A Tale of Two Scribes A discussion, transcription and analysis of selected poems and sections within Agallamh na Senórach with a focus on the interrelatedness and possible external sources of origin of the prose and poetry.
Bjorn Olaf Vatzlavik
Master’s Thesis in Viking and Mediaeval Studies (60 Credits) Course Code: VMS4190
University of Oslo Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies (ILN) Autumn, 2020 Abstract:
The following thesis belongs in the field of philological studies with a focus on the Irish language, particularly that of the 1200-1400s and the text known as Agallamh na Senórach. This is a thirteenth-century prosimetrical work containing a number of larger poems demonstrated by other scholars to be extracted from external sources rather than written by the author of the main text. It has also been stated, as is discussed in detail in this thesis, that the smaller, single-stanza poems were compositions of the scribe of the prose. In light of this knowledge, this thesis shall observe the orthography, language usage and context of transcribed episodes from the earliest two manuscripts with the aim of establishing the relationship between the prose and small poems found in selected episodes of the work. Transcriptions and translations of the poems are provided by the author of this thesis and these will be used to discuss the possible origins of the poetry through a detailed analysis. This in turn has implications for the construction and purpose of the text itself within the corpus of Middle Irish literature, opening up numerous questions as to the reasons behind the composition of the text in the manner that it appears to have been created. Where this is a preliminary work on the topic, it aims at forming a base upon which further related work may build and discuss the tradition in more detail.
i
Foreword:
The process of writing this thesis has been the product of a great deal of refining of speculations which began over one and a half years ago. The smoothing and streamlining of these ideas has been the result of many lengthy discussions with peers, friends and teachers around the world, from Ireland to Australia and beyond. My deepest thanks go to Jan Erik Rekdal, my teacher and mentor since I began my bachelor studies at the University of Oslo. His experience, knowledge and patience over the years have engendered in me a deep love and admiration of the Irish people, language and culture, the wild and beautiful folk of the Western Isle. His knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm have constantly driven me to achieve more highly and for that I shall always be grateful. I am also indebted to Ellen Marie Pedersen, a close friend whose help with finding articles and books over these past years has been invaluable. I would also like to thank and acknowledge Kristen Mills and David Stifter, whose additional guidance as teachers has helped cement the skills and knowledge needed to complete this thesis. I am likewise indebted to Nicolai Engesland for his help with reviewing many of the translations and analyses in this thesis. Finally, my thanks and gratitude go to my friends, Ivan Andreassen, Maj-Lis Borgen, Robert Erickson, Victor Frans and Nicolas Gómez for their help and support.
Mo sheacht mbeannacht agus rath Dé oraibh
ii
Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………..i Forward………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Chapter 1 (Introduction) 1.1 Primary Hypothesis………………………………………..……………………………………….. 1 1.2 Further Work Such a Thesis Will Enable……………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2 (Sources) 2.1 Primary Sources (the Manuscripts)………………………………………………………………….2 2.2 Secondary Sources (Editions)...…………………………………………………………………...... 3 2.3 The Reeves Agallamh and the ‘Agallamh Bheag’………..………………………………………….4 2.4 An t-Agallamh Nua…………………………………………………………………………………..4 2.5 Evaluation of Secondary Materials for Analysis…………………………………………………….5 2.6 Evaluating Stokes’ Edition…………………………………………………………………………..5 2.7 Translations………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Chapter 3 (Historical and Research Background) 3.1 Temporal History Concerning the Agallamh………………………………………………………...8 3.2 Middle Irish………………………………………………………………………………………….9 3.3 Classical Modern Irish……………………………………………………………………………...15 3.4 Early Modern Irish………………………………………………………………………………….15 3.5 Poetry……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 3.6 Research Background………………………………………………………………………………24 Chapter 4 (Methodology) 4.1 Method (a Basic Framework for Analysis)………………………………………………………....39 4.2 Interpretation of the Evidence………………………………………………………………………42 Chapter 5 (Theory) 5.1 Theory (Possible Pitfalls of the Methodology)……………………………………………………..43 5.2 Theory (in Support of the Methodology)…………………………………………………………...48 5.3 Prosimetric Texts…………………………………………………………………………………...51 5.4 Discussing the Validity of Linguistics as a Tool to Investigate Prosimetrum………………………53 5.5 Other Methodologies Used in Observing Prosimetrum…………………………………………….53 5.6 Issues with Non-Linguistic Approaches to the Material…………...