann altogether, as the island was raided by Diarmait's son, Murchad (died 1070), who received tribute and defeated a certain "mac Ragnaill".[26] Echmarcach eventually died in Rome, in 1064[27] or 1065.[28] On his death, the contemporary eleventh-century chronicler Marianus Scotus (died 1082) described him in Latin as "rex Innarenn",[29] a title that could either mean "King of the Isles",[30] or "King of the Rhinns".[31] If it represents the latter, it could be evidence that Echmarcach's once expansive sea-kingdom had gradually eroded to territory in Galloway only.[32][note 3]

For twenty years after Echmarcach's expulsion from Dublin, Diarmait enjoyed the overlordship of the coastal kingdom, and the control of its highly rated army and prized fleet of warships. On his unexpected death in 1072, however, Toirdelbach Ua Briain, King of Munster (d. 1086) invaded Leinster, and followed up on this military success with the acquisition of Dublin itself. There is uncertainty as to when Gofraid ua Ragnaill assumed the kingship of Dublin. On one hand, he could have succeeded Echmarcach before Diarmait's fall.[citation needed] On the other hand, Toirdelbach may have handed the region over to him following the Uí Briain takeover.[34]

Meic Amlaíb or Meic Ragnaill?[edit]

The uncertainty surrounding Gofraid's parentage means that he could have been a member of either of two rival dynasties: the Meic Amlaíb or the Meic Ragnaill. The former family descended from Sitriuc mac Amlaíb's father, Amlaíb Cuarán, King of Northumbria, Dublin, and the Isles (died 981). The latter family descended from Echmarcach's apparent father, Ragnall mac Gofraid, King of the Isles (died 1005).[35][note 4] Whilst the Meic Ragnaill aligned themselves with the Uí Briain, an alliance that brought them into conflict with Diarmait, the Meic Amlaíb appear to have cooperated with Diarmait.[39][note 5] In consequence, there are serious implications in regard to Gofraid's familial identification.

As a Meic Amlaíb[edit]

In 1066, Haraldr Sigurðarson, King of Norway (died 1066) embarked upon an ill-fated invasion of England. Unfortunately for the Norwegians, their forces were utterly destroyed by the English in the subsequent Battle of Stamford Bridge.[41] It was in the aftermath of this defeat that the Chronicle of Mann first makes note of Gofraid, and his ultimate successor, Gofraid Crobán. Specifically, this source states that, following the latter's flight from the slaughter at Stamford, Gofraid honourably received him, and granted him sanctuary.[42] If Gofraid was indeed a descendant of Amlaíb Cuarán, his generosity towards Gofraid Crobán may have been conducted in the context of inter family relations, since the latter could well have been a descendant of Amlaíb Cuarán as well.[43] In fact, the possibility of Gofraid's descent from Amlaíb Cuarán would also explain the circumstances surrounding his accession to the kingship of the Isles.[44] For instance, only five years previously Diarmait's son had overcame Echmarcach on Mann,[45] and it is perhaps unlikely that Diarmait would have allowed another Meic Ragnaill to reign in the Isles once he had secured his own overlordship in the region. Diarmait, therefore, may well have installed a Meic Amlaíb as his client in the Kingdom of the Isles.[46] In fact, Diarmait appears to have done exactly that in Dublin decades before, in the person of Ímar mac Arailt, King of Dublin (died 1054),[47] a man who could have been Gofraid Crobán's father,[48] uncle,[49] or brother.[50]

