Early mechanisms of abbatial succession: the case of Iona (563–704)

Comments about succession to the Iona abbacy rarely go beyond the observation that most of the early abbots – but not all – belonged to the Cenél Conaill, the kindred of Iona’s founder, Saint Columba. This point privileges the role of eligibility criteria in the succession process at the expense of agency. This paper concerns itself with the specific mechanism that mediated the Iona abbacy: the central question is not ‘who’ could succeed, but rather ‘how’ they succeeded. It will be suggested that abbatial authority was passed from one abbot to the next via designations, whereby the reigning abbot appointed his own successor.

abbacy of this monasteryor the matrix eclesia, as it is called by Abbot Adomnán in his Vita Columbaethat concerns us here. 2 Abbatial succession at Iona is usually couched in the terms set out by William Reeves: that the abbacy was disproportionally held by men from a dynastic subgroup of the Uí Néill, the Cenél Conaill. 3 While this point tackles succession through the lens of eligibility, it does not take into account the means, or the mechanism, by which transfers of authority took place. This paper seeks to answer the question: how did the abbacy pass from one holder to the next? 4 To this end, examples of succession at work within the Insular milieu, drawn from Anglo-Saxon Northumbria and Irish legalistic material, will be considered in brief. Following this, an important though problematic reference to succession in Adomnán's Vita Columbae will be examined. This will provide the backdrop to a study of succession at Iona in the 563-704 period which will conclude with a brief consideration of the period after Adomnán's death in 704. Ultimately, it will be suggested that a consistent succession mechanism was employed at Iona, whereby the reigning abbot, who designated his own successor, monopolized agency in the succession process. 5
On this account you should always be very careful, brothers, not to look for a father for yourselves according to family ties or from anywhere outside this community. You should instead look for one by sharing your opinions in the meeting of your community, and following the rule of that great Benedict who was once an abbot and following what the decretals in our letter of privilege contain. 7 The point is laboured at the close of Ceolfrid's abbacy, where the brothers are urged to elect their own leader: 'Ut iuxta sui statuta priuilegii iuxtaque regulam sancti abbatis Benedicti'. 8 Bede depicts elective succession in use, at least tacitly, in Sigfrith's election at Wearmouth upon Eosterwine's death, even if Ceolfrid is given a role and Benedict Biscop's ultimate approval was important. 9 The Historia abbatum and the Vita Ceolfridi claim that Biscop fashioned his rule from the best practice of seventeen monasteries that he encountered during his travels. 10 Whatever the prescriptions of Biscop's regula mixta, Bede claims that his succession principle was essentially that of the Regula Benedicti. 11 It must be emphasized that the Historia abbatum projects a contemporary set of ideals upon the past. That elective succession was not immemorial is clear, given the fact that on his deathbed Biscop appointed Ceolfrid to the abbacy of Jarrow, Eosterwine to the abbacy of Wearmouth, and finally Ceolfrid as the head of both centres. 12 While Bede depicts Biscop as eager to prevent strictly familial succession, in reality Eosterwine was Biscop's cousin and Ceolfrid may also have been a relation, making plain the uncomfortable contradiction that lay behind his deathbed directive. 13 This contradiction reverberates throughout the text, as Bede's attempts to justify the appointments of Ceolfrid and Eosterwine make clear. 14 Bede sought to retrospectively enshrine the status quo through the affirmation of the founder. The shift towards elective succession represents a rejection of familial appointments, 15 and this rejection informs the Historia abbatum, which attempts to backdate the emergence of the succession principle. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to underestimate wider commitment to designated succession from this evidence alone. 16 One need look no further than to the (in)famous Wilfrid, who, despite claims by his biographer that he introduced the Benedictine Rule into Northumbria, 17 did not subscribe to elective succession practices and on his deathbed arranged that his foundations would be 'sub praepositis a se electis'. 18 Wilfrid's preference for designated succession survived his bout of sickness, as evident by his appointment of Tatberht as his successor at Ripon, a position he was sine scrupulo possideat. 19 Wilfrid's understanding that he was free to designate his successor is reiterated by his appointment of Acca, who (unlike Tatberht) was not a kinsman, to the abbacy of Hexham. 20 Wilfrid was hardly unique in appointing his own successor or having a preference for relatives. Bede's Historia ecclesiastica relates how Chad was made abbot of Lastingham by his brother and predecessor Cedd, while Abbess Hereburh planned to install her daughter as abbess of Watton. 21 Similarly, AEthelwulf 's early ninth-century poem, De abbatibus, depicts a centre with a clear familial element, with two sets of brothers holding the abbacy one after the other; although no succession mechanisms are explicitly stated, it is telling that an abbot was immediately followed by 13  contradictory mechanisms regarding succession to the principatus. In a section entitled 'De eo quod princeps solus successorem ordinat' the agency behind succession lies with the reigning princeps, 30 yet the following notice states that the consensus populi cum principe is to be sought. 