Part 1

THE IRISH PENNY JOURNAL.

NUMBER 42. SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1841. VOLUME I.

The fine old mansion of the noble family of Skeffington, of which our prefixed wood-cut will give a very correct general idea, is well deserving of notice, not only from its grandeur of size and the beauty of its situation, but still more as presenting an almost unique example, in Ireland, of the style of domestic architecture introduced into the British islands from France, immediately after the Restoration.

This castle is generally supposed to have been erected in or about the year 1662, by Sir John Clotworthy, Lord Massarene, who died in 1665, and whose only daughter and heir, Mary, by her marriage with Sir John, the fifth baronet of the Skeffington family, carried the Massarene estate and title into the latter family. But though there can be no doubt, from the architectural style of the building, that Antrim castle was re-edified at this period, there is every reason to believe that it was founded long before, and that it still preserves, to a great extent, the form and walls of the original structure. The Castle of Antrim, or Massarene, as it is now generally called, appears to have been originally erected early in the reign of James I., by Sir Hugh Clotworthy, who, by the establishment of King James I. had the charge of certain boats at Massarene and Lough Sidney, or Lough Neagh, with an entertainment of five shillings Irish by the day, and 18 men to serve in and about the said boats, at ten-pence Irish by the day each. This grant was made to him by patent for life, in 1609; and on a surrender of it to the king in 1618, it was re-granted to him, and his son and heir John Clotworthy, with a pension of six shillings and eight pence per day, and to the longer liver of them for life, payable out of the revenue. For this payment Sir Hugh Clotworthy and his son were to build and keep in repair such and so many barks and boats as were then kept upon the lough, and under his command, without any charge to the crown, to be at all times in readiness for his Majesty’s use, as the necessity of his service should require. John Clotworthy succeeded his father as captain of the barks and boats, by commission dated the 28th January 1641, at 15s. a-day for himself; his lieutenant, 4s.; the master, 4s.; master’s mate, 2s.; a master gunner, 1s. 6d.; two gunners, 12d.; and forty men at 8d. each.

On the breaking out of the rebellion shortly afterwards, the garrison at Antrim was considerably increased, and the fortifications of the castle and town were greatly strengthened by Sir John Clotworthy, who became one of the most distinguished leaders of the parliamentary forces in the unhappy conflict which followed. Still commanding the boats of Lough Neagh, that magnificent little inland sea, as we may not very improperly call it, became the scene of many a hard contest between the contending parties, of one of which Sir R. Cox gives the following graphic account. It took place in 1642.

“But the reader will not think it tedious to have a description of a naval battel in Ireland, which happened in this manner: Sir John Clotworthy’s regiment built a fort at Toom, and thereby got a convenience to pass the Ban at pleasure, and to make incursions as often as he pleased into the county of Londonderry. To revenge this, the Irish garrison at Charlemont built some boats, with which they sailed down the Black-water into Loughneagh and preyed and plundered all the borders thereof. Hereupon, those at Antrim built a boat of twenty tun, and furnished it with six brass guns; and they also got six or seven lesser boats, and in them all they stowed three hundred men, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Owen O’Conally (the discoverer of the rebellion, who was a stout and active man) and Captain Langford. These sailed over the lough, and landed at the mouth of the Black-water, where they cast up two small forts, and returned. But the Irish found means to pass by these forts, in dark nights, and not only continued their former manner of plundering, but also raised a small fort at Clanbrazill, to protect their fleet upon any emergency. Upon notice of this, Conally and Langford manned out their navy again, and met the Irish near the shore of Clanbrazill; whereupon a naval battel ensued: but the rebels being fresh-water soldiers, were soon forced on shore; and the victors pursuing their fortune, followed them to the fort, and forced them to surrender it: and in this expedition sixty rebels were slain, and as many were taken prisoners, which, together with the boats, were brought in triumph to Antrim.”