According to the Chronicle of Mann, Gofraid died in about 1070, and was succeeded by his son, Fingal,[51] who may have ruled for as long as nine years.[52] In 1073, a year after Toirdelbach's seizure of Dublin, Fingal evidently repulsed an Irish-based invasion of Mann.[53] According to the Annals of Ulster, which notes the incursion, the expedition was led by a certain Sigtryggr Óláfsson (died 1073) and two grandsons of Brian Bóruma, High King of Ireland (died 1014).[54] The precise identity of these three slain raiders is unknown, as are the circumstances of the expedition itself.[55] It is very likely, however, that the incursion was closely connected to the recent Uí Briain takeover of Dublin.[56] There are strong reasons to suspect that Sigtryggr was not only a member of the Meic Ragnaill, but perhaps a brother of Gofraid ua Ragnaill himself.[57] In fact, the Meic Ragnaill and the Uí Briain clearly enjoyed close familial links. Brian's son, Donnchad, King of Munster (died 1065), had previously married Cacht ingen Ragnaill (died 1034), a sister or niece of Echmarcach himself;[58] and Toirdelbach's son, Tadc (died 1086), married Echmarcach's daughter, Mór.[59] It is therefore possible that, following the death of Diarmait and the Dublin ascendancy of the Uí Briain, Sigtryggr and his apparent Uí Briain kinsmen attempted to take back from the Meic Amlaíb what they regarded as their Meic Ragnaill patrimony in the Isles.[60]

As a Meic Ragnaill[edit]

If Gofraid is instead identical to Gofraid ua Ragnaill, and thus a member of the Meic Ragnaill, it could mean that Gofraid ua Ragnaill succeeded Echmarcach in Dublin and the Isles following the latter's final fall from power.[61] This identification, if correct, could mean that the Sigtryggr who was slain in the ill-fated invasion of 1073 was a member the aforesaid Meic Amlaíb, the bitter adversaries of the Meic Ragnaill. If this identification is correct, Sigtryggr may have been a son of Amlaíb (died 1034), son of the aforesaid Sitriuc mac Amlaíb.[62] Whatever the case, two years after the assault on Mann, the Annals of Inisfallen records that Toirdelbach banished Gofraid ua Ragnaill from Dublin altogether, and that the latter died "beyond the sea", having assembled a "great fleet" to come to Ireland.[63] If Gofraid and Gofraid ua Ragnaill are indeed identical, this annal-entry could be evidence that Toirdelbach ousted Gofraid ua Ragnaill from Dublin after failing to force him Mann. The annal-entry would also appear to reveal that Gofraid ua Ragnaill fell back to Mann following his expulsion from Dublin, and attempted to assemble a fleet of Islesmen there before his death.[64]

Gofraid Crobán[edit]

An excerpt from folio 30r of Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 503 (the Annals of Inisfallen): "Macc Congail, rí na Rend, do marbad".[65]

In about 1075,[66] or 1079,[67] the Chronicle of Mann reveals that Gofraid Crobán succeeded in conquering Mann following three sea-borne invasions.[68] The circumstances surrounding this conquest are obscure.[69] On one hand, it is possible that he overthrew Fingal,[70] who may have been weakened by the aforesaid invasion of 1073.[71] On the other hand, the amiable relations between Gofraid Crobán and Fingal's father could suggest that, as long as Fingal lived his kingship was secure, and that it was only after his death that Gofraid Crobán attempted seize control.[72] Unfortunately for scholars, the chronicle only mentions Fingal once—in the context of succeeding his father—and he is not recorded in any other source.[73]

If Gofraid and Gofraid ua Ragnaill are indeed the same individual, the aforesaid annal-entry that records the latter's death in 1075 could have bearing on Gofraid Crobán's coup.[74] In fact, the latter succeeded in gaining the kingship of the Isles at about this time, and the chronicle places his campaigns in the context of combating the Manx themselves, making no mention of Fingal or a king at all during the conflicts.[75] Gofraid Crobán, therefore, may have made his move whilst the kingship was vacant.[76][note 6]