31 Another notice stipulates that the princeps is to be chosen through lot-casting. 32 This profusion of succession mechanisms is typical of the Hibernensis, which was not a technical lawbook outlining a prescriptive way of doing things, but a compilation of existing canon law material. It was a resource to be drawn on rather than strictly enforced. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that the principatus and the abbacy were not synonymous, even if one man could (and often did) hold both offices. 33 Therefore, mechanisms of succession outlined in the text are not necessarily applicable to the specifics of abbatial succession. Whilst acknowledging this caveat, the testimony of the Hibernensis is still valuable. It has a tangible link to Iona through Cú Chuimne, and, as will be shown, the principatus and the abbacy were mutually inclusive at Iona for the period under consideration. 34 Therefore, the multiplicity of succession mechanisms in the text provide useful models for potential succession protocols in practice.
Another relevant text is the Old Irish law tract Córus Bésgnai, which forms part of the Senchas Már that has been dated to between c.660 and c.680 and may have been produced at Armagh. 35 Amongst the concerns of this tract is succession to the headship of a church, and, although the text is incomplete and sections dealing with succession are especially deficient, later glosses and commentaries help elucidate the fragmentary elements. At its greatest extent eight levels of eligibility for the headship are enumerated, with fine érlama ('kin of the founding saint') and fine griain ('kin of the landowner') occupying the first and second positions respectively. 36 While Córus Bésgnai fixates on who was eligible to succeed, it makes occasional comments on selection processes, the most thorough of which outlines a procedure involving elective succession: Cach fine, 37 cach manche, cach andóit íar n-airdligiud; dligiud cach déoradas. Comloigthi cach etal ria n-anetal. Cach n-imthogu la comthoil comairle. Cach ríagal íar comairli co n-eltai co cosmailius.
Every kindred, every community of church vassals, every mother-church in accordance with inherent right; every outside appointment in accordance with entitlement. Every pure person is to be favoured before an impure person. Every election with joint consent after consultation. Every ruling after consultation, with purity, with uniformity. 38 Elsewhere, the tract permits a situation whereby headship is passed from one branch of the kin to another (a circuit) when a church was established by a patron on familial land. 39 However, in another prescription any circuit of the branches is ruled out, 40 and in a later accretion it specifically notes that lot-casting is not undertaken if there is someone superior: 'noco cuirter cāe uird in cranncuir forin fine gabluithur ann ō bias adbur is ferr inā cēile ann'. 41 In another gloss, this time to 'Mana taibre Dia' ('If God does not give it'), we see '.i. tre chocran' ('i.e. through lot-casting'). 42 Despite the dismissal of a circuit in this context, the later accretions suggest that situations could emerge which required lot-castingfor instance, when two candidates of equal material (comadbar) emerged. 43 In Córus Bésgnai and the Hibernensis therefore, lot-casting was presented as a viable succession mechanism.
The best evidence for Córus Bésgnai in action, perhaps unsurprisingly if Liam Breatnach is correct about the provenance of the tract, has an Armagh link. The early eighth-century Additamenta, found in the Book of Armagh, contain the testament of Féith Fio regarding successorship at Drumlease. 44 His kindred hold priority in succession, followed by the muinter of Drumlease or its manaig, and followed finally by a déorad ('outsider') from the community of Patrick. 45 The Drumlease example corresponds to the dynastic focus found within Córus Bésgnai, however, it also shows that prescriptions in Córus Bésgnai were open to various interpretations at specific sites. According to Colmán Etchingham, 'The fragmentary portion of Córus Bésgnai thus countenances four different types of churches, 46 each distinguished by the particular element of the indigenous community that is accorded first call on the office of head.' 47 Like the base text of Córus Bésgnai quoted above, the Drumlease document includes a statement asserting a moral requirement regarding would-be successors from Féith Fio's kin. While Córus Bésgnai implies that a candidate's merit will be assessed by means of an election, there is no explicit comment on succession mechanisms in the Drumlease document. In both texts, the question of who could succeed was more important than how they would succeed. However, two mechanisms can be extricated from Córus Bésgnaione explicitly stated (election) and the other implied (lots)and while these are important, I do not think they should be taken as an exhaustive list of viable succession mechanisms. As with the Hibernensis, we look in vain for a single emphatic statement regarding succession mechanisms in Córus Bésgnai. Like the Northumbrian examples cited above, the legal material allows for diversity.