But Sir John Clotworthy’s little fleet were not always so successful against the Irish as on this occasion. In an Irish MS. journal of the rebellion it is stated that on the 15th September 1645, a boat belonging to the governor of Massarene was captured by Sir Felim O’Neil, in which were two brass cannon, ten muskets, twelve barrels of salted fish, some sailors, and a company of soldiers. They brought it to the mouth of the river Black-water, at Charlemont. The journalist coolly adds, “Some of the men were hanged, and some redeemed!” And again, according to the same authority, in May 1646, Sir Felim had the good fortune to capture seven boats, taking fourteen men prisoners, and killing above twenty more. However, upon the whole, the governor of Massarene did good service to the cause of the Protector, for which, in consideration of the surrender of his pension of 6s. 8d. a-day, &c. an indenture was perfected on the 14th of August 1656 between the Protector and him, whereby a lease was granted him for 99 years of Lough Neagh, with the fishing and soil thereof, and the islands therein, and also the lough and river of Ban, and as far as the Salmon-leap, containing six salmon-fishings, and two mixed fishings of salmon and eels, &c.; and being instrumental in forwarding the restoration of King Charles II. after Cromwell’s death, he was raised to the peerage by patent, dated at Westminster, Nov. 21, 1660, by the title of Baron of Lough Neagh and Viscount Massarene, entailing the honours, in case of failure of his issue male, on Sir John Skeffington and his issue male, with whom they have since remained. A new patent, constituting Sir John Skeffington captain of Lough Neagh, was granted to him in 1680.

We shall conclude with a few words upon the castle itself, which is beautifully situated at the extremity of the principal street of the town of Antrim, on the banks of the Six-mile-water river, and immediately contiguous to Lough Neagh. The entrance from the town is through a fine gate-house, in the Tudor style of architecture, built of cut lime-stone, and closed by two folding-doors of cast iron, which are opened from a room overhead by means of machinery. The principal front of the castle faces the gate-house, and is in the centre of a curtain wall, connecting two large square towers placed at the angles of the building, and which again have smaller circular towers at three of their angles. This front is approached by a magnificent double stone staircase, and presents a great variety of enrichments in the French style of the seventeenth century, and is also decorated with shields having the armorial bearings of the founder’s family, and with medallions containing the portraits of Charles I. and II. The greatest length of the castle, however, runs parallel with the river, from which it is separated only by a low parapet wall, while the terraces of the gardens are situated on the other side. These gardens are no less attractive than the castle itself, with which they appear to be of equal age; they are laid out in the French style, the flower-beds being formed into a variety of patterns, among which that of the _fleur-de-lis_ is the most common and conspicuous. This design is in its way extremely beautiful, and to carry it out fully, no expense or trouble seems to have been spared. The borders are often of triple and quadruple rows of box, between which is laid fine gravel of different colours, which adds greatly to the effect. It is said that a red kind of this gravel was imported from Holland, and cost upwards of 1s. 2d. a quart. This garden is traversed from east to west by a succession of fish-ponds, of which the most central one is circular, and the rest oblong: and miniature cascades conduct the water from the most elevated of these ponds to the lowest. The timber in this garden is of great age and beauty, particularly the lime and oak; and it contains two or three specimens of the rhododendron, which are celebrated for their magnificence, being fully fifteen feet in height, and of corresponding circumference.

The house contains some fine pictures and curious articles of antique furniture.

P.

ORIGIN AND MEANINGS OF IRISH FAMILY NAMES.

BY JOHN O’DONOVAN.

Second Article.

In returning to the subject of the origin of Irish family names, I feel it necessary to adduce two or three additional instances of the erroneous statements put forward by Mr Beauford, as they have had such an injurious influence with subsequent Irish writers on this subject:--

3. “OSRAGH, derived from _Uys raigagh_, or the kingdom between the waters, the present Ossory, called also Hy Paudruig, or the district of the country between the rivers, &c., the hereditary chiefs of which were denominated _Giolla Paudruig_, or the chief of the country between the rivers, called also _Mac Giolla Padruic_,” &c.

