tdbcelts.org

I couldn't find the term "Legal Alehouse" in On the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish by Eugene O'Curry, but he does describe what must be either that or something very similar attributed to the Fer Fothlai.I have not heard of "Flaths" or "Fothlai" before - what is the English translation of these words?

The brewing of beer appears to have been the privilege of Flaths. The Fer Fothlai or wealthy middleman who had Ceiles to whom he gave cattle received his rent in corn for he is not entitled to malt until he is a Flath. The Brughfer must have had the privilege of brewing in virtue of his functions as public hospitaller as he was bound to have a vat of ale always ready for the refreshment of a Rig a bishop a poet a judge or other person and their respective suites entitled to public entertainment. In Germany also the brewing of beer appears to have been in the middle ages a privilege of the nobility and in some parts this privilege came down to comparatively modern times.

[edit: I did find the term in Ian Hornsey's book (page 261) just after he is quoting Joyce and the Senchus Mor where he uses the word dligtech meaning "lawful", "legalized" or "fully certified".The distinction he claims was important because rent could be paid in ale and certified ale were certified to having passed the "three tests" and was worth more.The text goes on to say that St Patrick's household (certainly in our period) had a brewer, a priest called Mescan and that a professional brewer at that time was named using a Latin loan-word: cerbsire (kervshirre) or cervisia (which comes down in Spanish as the word for beer).He also notes that the native Irish term for brewer was scoaire.]

Flath means “noble”

Fer Fothlai literally translated means a “man of withdrawal”.
The Fer Flothlai was a transitional rank between commoner and a “proper” noble.

Under ancient Irish law, a patriarch of a family branch did not instantly become noble just through the acquisition of enough wealth to support and contract clients, that wealth had to be maintained for a few generations. Under normal circumstances, that man’s lineage would have to wait till his grandson to be elevated to nobility.

Mean time, the rank of such a person was considered higher than commoner and recognized by the law. He is called a man of withdrawal because he is “withdrawing” from commoner status into the nobility.

The Senchus Mor is likely the best authority on the subject, however, since all the other works simply quote it, I’m fairly confident in the position of a brewer as it relates to the society.

O’Cury and Joyce while useful, must be examined with a critical eye as they are antiquarians and not modern historians. However, even so, they can be trusted not to misquote the Senchus mor.

Even so, l standby Nerys Patterson’s “Cattlelords and Clansmen: The Social Structure of Early Ireland” very firmly. It is of superior academic quality and utility compared to most everything else available.

And, politically speaking, the clan brewers already feel they have been caused to delay for red tape. Waiting for the perfect academic source for the position of a brewer in ancient society isn’t likely to be very forthcoming. Let them work with this for the time being. If better research comes along things can be adapted accordingly.

To illustrate the pitfalls of O’Curry, he surmises that brewing is a “privilege” of the nobility. This is easily misinterpreted as being denied to the populace which would be patently incorrect. Note he is talking about rent payment here and what sort of domestic goods are payable from a client to his lord.

Once again, brewing was a common domestic skill. The fact that the client would be making malt in the first place should be a tip off here. The laws also speak of client’s rent payment in candles, but one would not assume that because rent is due to a superior in candles that artificial lighting was denied to the commoners.

But what is reasonably supported by way of mention, is the position that professional brewers were attendants to wealthier patrons, in this case either full nobles, or the Fer Folthai, i.e. people wealthy enough to support attendants in an equivalent manner of nobles.

... I just read that poem in full… and a bit of that book.

Its conclusion that only nobles and brughie were “allowed” to brew is ridiculous and the author fell into the exact pitfall that O’Curry set up with his language.

But otherwsie, being able to make ale, does not make one part of the noble class… however:

If a commoner were to gather sufficient wealth to elevate themselves to a bruighe (i.e. public hospitaler) part of the necessary wealth was in fact being able to produce ale. However, the ale was only a portion of the wealth required, the other wealth was the availability of enough food stuffs and a “house” to host within.

A bruighe held a station in society similar to a Fer Folthai. They weren’t considered “true” nobles but were elevated over the status of commoner. Fer Folthai by vitue of having enough wealth to lend cattle and hold clients, Bruighe by way of having wealth enough to host “visiting dignitaries”.

