Clonard (both in Meath); and Clonfert, Tuam, Cong,
Killala, and Ardcarn or Ardagh (all five in Connacht).
Those chosen for the southern province were Cashel
(the metropolitan see), Lismore or Waterford, Cork,
Ratass, Killaloe, Limerick, and Emly (all seven in
Munster); Kilkenny, Leighlin, Kildare, Glendalough,
and Ferns or Wexford (all five in Leinster).
Armagh and Munster Predominant
After outlining the sees and diocesan boundaries that
were to be located in Connacht and Leinster, the synod
added a rider that had the same purpose in both cases.
This is more explicit in the case of Connacht. It states:
“If the Connacht clergy agree to this division, we desire
it, and if they do not, let them divide it as they choose,
and we approve of the division that will please them,
provided there be only five bishops in Connacht.” Here
we see clearly that the synod is more concerned with the
number of dioceses that are being created in Connacht
and Leinster than with the actual boundaries that are
being delimited. Something else is apparent from these
riders; the clergy of these political provinces were un-
likely to have attended the synod
otherwise, the riders
would not have been necessary or would have been
written differently. It seems unlikely also that the clergy
from Meath were present or, if they were, they were not
representative of the whole of the province of Mide
since, later in the same year as the synod met, the Meath
clergy held their own synod at Uisnech and redivided
their territory differently, with Clonmacnoise and Clonard
as the agreed sees.
The absence of these clergy suggests that the synod
was predominantly a Munster and Armagh synod. This
is confirmed by the names of those who subscribed to
the report of the synod as found in Keating’s transcript-
ion: Gille, papal legate and bishop of Limerick; Cellach,
coarb of Patrick and primate of Ireland; and Máel Ísu
Ua hAinmire, archbishop of Cashel. It is further con-
firmed by the names that we have already seen in the
reports of the synod that appeared in the annals. At this
stage of the reform process, therefore, the main thrust
behind the move to introduce a new administrative struc-
ture into the Irish church was to be found in both Mun-
ster and Armagh.
It will have been noticed that when the dioceses
of the southern province were specified by the synod,
only twelve dioceses (including that of the metropol-
itan at Cashel) were given
that meant that it was
left with one diocese short, if it were to follow the
original English model. It will also have been noticed
that there is no mention of the diocese of Dublin,
despite the fact that it had at that time been a canon-
ical diocese for nearly a hundred years. The reason
for its omission seems to be reasonably clear; Dublin
had aspirations to be the metropolitan see for the
whole of Ireland under the primacy of Canterbury.
What was happening at Ráith Bressail was an effort
to counteract this by setting up an ecclesiastical
structure within Ireland itself, independent from
Canterbury. However, such a structure would obvi-
ously have to accommodate Dublin at some stage
and, to allow for this, room was now left for it to join
in ultimately. Had the synod wished to exclude Dublin
completely it would simply have allocated twelve
suffragans to Cashel as the model it was following
suggested. It did not do that and it would appear,
therefore, that it was its intention that Dublin would
be encouraged to join and would be expected to do
so at some point in the future.
Although there would be difficulties experienced in
the implementation of its decisions and many adjust-
ments would be made subsequently, the synod’s work
was, nevertheless, momentous and what it set out to
do can still be recognized in the church structure that
has endured until the present day.
MARTIN HOLLANDReferences and Further Reading
Gwynn, A. The Twelfth-century Reform, A History of Irish
Catholicism II. Dublin and Sydney: Gill and Son, 1968.
Gwynn, A. The Irish Church in the Eleventh and Twelfth Cen-
turies, edited by Gerard O’ Brien. Dublin: Four Courts Press,
1992.
Holland, Martin. “Dublin and the Reform of the Irish Church
in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.” Peritia: Journal of
the Medieval Academy of Ireland14 (2000): 111
−60.
Hughes, K. The Church in Early Irish Society, London: Methuen
1966.
Mac Erlean, John. “Synod of Ráith Breasail: Boundaries of
the Dioceses of Ireland.” Archivium Hibernicum3 (1914):
1–33.
Watt, J. The Church in Medieval Ireland, (2nd ed.) Dublin:
University College Dublin Press, 1998.
See alsoCashel, Synod of I (1101); Church Reform,
Twelfth Century; Foras Feasa ar Éirinn; Gille
(Gilbert) of LimerickRAWLINSON B 502
Description
Rawlinson B 502 is a vellum and paper composite
manuscript now housed in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, and known after its pressmark there. It is one
of the manuscripts received by the Bodleian in 1756
as part of the bequest of Richard Rawlinson (1690
−
1755), a graduate of the University of Oxford (St.
John’s College). In 1909 a collotype facsimile edition,RÁITH BRESSAIL, SYNOD OF