This seems an exquisite specimen of etymological induction, and I have often heard it praised as beautiful and ingenious; but it happens that every assertion made in it is untrue! _Osragii_ is not the Irish name of this territory, but the Latinized form of the name of the inhabitants. Again, _Osragii_ is not compounded of _Uys_ and _raigagh_; and even if it were, these two vocables are not Irish words, and could not mean what is above asserted, the kingdom between the waters. Again, Ossory was never called _Hy Pau-druic_, and even if it were, _Hy Pau-druic_ would not mean “district of the country between the rivers.” Next, the hereditary chiefs were not denominated _Giolla Paudruic_, but _Mic Giolla Paudruic_ (a name afterwards anglicized Fitzpatrick), from an ancestor called _Giolla Paudruic_, who was chief of Ossory in the tenth century, and who is mentioned in all the authentic Irish annals as having been killed by Donovan, the son of Imar, king of the Danes of Waterford, in the year 975. Moreover, _Giolla-Phadruic_, the name of this chieftain, does not mean “chief of the country between the rivers,” as Mr Beauford would have us believe, but _servant of Saint Patrick_, which, as a man’s name, became very common in Ireland shortly after the introduction of Christianity, for at this time the Irish were accustomed to give their children names not only after the Irish apostle, but also after other distinguished saints of the primitive Irish church; and the names of these saints were not at this period adopted as the names of the children, but the word _Giolla_, or _Maol_, servant, was generally prefixed to the names of the saints to form those of the children: thus, _Giolla Padruic_, the servant of St Patrick; _Giolla Ciarain_, the servant of St Kieran; _Giolla Caoimhghin_, the servant of St Kevin; _Giolla Coluim_, the servant of St Columb, &c.

4. “CONMAICNE MARA, or the chief tribe on the great sea, comprehending the western parts of the county of Galway on the sea coast; it was also called _Conmaicne ira_, or the chief tribe in the west, and _Iar Connaught_, that is, west Connaught; likewise _Hy Iartagh_, or the western country: the chiefs of which were denominated Hy Flaherty or O’Flaherty, that is, the chief of the nobles of the western country, and containing the present baronies of Morogh, Moycullen, and Ballinahinch.”

This is also full of bold assertions, unsupported by history or etymology. _Conmaicne_ does not mean the chief tribe, but the race of a chieftain called Conmac; _Conmaicne mara_, which is now anglicised Connamara, was never called _Conmaicne ira_, and _Conmaicne mara_ and _Iar Connaught_ are not now coextensive, nor were they considered to be so at any period of Irish history. _Conmaicne mara_ was never called Hy Iartagh, and O’Flaherty was not the ancient chief of _Conmaicne mara_, for O’Flaherty was located in the plains of Moy Seola, lying eastwards of Lough Corrib, until he was driven across that lake into the wilds of Connamara by the De Burgos in the 13th century. Again, the surname O’Flaherty does not mean “the chief of the nobles of the western district,” but is derived from _Flaithbheartach_, who was chief of _Hy Briuin Seola_, not of _Conmaicne mara_, in the tenth century; and this chief was not the first who received the name, for it was the name of hundreds of far more distinguished chieftains who flourished in other parts of Ireland many centuries before him, and O’Flaherty became the name of a far more powerful family located in the north of Ireland; which shows that the name has no reference to north or west, but must look for its origin to some other source. Now, to any one acquainted with the manner in which compound words are formed in the Irish language, it will be obvious that the name _Flaithbheartach_ is not derived from a locality or territory, but that it is formed from _flaith_, a chief, and _beart_, a deed or exploit, in the following manner: _flaith_, a lord or chief, _flaithbheart_, a lordly deed or exploit; and by adding the adjective and personal termination _ach_ (which has nearly the same power with the Latin _ax_), we have _flaithbheartach_, meaning the lordly-deeded, or a man of lordly or chieftain-like exploits. According to the same mechanism, which is simple and regular, are formed several other compound words in this language, as _oirbheart_, a noble deed; _oirbheartach_, noble-deeded, &c.

Finally, Mr Beauford is wrong in the extent which he gives to _Conmaicne mara_. He is wrong in giving _Morogh_ as the name of a modern barony, for there is none such in existence; and we have the most indisputable evidence to prove that the territory of _Conmaicne mara_, now called Connamara, never since the dawn of authentic history comprised more than one barony. It is to be regretted that these etymological phantasies of Mr Beauford about the country of O’Flaherty are received as true history by the O’Flahertys themselves, and repeated in modern topographical and literary productions of great merit.

I shall give one specimen more of this writer’s erroneous mode of explaining topographical names, and I shall then have done with him.