Since the first book was written by the founder of a brewery we might expect an attempt to elevate the status of brewing. I did a little reading on O'Curry, and while he hails from a time when histories were fraught with nationalistic bias, he seems to have been well respected and especially for his translations! The Catholic Encycopedia write up on O'Curry suggests as much.O'Curry does say that it "appears" that brewing was the privilege of the Flaths and he quotes

... for he is not entitled to malt until he is a Flath

from the Crith Gablach, vol. 2 p. 490, which is perhaps the most famous tract of ancient Irish laws, however in the copy I found online I don't see any such mention of ales or brewing?[edit: I don't see it in the one I quote in the reply to this post either!]

The poem has not been put into any context for me.It seems only to describe the various ales of Ireland and says you can't be the king unless you drink one specific type.It makes no mention of the brewer be they noble, flath, or commoner.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this site.It appears to contain the entirety of the Críth Gablach and it is much bigger than I thought.This is supposedly a translation by Neil McLeod (who might be this gentleman).

http://members.iinet.net.au/~draoidh/tr ... /index.htm

[edit: I see now as Aonghus points out below that it is only notes on the translations of the text, but the layman (including myself here!) can get a fairly good sense of the content of the text using it]

I don’t know if you chopped the link and took note of the other “offerings” on that web site...

But… in any case, the page you pointed me to seems like notes from a newsgroup list that were collected.

Reguardless, look at what is said at the very beginning:

“(1) Background To The Text
Please note that I am presenting this text with beginners in mind. I gladly adopt Vincent's recent guideline of assuming that everyone has access to Kelly's excellent 'Guide to Early Irish Law'. That text is the bare minimum for anyone who is actually serious about their interest in Brehon law.”

That’s the book of mine that Fiachra has out on loan.

But there is no mention as to the date these notes were created and weather the author of this had access to “Cattle lords and Clansmen”, which I will assume he didn’t since Cattle Lords was written after the Kelly book, and in fact references it.

But, as for Neil McLoud, he wrote a book on early Irish contract law I considered getting but is in a queue of desirability several books back.

On the subject of Celtic Scholars, I will point you to this:

http://www.celt.dias.ie/english/

Click on the link for staff and scholars, and you will see our pal Fergus Kelley is one of the senior professors.

Click on “Scholarships” and we see that Neill MacLeod received one back in 1983-5 and this jibes with his resume posted on his website… so yeah... same guy, and he doesn’t just reference Kelley, he was an actual student of Kelley.

These guys tend to be a bit “incestuous”, as there really aren’t too many Celtic scholars around. Though, Nerys Patterson is a product of Harvard’s Celtic studies program I believe.

For further note:

DIAS has an index of stuff on Celtic linguistics.

On a whim, I looked up the word “ól”. Those sources say the word meant “ale” but in modern Irish usage, I know the word to mean simply “drink”. (turns out after consulting a dictionary, its both, and used in similar manner to the English word “drink” as in if used by itself, it connotes alcohol, but can also be used as “a drink of water”.

Anyway, it yielded this entry:

McLeod (Neil): The ól: standard drinks in medieval Irish law.
In AusCeltJ 5 (1996–1997) pp. 5–8.

Which is an article in “Australian Celtic journal 5 (1996–1997)”

And at second look... the dude has the article listed on his web page. Which is I assume how you found him? Or was it just on Crith?

Poking around… I found this:

http://sydney.edu.au/arts/religion/inde ... age=celtic

They want 10 bucks (australian) for a back issue. The bastards didn’t make it available online.
I don’t know that it’s worth getting because it may just spew the info that was already available via Joyce.

Could always write to the guy and see if he will send you his article via email.

I just ordered my copy of Kelly's A Guide to Early Irish Law. Found one used and supposedly in good shape for $45!

[update 100825: received and am reading. Quite good so far, though most of the beginning of the book concerning social hierarchy is quoting David Binchey's earlier work. Quick glance through I don't see any specific mention of "brewers" though I do note that harpists are the only type of musician that can claim to be "nemed"]

Although I have been following this discussion, I was hanging back until what I feel is a key point could be illuminated further. Are guilds appropriate to begin with; how far back do they date? Since my academic resources on this topic are limited I asked at livinghistory.ie where it turned out that one of it's members was tackling the topic of the guild history in Dublin totally independent of my question.

Here's the short version of what he posted.