Succession in Irish hagiography
At this point it is worth turning to the Vita Columbae, composed by Abbot Adomnán by c.700, for the only explicit reference to Iona's succession protocol. 48 While attempting to join the island community on Iona, Fintan is informed of Columba's passing: This reference is not unique in early Irish hagiography; the late seventh-century Patrician Lives of Tírechán and Muirchú include Patrick's designation of his own successor, Benignus. 50 Tírechán's Patrick affirms that Benignus will be heres regni mei, 51 while Muirchú's Patrick proclaims that Benignus will be meum successorem. 52 While these statements appear to validate a system that privileged abbatial designations, we must be circumspect about placing too much credence on transfers of authority between a founding saint and his immediate successor in hagiographical narratives. If a centre wanted to exploit a connection with a saint, one way of doing so was to depict a saint investing a chosen successor and office with their authority. 53 Therefore, Baíthéne's appointment must be considered within the context of Adomnán's narrative, both the anecdote where it features (I.2) and the text holistically. The events surrounding Fintan's journey 160-77, at 167-9. 49 Adomnán, VC I.2, pp. 20-1. Baíthéne is also dubbed alumnus at III.18 (pp. 208-9) and the term is used for another individual at III.21 (pp. 212-13 Despite this, it must be remembered that Adomnán wrote for his own ecclesiastical community, a group probably familiar with succession protocols. 60 If Adomnán was proposing an alternative method to prevailing succession practices surely this would have raised eyebrows. Moreover, if Adomnán was making a deliberate point and trying to justify his ideal succession mechanism through a revisionary approach to the past, he did so in a subdued way compared to other hagiographers. Confirmation of Baíthéne's designation deviates from portrayals by Muirchú and Tírechán, where the accounts blatantly sought to elevate the standing of the successor and endow him, and his office, with saintly gravitas. In contrast, news of Baíthéne's designation is conveyed by a third party in an episode more concerned with establishing Columba's posthumous prophecies, as befits Adomnán's focus in Book I. 61 Baíthéne's designation by Columba never actually features in the text, but instead the appointment is reported posthumously. The closest thing to an in-text designation is in the final chapter (III.23), when Columba leaves the task of completing a psalter to Baíthéne: 'Hic [ . . .] in fine cessandum est paginae. Quae uero sequuntur Baitheneus scribat.' 62 In O'Reilly's eyes, this signifies Baíthéne's designation, 63 and its significance is bolstered by Adomnán's authorial interjection: Successori uero sequens patri spiritalium doctori filiorum, 'Venite filii audite me; timorem domini docebo uos', congruenter conuenit, qui sicut decessor commendauit non solum ei docendo sed etiam scribendo successit.