……………………………….54 5.7.1 Existence of Individual Writing Styles in Mediaeval Ireland…………………………………….55 5.7.2 Observing Language Trends in a Single Text…………………………………………………….55 5.7.3 An Individual Scribal Hand………………………………………………………………………56 5.7.4 Comparing Works of Dissimilar Size…………………………………………………………….58 Chapter 6 (Analysis 1) 6.1 Scéal Artúir…………………………………………………………………………………………60 6.2 Poem 1……………………………………………………………………………………………...63 6.3 Poem 2……………………………………………………………………………………………...67 6.4 Poem 3……………………………………………………………………………………………...74 6.5 Poem 4……………………………………………………………………………………………...79 6.6 Poem 5……………………………………………………………………………………………...85 Chapter 7 (Analysis 2) 7.1 Laud 610……………………………………………………………………………………………90 7.2 Poem 1……………………………………………………………………………………………...91 7.3 Poem 2……………………………………………………………………………………………...95 7.4 Poem 3…………………………………………………………………………………………….100 7.5 Poem 4…………………………………………………………………………………………….105 7.6 Poem 5…………………………………………………………………………………………….109 Chapter 8 (Summary and Closing Remarks) 8.1 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………….114 8.2 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………………………………114 Appendices Appendix 1 (Bibliography)………………………………………………………………………………I Appendix 2 (Scéal Artúir Transcription and Translation)…………………………………..………...VIII Appendix 3 (Analysis of the Language of Scéal Artúir)…………………………………...…………XIV Appendix 4 (The Battle with the Troops of Lochlann Transcription and Translation)………………..XX
Appendix 5 (Analysis of the language of ‘the Battle with the Troops of Lochlann’)…………XXVI Appendix 6 (Poetic Rules for Dán Dírech)………………………………………………………..XXXI
1.1 Primary Hypothesis
Agallamh na Senórach is a prosimetrical text composed during the early thirteenth century. Different versions of this tale exist in a number of later manuscripts, as will be discussed in a following section. This text is arguably the longest continuous narrative within the corpus of Irish literature and, though subjected to much reception, little linguistic work has been done on the subject. The point of departure for this study will be a discussion of the verse and prose within the Agallamh. The question can be postulated: What can the relationship between verse and prose in the different recensions of the Agallamh tell us about Agallamh na Senórach as a text tradition?
The following hypothesis can be posited: The Agallamh, as represented by the two earliest extant sources, exhibits a narrative which is largely the product of compilation and synthesis of a much larger, written corpus. This view, if proven, can be used to discuss later recensions of the Agallamh which vary significantly from one another. One may view these as derivations of a tradition rooted in a single archetype and a larger overarching literary and oral tradition. A deeper understanding of the earliest witnesses extant to this tale can allow us to understand better the direction that the tradition was taking. This can also shed light on the possible intention behind the creation of the Agallamh, possibly revealed through observation of the compilation of the early recensions and their later development, though this is not discussed in this thesis. The aim here is to provide a strong basis for further studies pertaining to the Fenian corpus. The proving or disproving of this hypothesis will focus on the source of the poetry included in the text which has often been considered to be composed by the author of the prose.1 One may posit that a convincing disconnect between poetry and prose points towards both a highly compilatory text and a large literary corpus being available to the author of the Agallamh. This thesis aims to explore the hypothesis through detailed linguistic analysis.
1.2 Further Work Such a Thesis Will Enable
Being able to identify features from a number of poems which would put them outside the realm of the Agallamh can be useful in attempting to understand the possible thought processes that influenced the shaping of the text and provide further insight into the tradition. It should be noted that, due to space, this thesis cannot focus on the poetry of the Agallamh in its entirety. Despite this, observations of the relationship between the prose and poetry aim to enable scholars to more clearly understand the earliest strains of the text and to support the notion that
1 See section 3.6 from pg. 25 for this discussion
1 it was drawing on a larger corpus of written work. Further research in this direction, while needed, is outside the scope of this thesis. Such observations can also help with conclusions as to the authorial intent and methodologies of the various redactors who compiled the texts and establish a greater understanding of the tradition and the textual hierarchy which may have existed.
2.1 Primary Sources (the Manuscripts)
The following section is devoted to describing the extant manuscripts containing the Agallamh as they have been passed down to the present day. It is noted that there exist versions of the Agallamh in both English and Modern Irish, as well as productions considerably inspired by the text. These cannot however be seen as representing a continuation of the text tradition of the Agallamh as they are not embedded within a living tradition and are therefore excluded from the discussion.2 Once these writings are factored out, we are left with a number of manuscripts containing the Agallamh in different stages of transmission. These are as follows:
MS Laud 610 – Written in the 1400s as part of the Book of the White Earl and dated linguistically to the 1200s.3
The Book of Lismore – Also a manuscript from the 1400s which is named after Lismore Castle, where it was found. This contains the most complete version of the Agallamh.