5. “CAIRBRE AOBHDHA, or the district on the water, from _cairbre_, a district, and _aobhdha_, waters; the present barony of Kenry, in the county of Limerick. This country was also denominated _Hy dun na bhan_, or the hilly district on the river; the ancient chiefs whereof were called Hy Dun Navan or O’Donovan, that is, the chiefs of the hilly country on the river.”

Here every single assertion comprises a separate error. _Cairbre_ does not mean a district, and _aobhdha_ does not mean waters. This territory was not otherwise called Hy Dunnavan; and even if it were, that name would not mean “the hilly district on the river.” Again, the territory of _Cairbre Aobhdha_ is not the barony of Kenry, neither is it a hilly district, but one of the most level plains in all Ireland; and lastly, the name O’Donovan does not moan “chiefs of the hilly district on the river,” for this family name was called after Donovan, the son of Cathal, chief of the Hy Figeinte, a people whose country extended from the river Shannon to the summit of Slieve Logher in the county of Kerry, and from Bruree and the river Maigue westwards to the verge of the present county of Kerry. He flourished in the tenth century, and was killed by the famous Brian Boru in a pitched battle, fought in the year 977; and his name was derived, not from his “hilly country on the river” Maigue, as Mr Beauford would have us believe (though it must be acknowledged that he resided at Bruree, which is a _dun-abhann_, or dun of the river), but from the colour of his hair; for the name is written by Mac Firbis and others _Dondubhan_, which signifies _brown-haired chief_.

I trust I have now clearly proved the fallacy of Mr Beauford’s mode of investigating the origin and meaning of the names of Irish families and territories. It is by processes similar to the five specimens above given that he has attempted to demonstrate his theory, that the names of Irish tribes and families were derived from the territories and localities in which they dwelt, a theory never heard of before his time; for up to the time of the writers of the _Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis_, all were agreed that the Irish tribes took their surnames from certain distinguished ancestors, while the Saxons and Anglo-Normans took theirs generally from their territories and places of residence. For further information on this subject I refer the reader to Verstegan’s work, entitled “Restitution of Decayed Intelligence” and Camden’s “Remains.” The learned Roderic O’Flaherty, in his Ogygia Vindicated, p. 170, speaks on this subject in terms which Mr Beauford could not have mistaken. “The custom of our ancestors was not to take names and creations from places and countries as it was with other nations, but to give the name of the family to the seigniory by them occupied.”

To prove that I am not alone in the estimate that I have thus formed of the speculations of Mr Beauford, I shall here cite the opinions of a gentleman, the best acquainted of all modern writers with this subject, the venerable Charles O’Conor, of Belanagare, who, in a letter to the Chevalier Thomas O’Gorman, dated May 31, 1783, speaking of two tracts which he had published, to refute some errors of Dr Ledwich and Mr Beauford, says--

“Both were drawn from me to refute very injurious as well as very false representations published in the 9th number of the same Collectanea by Mr Ledwich, minister of Achaboe, and Mr Beauford, a schoolmaster in Athy. Little moved by any thing I have written against these gentlemen, the latter published his Topography of Ireland in the 11th number, the most flagrant imposition that I believe ever appeared in our own or in any age. This impelled me to resume the subject of our antiquities, and add the topography of Ireland, as divided into districts and tribes in the second century; a most curious record, preserved in the Lecan and Glendalough collections, as well as in your Book of Ballymote. I have shown that Beauford, a stranger to our old language, had but very slight materials for our ancient topography, and distorted such as he had to a degree which has no parallel, except perhaps in the dreams of a sick man in a phrenzy.”[1]

Again, the same gentleman, writing to his friend J. C. Walker on the same subject, expresses himself as follows:--

“Mr Beauford has given me satisfaction in his tract on our ancient literature, published in the Collectanea, and yet, in his ancient topography of Ireland, a book as large as his own might be written to detect his mistakes.”

It is quite obvious from the whole testimony of authentic Irish history that the names of tribes in Ireland were not derived from the territories and localities in which they dwelt, but from distinguished ancestors; for nine-tenths of the names of territories, and of the names of the tribes inhabiting them, are identical. The tribe names were formed from those of the progenitors, by prefixing the following words:--

1. _Corc_, _Corca_, race, progeny, as _Corc-Modhruadh_, now Corcomroe in Clare, _Corca-Duibhne_, now Corcaguinny in Kerry.