And the verse that follows, 'Come, my sons, hear me; I will teach you fear of the Lord', is fittingly adapted to the successor, the father of spiritual sons, a teacher, who, as his predecessor enjoined, succeeded him not in teaching only, but in writing also. 64 This is an important narrative event. The culmination of Baíthéne's spiritual development is paired with Columba's preparations for the end, and, as Adomnán makes clear, Baíthéne is ready to assume his teacher's mantle. 65 Crucially, however, there is no explicit designation of successorship as found in the Patrician hagiographies. There is not even an obvious indication that Baíthéne was thought to be present on the island. The text simply highlights Columba's affirmation that Baíthéne was ready to undertake the role previously assigned to him. Writing with hindsight, Adomnán knew that Baíthéne would succeed Columba, and this guaranteed his position in the Vita Columbae. Moreover, Baíthéne was highly regarded by the Iona community in his own right, a view shared by Adomnán given his positively glowing interjection quoted above. 66 Baíthéne is the subject of a vita of his own which may represent an earlier seventh-or eighth-century Iona record, 67 and he receives pride of place in a list of Columba's twelve companions which is attached to the British Library manuscripts of Vita Columbae (dated to c.700). 68 Baíthéne and Columba share a feast day on 9 June, a coincidence that probably stems from the association between the pair. 69 Baíthéne's enduring stature and his association with Columba made him a subject ripe for development; but it stands that the actual succession mechanism does not prompt special comment from Adomnán. In I.2, Baíthéne's succession was needed to anchor events, but it is not the centre of attention itself and the sequence would still function if Adomnán cited a different succession principle; whether he was presented as being elected or whether he drew the longest straw, Baíthéne's position in the narrative was secure as a result of his place as Columba's immediate successor. The mechanism of succession was secondary in this context. This suggests that Adomnán was simply describing Baíthéne's succession as he thought it had happened. However, this means that we are reliant on what Adomnán thought happened. Adomnán wrote a century after the fact; his comment may have been informed by the belief that succession in Columba's day mirrored his own period, or he may have relied on erroneous information. This presents a problem; Adomnán's statement on Baíthéne's succession is valuable because we lack similar statements elsewhere, and while it is possible that Adomnán was basing his comment on solid information, it is difficult to prove. Nonetheless, the personal and genealogical links between Columba and his cousin suggest that if Columba were in a position to appoint a 66 M. Herbert successor, Baíthéne would have been the natural choice. This is what Adomnán seems to have believed, and it makes his testimony at the very least plausible.

Mechanisms of abbatial succession
The preceding discussion identified several parties that had an interest in influencing abbatial succession. Of particular importance were the reigning abbot and the wider ecclesiastical community. This suggests two primary mechanisms for succession: i An abbot designates his successor, ii The community elects an abbot.
To these, a third party could be added, that being an outside agent such as a dynast or a king. 70 This presents a tempting conclusion with regards to Iona; does the Cenél Conaill element in the abbacy suggest that 'secular' Cenél Conaill had a role in succession? The probable answer is no; there is no evidence for the direct hand of an outside dynastic agent in the succession process. That a genealogical link to Columba was an important eligibility criterion afforded the Cenél Conaill a privileged position in supplying personnel who could go on to be eligible for the abbacy. 71 However, this kind of soft power does not necessitate direct agency in influencing the specifics of succession and certainly does not imply a succession mechanism involving outside dynastic powers. It is also worth considering whether bishops had a role in the succession process, given that bishops were associated with Iona. Aside from explicit mention of Bishop Coeddi (styled episcopus Iae in the Annals), 72 it has plausibly been suggested that Virgno (alias Fergna), Iona's fourth abbot, was a bishop before assuming the abbacy. 73 Two early eighth-century abbots, Conamail ( † 710) and Dorbéne ( † 713), have claims to episcopal orders. Conamail's episcopal status rests on the testimony of the Cáin Adomnáin's guarantor list, where he is dubbed epscop. 74 The core list of names is near-contemporary to c.697, however, the titles are a more complicated matter. Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha holds that while the regnal and abbatial titles represent later additions, 75 episcopal titles may be contemporaneous with the core list of names. 76 Despite this, many titles are verifiably false, and without corroborating evidence Conamail's episcopal status must be taken as nothing more than a remote possibility. 77 Dorbéne has also been called a bishop due to the appearance of the terms kathedra and primatus in his annalistic obit. 78 Again, this is difficult to verify in any authoritative way, and his episcopal credentials remain uncertain. Regardless, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica reveals that the first three Northumbrian bishops based at Lindisfarne were sent from Iona, 79  This island always has an abbot for its ruler who is a priest, to whose authority the whole prouincia, including even bishops, have to be subject. This unusual arrangement follows the example of their first teacher, who was not a bishop but a priest and monk. 83 75 Ní Dhonnchadha suggested that titles were added over a long period, Ní Dhonnchadha, 'Guarantor List', pp. While Bede's statement about abbots not holding episcopal office may be incorrect (as Virgno's case suggests), his statement on the primacy of abbatial authority on Iona makes it difficult to envisage a context wherein bishops had a specific role in succession. It describes a situation where episcopal authority in matters of governance was minimal and implies that the abbacy and the principatus were mutually inclusive, as will be discussed below. 84 Ultimately, the succession mechanisms outlined above are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, as the lines between 'designations' and 'elections' in the strictest sense could become blurred. 85 Even if Adomnán's comment on Baíthéne's succession is accepted, it only recounts the transfer of authority from a founder to his immediate successor. It cannot be assumed that a consistent succession mechanism can be extrapolated from a single scenario, as the case of Wearmouth-Jarrow makes clear.

Abbatial succession at Iona (563-704)
While it is plausible that Columba appointed Baíthéne as his successor, it remains to be seen if a consistent succession mechanism applies to the whole period under consideration. Several sources inform the analysis: an eighth-century abbot list included in the Liber confraternitatum Sancti Petri Salisburgensis, which lists all abbots until Sléibíne's abbacy (752-66); 86 a series of genealogies which record the lineages for abbots of Uí Néill (almost exclusively Cenél Conaill) descent; 87 and annalistic sources that represent a lost 'Iona Chronicle' that may have become contemporaneous shortly after Iona's foundation. 88 Alongside these, Adomnán's Vita Columbae mentions several abbots in passing. These sources 89 provide a basic chronological framework while the genealogies assign a familial context to all but two abbots ( Table 1).
The genealogies evince a consistent Cenél Conaill element in the abbacy. However, in the 600-79 period, all of the Cenél Conaill affiliated abbots were descended from Ninnid (Fig. 1). Iona's third abbot, Laisrén (600-5), was the first abbot to emerge from this collateral, and he follows Columba and Baíthéne in boasting a genealogical connection to the Cenél Conaill. 90 He is also brought into contact with Columba in the Vita Columbae, and elsewhere in the text is depicted leading the monks of Durrow. 91 The succession of Virgno, the first of two non-Cenél Conaill abbots in the 563-704 period, is more peculiar. 92 Virgno has several quirks which make him stand out as a successor of Columba. He does not seem to have been Irish (and thus was bereft of a Cenél Conaill link), and, as already noted, he may have been in episcopal orders. 93 Adomnán's statement that Virgno became abbot 'deo auctore' has been taken as designed to assert Virgno's legitimacy, implying that his abbacy was viewed as somewhat unusual, at least to Adomnán. 94   an understanding that succession initially privileged a connection to Columba himself. In this period abbatial appointments are certainly plausible; however, these should be viewed as the product of membership of a ruling circle which was directly associated with Columba. In this context, Virgno's succession makes perfect sense and it was his link to Columba and the ruling circle, rather than his genealogical connections, that ensured his succession. Ségéne's tenure (623-52) sees a traceable link to Columba disappear. 96 However, this was compensated for by stellar genealogical connections: he was Laisrén's nephew, a relationship that probably aided his appointment. The succession of Suibne (652-7) after Ségéne's death is more surprising, given that he lacked the standard genealogical credentials of an Iona abbot (a Cenél Conaill link) and probably lacked any meaningful connection to Columba to make up for this. The oddity of Suibne's succession becomes apparent when compared with that of his own successor Cumméne  correlation between Ségéne's collection of testimonies about Columba and Cumméne's composition of the saint's hagiographical dossier (liber de uirtutibus Columbae), suggesting that their actions should be viewed as a united enterprise. 98 Cumméne's successor, Faílbe (669-79), another descendant of Ninnid's, can also be linked to Ségéne, since Adomnán credits him as his source for testimonies delivered to Ségéne by Oswald and Ernéne. 99 Oswald's attestation was given personally, and it is possible that it was delivered at his court during a visitation made to Northumbria, 100 similar to circuits of the Columban daughter houses undertaken by Cumméne (661) and Faílbe (673-6). 101 The same could be said for Ernéne's testimony. 102 In such a scenario, Faílbe would have accompanied Ségéne on visitations, suggesting a place within Ségéne's inner circle.
In Ségéne, Cumméne, and Faílbe we may see a continuation of the ruling clique, which had shifted focus from an association with Columba to membership of a specific Cenél Conaill collateral. 103 But where does Suibne fit in? Even if it is assumed that Suibne was part of this group, his appointment ahead of Cumméne, whose genealogical credentials place him amongst Ninnid's descendants, is not explained. 104 It is tempting to see Suibne's tenure as a placeholder abbacy designed to retain abbatial succession prerogatives within the ruling circle in a period where Cumméne was not able to succeed Ségéne directly. However speculative this might be, the genealogical links between Ségéne, Cumméne, and Faílbe, alongside plausible personal connections and their eventual assumption to the abbacy, is suggestive of something more than coincidence. If the abbacy was transferred via designations, it may have been viewed as risky to install another Cenél Conaill figure, who could have restricted succession to his own associates in a similar fashion. While Laisrén was the first of Ninnid's progeny to hold the abbacy, it is from Ségéne's abbacy that succession was deliberately constricted to this collateral. 105 In the 623-79 period, the transfer of abbatial authority was mediated by a group of dynastically minded abbots, who sought to retain the office within their own collateral. Suibne's succession suited this dynastic interest and his appointment sees the decision of the reigning abbot take precedence, if the appointment was designed to prevent other Cenél Conaill affiliates from restricting the abbacy to their own associates.