MS RIA 24Ps/Rawlinson B. 487 – This manuscript, from the 1400s, contains a version of the Agallamh often referred to as the Reeves’ Agallamh, so named after the bishop William Reeves, a prominent owner of the manuscript. This text, according to Joseph Flahive, “comprises a prosimetrum of dissimilar construction to the early one”. 4
Franciscan Mss A4 and A20 – Written in the 15-1600s; these manuscripts and the relationship that they share shall be the topic of further discussion in the following sections.
Another version of the Agallamh, often called Agallamh Bheag, is also found in the Book of Lismore. Flahive has noted on this version of the tale that: “The poems from the first agallamh
2 I am here primarily referring to Agallamh na seanóirí translated into Modern Irish by Pádraig de Barra and The High Deeds of Finn Mac Cool written by Rosmary Suttcliffe in 1967 which draws heavily on this tradition. 3 For a detailed discussion on the date of this version and also the version found in the Book of Lismore see Ann Dooley’s article: Dooley, Ann, “The date and purpose of Acallam na senórach” in Éigse 34 (2004) pp. 97-126. 4 Flahive, J “Revisiting the Reeves Agallamh” in, In Dialogue with the Agallamh, Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin Kevin Murray et. al. (eds.) (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 185-217 (167)
2 that are retained in the agallamh bheag come through into the Reeves recension, along with those added there”. 5
2.2 Secondary Sources (Editions)
The first edition of the Agallamh to mention is Whitely Stokes’ ‘original’ published in 1900. This edition draws largely on the manuscript Laud 610 and the Book of Lismore, as well as MS A 4 and MS A 20, that is the two Franciscan manuscripts. Neither Rawlinson nor the Agallamh Bheag is included in this edition.
A second edition is that of O’Grady and Hayes’ in Silva Gaedelica published in 1892 which is solely based on the recension in the Book of Lismore.
A diplomatic edition of the Reeve’s Agallamh, produced by Nessa Ní Shéaghdha between 1942- 1945, also exists.
Translations
A translation of the work has been made by Maurice Harmon in 2009 which is “a free, literary translation that is not intended for scholarly purposes.”6
O’Grady and Hayes’ edition based on Lismore has a translation which Stokes has noted is highly accurate; however, as with the edition, this is based purely on the Book of Lismore.7
Finally, an English translation by Ann Dooly and Harry Roe will be included in this investigation. It holds itself near to Stokes’ edition.8
Now that the available sources have been named and briefly described, several shall be discussed regarding why they are included in this study or not.
5 Flahive, 2014, “Revisiting,” 168 6 Stitching A.G. van Hamel voor Kestische Studies (A.G. van Hamel Foundation for Celtic Studies), available at: https://www.vanhamel.nl/codecs/Acallam_na_sen%C3%B3rach 7 Stokes, W (ed.) and (tr.) Acallamh na senórach, in: Windish, E and Stokes, W, (eds.) Irishce Texte mit Wörterbuch, vol. 4:1, (Leipzig: Verlag con S. Hirzel, 1900) Preface: (XI). 8 Dooley, A (trs.) Roe, H (trs.) Tales of the Elders of Ireland, Oxford World Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
3
2.3 The Reeves Agallamh and the ‘Agallamh Bheag’
Flahive comments that “the Reeves Agallamh comprises a prosimetrum of dissimilar construction to the early one” and as such this version is marked out immediately as being significantly different to other recensions of the text. 9 In the same vein, Flahive describes the Agallamh Bheag as being an epitome of the Agallamh, comprising only 10,000 words. The fact that these texts are different does not in itself discredit them from analysis, however, it has been said that the Agallamh Bheag also “introduces significant quantities of narrative verse not present in the earlier version.”10 Both texts also differ to all the other versions of this tradition in that Oisín and not Cáilte is the protagonist who travels through Ireland with Patrick, a key detail in the tales.11 It is of note that the Agallamh Bheag also contains “the composition of long argumenta for many additional poems.”12 This could mean that the author of the text knew, when writing it, that the poetry included did not belong to the original, which supports the idea of a ‘Bun-Agallamh’ represented by the two earliest witnesses. This can therefore be seen to imply that the two texts constitute a development in another direction which must be held separate from the ‘Bun-Agallamh’ tradition under discussion here. Although related, one may describe them as being separate works.
2.4 An t-Agallamh Nua
This name is used by Síle Ní Mhurchú for the Franciscan manuscripts.13 These two manuscripts are dated as significantly later than the ‘Bun-Agallamh’ and, subsequently, are not a clear representation of the earlier tradition. The Agallamh nua has also been described by Stokes in his comments to his edition as containing “so many minor variations and additions … mentioned in the notes that it may well be regarded as a second recension.”14 In support of this statement in the 21st century, