CASHEL, SYNOD OF I (1101)reached its zenith at the court of Charles the Bald,
where the circle included Murethach of Auxerre
(fl. 840–850), Sedulius Scottus, Ériugena, and Martin
Scottus (fl. 850–875), teacher of Greek at the court
school in Laon. In 846, Charles the Bald confirmed
the re-establishment of hospices for Irish pilgrims,
while direct political contact is attested in 848 when
Charles received an Irish embassy that presented him
with gifts, requested safe passage to Rome for the
“king of the Irish” (presumably Máel-Sechnaill I),
asked for an alliance, and reported that their king had
won a great victory over the Vikings. No political
alliance was made, however, and with the waning of
Carolingian power, the influence of Irishmen in France
also declined.
JOHN BRADLEY
References and Further Reading
Becher, Matthias. Charlemagne. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2003.
Kenney, J. F. The Sources for the Early History of Ireland:
Ecclesiastical. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929.
Reprint, Dublin: Padraic Ó Táilliúr, 1979 (pp. 517–604 in
the 1979 edition).
McKitterick, Rosamond, ed. The New Cambridge Medieval
History, volume II: c.700-c.900. Cambridge: University
Press, 1995.
See alsoDícuil; Ériugena John Scottus; Peregrini;
Pilgrims and Pilgrimage; Sedulius Scottus
CASHEL, SYNOD OF I (1101)
In the year 1101, a synod was convened at Cashel by
Muirchertach Ua Briain in his capacity as king of
Ireland. Although many people are reported as attend-
ing, both cleric and lay, the only names we have, apart
from that of Ua Briain, are his brother Diarmait and
bishop Máel-Muire Ua Dúnáin. According to one
source, Ua Dúnáin presided over the synod as papal
legate; however, doubt has been cast upon the veracity
of that claim. Unusually for a synod of this period, its
decrees (or at least some of them) have survived; they
are found in an Ua Briain genealogy and are believed
to be genuine.
There is, however, a dispute over their interpreta-
tion. Some would see them reflecting the papal reforms
then taking place elsewhere in the church. For exam-
ple, the first decree is about aithlaíchoraithchléirig
(often translated as “ex-laymen,” “ex-clerics,” but also
“laymen or clerics who are now penitents”); some
historians translate this decree in a way that would
suggest that they are being prohibited from purchasing
a church. Because of this they see it as a prohibition
on simony, a vice that the reform papacy of the time
was very keen to stamp out, although they are unable
to explain why it applies to the particular category of
people in question. Interpreted differently, the decree
is seen as a reaffirmation of a long-standing church
rule that prohibited such people from taking possession
of a church; it is thus a conservative rather than a
reforming decree. Similar interpretations could be
applied to another decree that prohibits laymen from
becomingairchinnig(heads of ecclesiastical establish-
ments). While expressing puzzlement as to why the
prohibition is limited to the office of airchinnech, the
decree is nevertheless seen to be particularly Gregorian
in character. This is because popes and their legates
were, around that time, busy on the continent seeking
to free the church from the control of lay princes. This
interpretation, however, assumes that the office of
airchinnech had been taken over by laymen and that
the synodsmen were now declaring the practice illegal.
However, against this it is argued that the laymen who
had taken over the office were in fact clerics, but with-
out ecclesiastical orders, and that the church always
forbade laymen from holding the office. The decree
merely re-affirms this and is not therefore a reform.
Finally, there is the decree that defines what rela-
tionships are considered to be incestuous. Although
this is accepted as being very limited in its scope, it is
nevertheless seen to be an effort made to address per-
ceived irregularities in Irish marriage practices. There
had been many complaints, especially from non-Irish
people, about these around the time of the synod.
However, it can be argued that many of the foreign
complaints were based upon the fact that there was a
substantial difference between Irish and mainstream
church laws on what was considered to be incestuous.
Irish laws, it is argued, were based upon the Mosaic
laws, and marriage was allowed between first cousins.
Laws in the rest of the church at that time prohibited
marriage between people who were related up to the
seventh degree of relationship. The decree passed at
Cashel confirms existing Irish law and is therefore a
restatement of that, rather than being an effort to bring
Irish laws into line with those that prevailed in the rest
of the church.
This synod is seen as a reforming synod by virtue
of the decrees it passed by those who interpret them
as reforming decrees. However, there is another event
that occurred at the synod, by virtue of which it is
perhaps more entitled to carry that title. And it is this
event in particular that the annalists picked out for
mention, referring to it as unprecedented in Irish his-
tory: the grant of Cashel, the ancestral seat of the kings
of Munster, by Muirchertach Ua Briain, as a gift to the
Irish church forever. The significance of this became
clear ten years later when Cashel was chosen at the
synod of Ráith Bressail as the metropolitan see for the
southern province in the new church structure planned