Despite the disappearance of Fingal from the historical record, there may be evidence that his descendants ruled in parts of Galloway.[78] Specifically, in 1094, the Annals of Inisfallen record the death of a certain King of the Rhinns named "Macc Congail",[79] whose recorded patronym may represent confusion between the names Fingal and Congal.[80] In fact, the aforesaid record of Echmarcach reigning as "rex Innarenn" could be evidence that this predecessor of Fingal had formerly ruled this particular region.[81] Whatever the case, it is unknown if Macc Congail was independent from, or dependent upon, Gofraid Crobán's authority.[82]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Note that this article documents several men who bore the personal name Gofraid. This article consistently refers to Gofraid mac Sitriucca merely as Gofraid. The article also documents several men who can be named Sitriuc mac Amlaíb in Gaelic, and consistently refers to one by the Old Norse form Sigtryggr Óláfsson to limit confusion. Likewise, the article documents two men who can be named Glún Iairn mac Amlaíb in Gaelic, and consistently refers to one by the Old Norse form Járnkné Óláfsson.
  2. ^ Although a son of Glún Iairn—whoever that son my have been—could well have killed the aforesaid Gofraid in 1036, another possibility is that the slayer was instead a son of Járnkné mac Amlaíb (died 1031).[15]
  3. ^ The mediaeval Kingdom of the Rhinns may well have included, not only the Rhinns of Galloway, but also the Machars as well. The kingdom appears to have stretched from the North Channel to Wigtown Bay, and would have likely encompassed an area similar to the modern boundaries of Wigtownshire.[33]
  4. ^ There is uncertainty as to the identity of Echmarcach's father. Although Echmarcach could have been a son of the aforesaid Ragnall,[36] another possibility is that he was a son of Ragnall mac Ragnaill, King of Waterford, a man who was slain by Sitriuc mac Amlaíb in 1035,[37] or else a son of Ragnall mac Ragnaill's possible father, Ragnall mac Ímair, King of Waterford (died 1015 or 1018).[38]
  5. ^ In some cases personal names may reveal close familial links. An example of this may be the fact that Diarmait had a son named Glún Iairn (died 1070), and at least two members of the Meic Amlaíb bore the name same name: the aforesaid brother of Sitriuc mac Amlaíb, and a son of the latter who died in 1031.[40]
  6. ^ In the three encounters, the chronicle specifically states that Gofraid Crobán fought "cum populo terre" ("with the people of the land"), and "cum Mannensibus" ("with the "Manxmen"), and "Mannenses" ("the Manxmen").[77]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ Munch; Goss (1874) p. 50; Cotton MS Julius A VII (n.d.).
  2. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 51–52; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) pp. 232 n. 40; Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Cotton MS Julius A VII (n.d.).
  3. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 51–52; Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–51.
  4. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 51–52; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) pp. 232 n. 40; Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Cotton MS Julius A VII (n.d.).
  5. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52.
  6. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  7. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52; Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  8. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52.
  9. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 231; Hudson (2005c) pp. 83 n. 3, 171; Oram (2000) p. 18.
  10. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52; Hudson (2005c) pp. 83 n. 3, 171.
  11. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52; Hudson (2005c) pp. 83 n. 3, 171.
  12. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  13. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 52; Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  14. ^ Hudson (2005c) pp. 83 n. 3, 86, 121, 171–172; Bugge (1905) pp. 4, 11.
  15. ^ Etchingham (2001) p. 158 n. 35.
  16. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  17. ^ Annals of Inisfallen (2010) § 1072.6; Annals of Inisfallen (2008) § 1072.6; Duffy (2006) p. 57; Duffy (1992) p. 102.
  18. ^ Annals of Inisfallen (2010) § 1075.2; Annals of Inisfallen (2008) § 1075.2; Duffy (2006) p. 57; Duffy (1992) p. 102 n. 44.
  19. ^ The Annals of Ulster (2012) § 1075.1; The Annals of Ulster (2008) § 1075.1; Duffy (2006) p. 57; Duffy (1992) p. 102 n. 44.
  20. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 130 fig. 4.
  21. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  22. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  23. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57; Hudson (2005c) p. 130 fig. 4.
  24. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  25. ^ Hudson (2004); Duffy (1992) p. 94.
  26. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 129; Hudson (2004); Duffy (1992) p. 100.