The suggestion that the Iona abbacy was transferred via designations within the confines of a ruling circle is problematized by the emergence of Faílbe's successor. Adomnán (679-704) was associated with the royal line of the Cenél Conaill (Fig. 1) and his succession sees a shift in the genealogical constitution of the abbacy away from the progeny of Ninnid. 106 This may reflect an absence of available candidates from amongst Ninnid's descendants. Cumméne's death in 669 probably extinguished the line of Ninnid's son Feradach, leaving Faílbe as the last eligible candidate from the collateral. 107 The adherence to celibacy at Iona makes this scenario likely; this paucity of available candidates created room for a more distantly related successor.
Adomnán's proximity to royal power may have made him an attractive candidate to Faílbe, and probably played a role in his succession. Adomnán's exploitation of royal connections for the benefit of Iona is a notable feature of his abbacy. 108 For instance, the promulgation of the Cáin Adomnáin (697), which boasted a guarantor list featuring ninety-one prominent secular and ecclesiastical signatories, is a manifest display of Iona's authority under his leadership. 109 It is hardly coincidental that Loingsech, ruler of the Cenél Conaill, heads the secular signatories, a tantalizing glimpse of the strings Adomnán could pull. That Faílbe is mentioned as a source in the Vita Columbae suggests that Adomnán fostered tangible links with his predecessor, an important factor if the reigning abbot monopolized the machinery of succession. 110 Herbert's suggestion that Faílbe used his visit to Ireland from 673 to recruit Adomnán for the 'future leadership of the Columban familia' is a likely scenario if no eligible candidates from Ninnid's line were available. 111 This helps set Adomnán's succession in a readily understandable context: as a candidate he had the benefits of opportunity, connections, and an established relationship with the decision-maker himself.
A case has been made that succession on Iona rested on the decision of the reigning abbot. This becomes problematic when considered through the lens of eligibility. As noted above, Córus Bésgnai prioritizes the fine érlama in succession to the headship of a church. It is possible that succession in the 563-704 period was dictated by a limited pool of eligible candidates, with the non-Cenél Conaill abbots emerging only when no other candidates were available. This scenario demands that the preferred dynastic element was paired with a situation whereby the Cenél Conaill element on the island was limited to Ninnid's descendants. 112 In this context, the actual succession mechanism becomes a moot point and the domination of the abbacy by this collateral simply reflects their position as the only eligible candidates who could succeed.
While we can rarely comment on Iona personnel beyond the abbots themselves, it would be surprising if Cenél Conaill representation on Iona was so restricted. Following Adomnán's death in 704, three Cenél Conaill-affiliated abbots had emerged by 716, each hailing from a different collateral. 113 Furthermore, the list documenting Columba's twelve companions includes at least five figures who were related to Columba. 114 Among them are individuals who feature in the Vita Columbae, such as Baíthéne and Ernán (Columba's maternal uncle). 115 A brother is mentioned for Baíthéne (Cobthach), however, he is not attested elsewhere and, alongside Baíthéne's alternative name (Conin), he may have been fabricated to facilitate a parallel with Matthew X. 2. 116 Scandal, who appears on the list, can be linked to another Northern Uí Néill group, the Cenél nÉndai, 117 and Cairnán, another of Columba's listed companions, can be attached to the Cenél mBógaine, a Cenél Conaill collateral. 118 Alongside these we can place Laisrén, whose first appearance in the Vita Columbae can be dated to 572, suggesting that more relatives followed the initial influx. 119 The British Library manuscripts of the Vita Columbae contain notices of Columba's relatives through the female line, some of whom were buried at Derry, Durrow, and Iona itself. 120 These notices reinforce the attachment of Columba's relatives to houses in the network. 121 An early dynastic component does not necessarily imply consistent representation, given adherence to celibacy at Iona. However, it is difficult to imagine that the only eligible Cenél Conaill candidates were those who took the abbacy. Succession was driven by more than a limited eligibility pool, the sequence of abbots bespeaks a consistent dynastic interest, representing a co-ordinated effort to limit the abbacy to a ruling circle.
