References and Further Reading
Bieler, L. “The Island of Scholars.” Revue du Moyen Age Latin
vii (1952): 213–234.
Bolgar, R. R. The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries.
Cambridge: 1954.
Bolgar, R. R., ed., Classical Influences on European Culture.
Cambridge: 1971.
Daintree, D. “The Transmission of Virgil and Virgil Scholia in
Medieval Ireland.” Romanobarbarica16 (1999): 33–47.
Harris, J. R. Adaptations of Roman Epic in Medieval Ireland.
Lewiston, NY.: Edwin Mellen, 1998.
Herren, M. “Classical and Secular Learning Among the Irish
Before the Carolingian Renaissance.” Studi Medievali, 3rd
ser. 18 (1977): 815–880.
Hofman, R. The Sankt Gall Priscian Commentary. 2 vols.
Münster: Nedus, 1996.
Holtz, L. “La Redécouverte de Virgile aux VIIIe et IXe Siécles
d’aprés les Manuscrits Conservés.” Lectures Médiévales de
Virgile, Collection de l’école Fraçnaise de Rome 80 (Rome,
1985): 9–30.
Howlett, D. R. The Celtic Latin Tradition of Biblical Style.
Dublin: 1995.
Ó Cuív, B. “Medieval Irish Scholars and Classical Latin Liter-
ature.” PRIA81C (1981): 239–248.
Stanford, W. B. Ireland and the Classical Tradition. Dublin:
1976.
Walker, G. S. M., ed. Sancti Columbani Opera. Dublin: 1957.
See alsoBiblical and Church Fathers; Columbanus;
Dícuil; Ériugena, John Scottus; Hiberno-Latin;
Literature; Sedulius Scottus
CLIENTSHIP
This is céilsinein early Irish law. It is the word used
to describe the relationship between a céile(compan-
ion, fellow) and his lord, flaith.Céileis cognate with
Latincliens(client, dependent). It could be translated
“vassal,” but this is avoided since “vassal” is so closely
associated with later feudalism. Thomas Charles-
Edwards has recently highlighted the difference
between the Irish and Continental systems as “Frankish
lordship worked through land, Irish lordship through
capital.” The capital was primarily (though not exclu-
sively) livestock, the “fief,” that a lord granted to a
client. It was a contractual personal relationship that
bound lord and man together. Clientship permeated the
entire social and political fabric of Ireland in both
secular and ecclesiastical society.
At the top level of society, clientship among kings
and nobility was primarily political. At the bottom
were slaves, and between the slaves and the farm-
owning class were the semifree, bothach,fuidir, and
senchléithe. The bothachwas a cottager and the
senchléithewere serfs, tied to the soil. The fuidriwould
seem to have dropped into the semifree class as a result
of crime or inability to sustain themselves as indepen-
dent farmers. They were the clients of the classes above
and provided the labor force on farms and in households.
The free independent farmers were the most important
class in relation to clientship, for they formed the back-
bone of the economy.
There were two forms of clientship: sóer chéilsine
(“free clientship,” in the sense of legally independent)
anddóer chéilsine(“base clientship,” in which part of
the contracting party’s legal independence was
absorbed by the lord). Both involved free commoners.
In each the céile received a “fief” of stock from a lord,
for a period of contract of seven years. The sóer chéile
accepted three cows. He paid heavy interest each year,
but at the end of the period the fief became his absolute
property. This person was a wealthy farmer. Each party
could opt out of the contract without penalties. The other
duties of the sóer chéilewere those of manchuine,
“personal service” of attendance upon his lord, and
urérge(homage) to him. He helped his lord pursue the
feud and took part in mourning his death. He formed
part of his lord’s dám, his “company,” when on public
business, and was a member of his war band. It was a
position of prestige. If for some reason the sóer chéile
failed to maintain his contract, he could drop to the
level of dóer chéile.
Thedóer chéilewas given a more generous “fief,”
and his interest was less per year. He faced heavy
penalties should he withdraw from the contract. Dóer
chéilsinewas originally called gíallnae, derived from
gíall(hostage). The dóer chéilewas given an extra
payment,séoit taurchluideo(chattels of subjection),
which was equal to his honor price. This, with the
earlier name gíallnae, may suggest that this form of
clientship was originally applied to defeated peoples.
In return for this payment the lord assumes some legal
responsibility for him, hence his dependent legal sta-
tus. The lord received compensation for injury done to
his client, for example, for homicide or theft (one-third
of all payments were due to him). The dóer chéilepaid
interest to his lord in livestock and also in foods of
various kinds—both meat and cereals—and candles.
His inferior status is revealed in the labor services he
was required to supply: taking part in his lord’s harvest
and also in digging an extra rampart around his lord’s
fort. He had also to take part in the military hosting.
Lords collected their rent for the most part in guesting
upon their base clients during the aimser chue, the
period of winter visitation between January 1 and the
beginning of Lent. The number of guests and the qual-
ity of food were regulated.
It would appear that there were differences in cli-
entship between the northern and southern parts of
Ireland. In the north the dóer chéile’scontract lasted
until the death of his lord. If the client died first, his
heirs had to maintain the contract. On the lord’s death,
the original grant or their offspring remained with the
client after the seven-year period had been properlyCLASSICAL INFLUENCE