  27. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  28. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 53, 57; Hudson (2005c) pp. 129, 130 fig. 4.
  29. ^ Flanagan (2010) p. 231 n. 196; Downham (2007) p. 171; Duffy (2006) p. 56–57; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 229; Hudson (2005c) pp. 129, 138; Etchingham (2001) p. 160; Oram (2000) p. 17; Duffy (1992) pp. 98–99; Anderson (1922a) pp. 590–592 n. 2; Waitz (1844) p. 559.
  30. ^ Flanagan (2010) p. 231 n. 196; Duffy (2006) pp. 56–57.
  31. ^ Flanagan (2010) p. 231 n. 196; Downham (2007) p. 171; Duffy (2006) pp. 56–57; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 229; Hudson (2005c) pp. 129, 138; Etchingham (2001) p. 160; Oram (2000) p. 17; Duffy (1992) pp. 98–99.
  32. ^ Woolf (2007) p. 245; Hudson (2005c): p. 143; Duffy (1992) p. 100.
  33. ^ Woolf (2007) p. 245; Hudson (2005c): p. 138.
  34. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Oram (2000) p. 18.
  35. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 53.
  36. ^ Woolf (2007) p. 246; Duffy (2006) p. 53; Hudson (2005c) pp. 129, 130 n. 4.
  37. ^ Woolf (2007) p. 246; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) pp. 227–228; Duffy (1992) pp. 96–97.
  38. ^ Woolf (2007) p. 246; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) pp. 227–228; Hudson (2005c) p. 129; Duffy (1992) pp. 96–97.
  39. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  40. ^ Duffy (1992) p. 97 n. 17.
  41. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) pp. 210–211.
  42. ^ Byrne (2008) p. 864; Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Woolf (2004) p. 100; Anderson (1922b) p. 18 n. 1, 43–44 n. 6; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–51.
  43. ^ Hudson (2005c) pp. 170–171; Woolf (2004) p. 100.
  44. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  45. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 55–56; Hudson (2005a); Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Hudson (2004); Duffy (1992) p. 100.
  46. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 171.
  47. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 171; Duffy (1992) p. 97.
  48. ^ McDonald (2007b) p. 62, 62 n. 18; Duffy (2006) pp. 53, 60; Hudson (2006) p. 170; Hudson (2005c) pp. 54, 83 fig. 3, 171; Duffy (2004); Woolf (2004) p. 100; Duffy (1992) p. 106.
  49. ^ McDonald (2007b) p. 62 n. 18; Duffy (2004); Duffy (1992) p. 106.
  50. ^ Woolf (2004) p. 100.
  51. ^ McDonald (2007) pp. 61–62; Duffy (2006) p. 51; Hudson (2005c) p. 172; Woolf (2004) p. 100; Anderson (1922b) p. 22; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–51.
  52. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  53. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 57–58; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Hudson (2005c) p. 172; Woolf (2004) pp. 100–100; Oram (2000) p. 19.
  54. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Hudson (2005b).
  55. ^ Duffy (1992) p. 102.
  56. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Duffy (1992) p. 102.
  57. ^ Hudson (2005c) pp. 130 fig. 4, 172.
  58. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Hudson (2005c) pp. 130 fig. 4; Duffy (1992) p. 97.
  59. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Duffy (1992) p. 105, 105 n. 59.
  60. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  61. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 57.
  62. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 53, 57–58.
  63. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 58.
  64. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 58.
  65. ^ Annals of Inisfallen (2008) § 1094.5; Bodleian Library MS. Rawl. B. 503 (n.d.).
  66. ^ Flanagan (2008) p. 907; Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Oram (2000) p. 19.
  67. ^ Flanagan (2008) p. 907; Duffy (2006) pp. 61–62; Hudson (2005c) p. 172; Woolf (2004) pp. 100–101.
  68. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 61–62.
  69. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 62.
  70. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Hudson (2005c) p. 172; Woolf (2004) pp. 100–101.
  71. ^ Forte; Oram; Pedersen (2005) p. 232; Oram (2000) p. 19.
  72. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  73. ^ Duffy (2006) pp. 51, 58; Anderson (1922b) p. 22; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–53.
  74. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 62.
  75. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 62; Anderson (1922b) pp. 43–45; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–53.
  76. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 62.
  77. ^ Duffy (2006) p. 62; Anderson (1922b) pp. 43–45; Munch; Goss (1874) pp. 50–53.
  78. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  79. ^ Annals of Inisfallen (2010) § 1094.5; Annals of Inisfallen (2008) § 1094.5; Hudson (2005c) p. 172; Duffy (1992) p. 99 n. 32.
  80. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  81. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.
  82. ^ Hudson (2005c) p. 172.

References[edit]

Primary sources[edit]

Secondary sources[edit]