• - If you define a guild as an association/fraternity for teaching, and sharing ideas then he feels this predates 1190CE though he found no direct evidence.
• - After 1190CE the Anglo-Norman settlers set up medieval style guilds in Dublin complete with charters, member rolls, tax breaks, and other privileges. (It is interesting to note that all guild names listed, with one exception, are strictly Anglo-Norman).
• - Differentiated Irish craft guilds (like the Anglo-Norman ones) don't appear until the mid-late 15th Century.

So, from this info it would seem that craft guilds are just starting to be introduced to Ireland (by the Anglo-Normans) but at the very end of TdB's time range. And they also seem stay a largely Anglo-Norman concept until the late 15th C.

Well, that question opens a pretty big can of worms.

And the best answer I can render is “not quite, but…”.

If you think of a guild in terms of the Hanseatic League, then no, not really and your pal in the living history thingy is probably correct.

We use the term guild rather loosely and for lack of a better.

Given the clan structure and Brehon law, we know that certain professions were elevated in status. We know there were grades of craftsmen. We know that these grades were subject to approval by a governing body, which included the chief and those already deemed to be masters of their craft.

Under the clan system, trades and status were typically hereditary however with a degree of social mobility allowed for by good fortune or circumstance. Some clan names were renowned for the trades they practiced and hereditarily supplied certain members to a king’s retinue based on such reputation.

Within the clan structure came the practice of fosterage, and it is primarily though this vehicle that the knowledge of a particular trade was passed on to a younger generation not directly related to a master of craft.

As a group of modern people in a re-enactment club, we would be hard pressed to produce enough offspring and would be waiting a long time for the program to bear fruit if we wanted to be that historically accurate.

Now if we were doing a demonstration, or making a movie, we might play act or roll play out such a scenario, but… the thing of it is, as a modern club of hobbyists, we are forced to take some creative license to get things done.

Take our ranks and the institution of honor price for instance. We know that the society we try to represent was stratified, yet given the strong hereditary component of it, we have to fabricate an alternate means of representing it, as no one was born into the system.

The institutions of rank and honor price were adapted as sort of a reward and incentive system to get modern people to work towards a more medieval atmosphere and recognize their efforts.

The philosophy behind having our guilds is sort of the same. If a group of people get together and work on projects that enhance our atmosphere, there is a degree of formalized recognition that goes along with it.

In many respects, it’s taking the historic institution and fusing it with the functions necessary to operate a modern club, so at least the mundane components of running our club are heavily flavored with historic inspiration.

Pretty much in the same way that at events, our chieftain is our chieftain, but outside of events, he is our executive officer with mundane responsibility for running the club as well.

Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

Following up on this last post, it appears that Kelly's Early Irish Law does mention brewing in Chapter 10 and it provides some more leads for further investigation:

The authors of the law-texts are obviously well-informed about the topics with which they are dealing. For example, Cáin Aicillne gives a full account of the proper method of preparing malt from barley, which has been confirmed by modern brewers.

Cáin Aicillne is "The Law of Base Clientship" and is supposedly pretty well intact.The concept of clientship is described well in Kelly's book, but a nice description can also be found here.This book appears to be given complete in the Ancient Laws of Ireland, the Senchus Mór, pt. II (click the snippet below)



libraryireland.com (Books Ulster in County Down, IE) has a nice history of the Senchus Mór here.The original text may have been composed in our period, and through successive copying and commentary (glosses) in smaller typeface in-between the lines of the larger more ancient writing it survived into medieval times and is only made sensible to us today through many lifetimes of study by historians.

While a "Guild" for brewing is not specifically mentioned, it is clear that the production and quality of food and ale produced for the Chieftain (or other nobles) by their clients (tenants) was regulated by law, and that Lawful ale could only be called such if it was made according to certain strictures.Understanding (and enumerating) these ancient regulations (as Aonghus began above) would indeed seem the logical first step when discussing the chartering of a Brewing Guild.

Kelly's footnote gives some more references Corpus Iuris Hibernis ed. D.A. Binchy, Dublin 1978, a German title entitled Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, Halle, Tübingen 1897 (1923 ed), D.A. Binchy's Brewing in Eighth-century Ireland (doesn't that sound relevant?) which seems to be an essay found in Studies on Early Ireland:essays in honour of M.V. Duignan ed, B.G. Scott (Belfast 1981)