At this point it is worth considering the abbots' pre-abbatial careers. Herbert observed that before Adomnán's tenure, 'other abbots had spent much of their pre-abbatial careers as monks on the island'. 122 Adomnán seems to have lacked deep roots on Iona before assuming the abbacy, given that the Vita Columbae only witnesses direct contact with his immediate predecessor Faílbe. 123 It is unlikely that Adomnán's appearance on Iona was his first taste of monastic life, and he was probably attached to other Columban houses before his arrival on Iona. 124 It is less clear that Adomnán's experience was unique as we lack detailed information to make authoritative statements for other abbots. While Baíthéne was associated with Tiree and Hinba, his position on the list of twelve companions (if taken as accurate) situates him on Iona, as does the Vita Columbae on various occasions. 125 Adomnán never places Laisrén on Iona itself and instead he appears alongside Columba in Ardnamurchan before appearing at Durrow. 126 According to the Vita Columbae, Virgno is on Iona as a young man, but it says nothing more. 127 We lack certain evidence for the pre-abbatial careers of Ségéne, Suibne, and Cumméne. 128 Faílbe's attachment to Ségéne has already received comment, and while the two can be brought into contact, this did not necessarily occur on Iona. Generally, it is not clear whether these men served in other Columban houses before relocating to Iona. However, I would not be too quick to suggest that Adomnán is exceptional in this regard, based on lack of evidence alone.
We should not underestimate the fluidity of movement within the Columban network. A cursory reading of the Vita Columbae evinces an interconnected group of houses linked to Iona, and an important role has been envisaged for the daughter houses in supplying manpower for Iona's evangelization initiatives in Britain. 129 The Vita Columbae depicts a situation where Columba had the authority to appoint candidates to govern his foundations, 130 call them to Iona, 131 and regulate their movement. 132 Adomnán sketches a hierarchical relationship between Iona and its daughter houses, where Columba, as monasteriorum pater et fundator, was an omnipresent force to whom ultimate jurisdictional authority was ceded. 133 While Adomnán's outline is widely accepted, 134 his is the view of the abbot, the very position he invests with such authority, and as such we must be circumspect. Córus Bésgnai (quoted above) placed the andóit ('mother church') quite far down the list of parties which could appoint a leader to a subordinate church. The fine érlama and the andóit are represented as separate interests, however, this does not necessarily imply that the fine érlama were not attached to the andóit. 135 Nevertheless, the importance of the local element remains, as Córus Bésgnai stipulates that appointments rested on the agreement of the local ecclesiastical community. 136 Such a model hardly supports the situation described in Adomnán's work, where the Iona abbot had sole responsibility over appointments to leadership positions in his daughter houses.
From both of these [Iona and Durrow] sprang very many monasteries which were established by his disciples in Britain and Ireland, over all of which the island monastery in which his body lies held the principatus. 137 Bede's statement does not necessarily validate the framework laid out by Adomnán, however, given what has been said about the principatus it certainly makes it more plausible. Bede's description of Áedán's consecration before his despatch to Northumbria may present a problem. Bede states that upon gaining his kingdom, Oswald requested a bishop from the maiores from whom he had received baptism. 138 After the failure of the initial candidate, Áedán was sent following a decision made in conuentu seniorum. 139 If correct, does this imply a similar collective element in appointments to the daughter houses (or the Iona abbacy)? A lack of obvious abbatial oversight is not surprising given that Ségéne, the reigning abbot, was not in episcopal orders. Bede makes it clear that Áedán's consecration was undertaken so that he could go to Northumbria as per Oswald's request. Ségéne was merely a priest, and therefore had limited agency in episcopal appointments. 140 That Iona retained the prerogative to appoint bishops at Lindisfarne until the Synod of Whitby (664), however, is suggestive of the authority that Iona wielded in relation to the daughter houses. In appointments where episcopal rank was not required, Adomnán's testimony gains currency. If the Vita Columbae is broadly correct in its depiction of Iona's relationship with the daughter houses it has implications for the Iona abbacy, particularly the administrative role of successors before their appointment. In the Vita Columbae, four men are named as leading daughter houses, three were related to Columba, and two went on to succeed him. 141 Baíthéne is explicitly named as praepositus of the centre on Tiree and is also depicted leading the community on Hinba, whilst at another point he has a supervisory role on Iona itself. 