2. _Cineal_, race, descendants; _cineal Eoghain_, the race of Eoghan; _cineal Conaill_, the race of Conall. This word is translated _Genus_ throughout the Annals of Ulster.

3. _Clann_, children, descendants; as _clann Colmain_, the tribe name of a great branch of the southern Hy-Niall.

4. _Dal_, tribe, descendants, as _Dal-Riada_, _Dal-Araidhe_, _Dal-g-cais_, _Dal Mesincorb_, &c. This word has been explained by the venerable Bede, and from him by Cormac Mac Cullenan, archbishop of Cashel, as signifying _part_ or _portion_ in the Scottic language; but from the manner in which it is used in Irish genealogies, this would appear to be but a secondary and figurative meaning. O’Flaherty seems to doubt that this word could be properly translated _part_; but Charles O’Conor, who gave much consideration to the subject, writes in a note to Ogygia Vindicated, p. 175, “that _dal_ properly signifies posterity, _or descent by blood_; but in an enlarged and figurative sense it signifies a district, that is, the division or part allotted to such posterity: that of this double sense we have numberless instances, and that in this _second sense_ Bede’s interpretation is doubtlessly admissible.”

5. _Muintir_, family, people; as _Muintir Murchadha_, the tribe name which the O’Flahertys bore before the establishment of surnames.

6. _Siol_, seed, progeny; as _Siol Aodha_, seed of Hugh, the tribe name of a branch of the Mac Namaras in Thomond; _Siol Maoluidhir_, the progeny of Maeleer, a great tribe in Leinster, who gave name to the territory of Shelmalier, in the county of Wexford.

7. _Tealach_, family; as _Telach Eathach_, the family of Eochy, the tribe name of the Magaurans in Breffney.

8. _Sliocht_, posterity; as _Sliocht Aodha Slaine_, the progeny of King Hugh Slany in Meath.

9. _Ua_, grandson, descendant; nominative plural, _ui_; dative or ablative, _uibh_. This prefix in its upright uninflected form appears in the names of Irish tribes oftener than any of the other seven. Some ignorant Irish scribes have supposed that it signifies a region or country, and some of the modern transcribers of Keating’s History of Ireland have taken the liberty to corrupt it to _aoibh_, a form not to be found in any ancient or correct MS. In support of the meaning above given may be adduced the high authority of Adamnan, abbot of Iona in the 7th century, who, in his life of his predecessor St Columbkille, invariably renders _ua_, _ui_, _uibh_, _nepos_, _nepotes_, _nepotibus_, in conformity with his habitual substitution of Latin equivalents for Irish tribe names, as often as he found it practicable. Thus, in the 16th chapter of the second book, he renders _Ua Briuin_, _nepos Briuni_; in the 5th chapter of the third book he translates _Ua Ainmirech_, _nepos Ainmirech_; in the 17th chapter of the same book he translates _Ua Liathain_, _nepos Liathain_; in the 49th chapter of the first book he renders _Ui Neill_, _nepotes Nelli_, i.e., the race of Niall; and in the 22d chapter of the same book he translates _Ui Tuirtre_, _nepotes Tuitre_.

We have also for the same interpretation the authority of the annalist Tigernach, who, in his Annals of Ireland at the year 714, translates _Ui Eachach_ (now Iveagh, in the county Down), _nepotes Eochaidh_.

On this subject it may not be uninteresting to the reader to hear the opinion of the learned Roderic O’Flaherty. Treating of the Hy Cormaic, a tribe located near Lough Foyle, in the present county of Londonderry, he says--

“_Hy_ or _I_ (which calls for an explanation) is the plural number from _Hua_ or _O_, a grandson, and is frequently prefixed to the names of progenitors of families, as well to particularize the families as the lands they possess, as _Dal_, _Siol_, _Clann_, _Kinel_, _Mac_, _Muintir_, _Teallach_, or any such name, pursuant to the adoptive power of custom.”--_Ogygia_, Part III. Chap. 76.