142 Similarly, Laisrén features in a leading role at Durrow. 143 If Iona's abbot controlled appointments to daughter houses as well as the selection of his successor, the placement of candidates in such houses could have functioned as an important step in designating a successor (and equipping them with administrative experience). Notably, the long section on Columba's death in the Vita Columbae lacks mention of Baíthéne's presence on Iona, a surprising omission given his prominence in the narrative. 144 Perhaps he was remembered as being on Tiree, governing his appointed community and was then summoned to Iona to take the abbacy upon Columba's death, just as Herbert envisages for Laisrén at Durrow upon Baíthéne's death? 145 It is difficult to say whether the placement of potential successors in authority positions in the Columban network was a formalized process, whereby appointment to a particular centre was a natural stepping stone to the Iona abbacy. Bede's comments on Durrow are suggestive of its prominence, 146 while other centres such as those on Tiree and Hinba feature in the Vita Columbae. A link between the abbacy and a specific daughter house (or any daughter house) cannot be drawn for all abbots under consideration, and it is difficult to advance one above another in affording a position of particular prominence in succession, or even to suggest that such appointments had any consistent role beyond the examples in the Vita Columbae. However, that placement of candidates in positions of authority was a means of designating a successor, at least on some occasions, is a reasonable inference from the available evidence.
Edging towards a conclusion, it is worth briefly considering Adomnán's immediate successor, Conamail, who assumed the abbacy in 704, as can be inferred from his 710 annalistic obit and his position following Adomnán on the Salzburg abbot list. 147 For 707, the Annals include an extraordinary entry recording Dúnchad's succession to the principatus. 148 This marks the beginning of a confused period in Iona's history, where the Annals record overlapping abbacies until 724. 149 signatories: Bishop Coeddi and Conamail. 167 It is difficult to take Conamail's inclusion as anything other than a sign of Adomnán's approval, and in this context Dúnchad's absence is notable. How, then, is Conamail's apparently problematic succession explained? The simplest answer is that which has been advanced by this overall thesis: he was appointed to the abbacy by Adomnán, his predecessor. Behind the succession of Dúnchad were many factors, one being a clash between eligibility and succession mechanism.

Conclusions
This paper has sought to provide evidence for abbatial succession mechanisms on Iona. Despite the existence of various methods for succession in the Insular world it is likely that a consistent succession mechanism was employed at Iona, whereby the reigning abbot appointed his successor. In acknowledging that the reigning abbot was vested with ultimate agency in the succession process, we can move beyond the loose statement that the abbacy tended to be restricted to members of the Cenél Conaill. The succession process witnesses something more than rigid adherence to eligibility criteria, as the emergence of Virgno and Suibne makes plain. Initially, attachment to Columba was the key element in succession, and a ruling circle was formed around the saint. That a strong Cenél Conaill element was present in this period was a product of Columba himself, whose favouritism towards relatives is suggested by the surviving source material. However, this preference was not all encompassing, and Virgno's association with Columba in the Vita Columbae indicates his place in the ruling group, an attachment which facilitated his succession despite a lack of Cenél Conaill credentials. Ségéne's succession followed from his relation to Laisrén, who likely acted as his route into the ruling circle. However, from this point a deliberate effort was made to restrict succession to Ninnid's descendants. Suibne's succession is only abnormal if viewed through the lens of eligibility criteria. If we adjust our focus to consider succession mechanisms, then his emergence sits neatly within the domination of the abbacy by the descendants of Ninnid, where he may have acted as a placeholder for Cumméne.
Adomnán represents a shift, but his succession should still be conceptualized as a designation, born as it was of a fruitful mix of opportunity, stellar genealogical connections, and an established relationship with Faílbe, the decision-maker himself. While Adomnán's genealogical connections may have aided his rise to the top, he seems to have eschewed them in appointing his own successor Conamail, and it is only through considering succession mechanisms that Conamail's otherwise peculiar emergence makes sense. In the period under consideration, the abbacy was mediated within a broad framework of eligibility. However, it was the reigning abbot that dictated events, and following Adomnán's death in 704 it is clear that these decisions could have consequences.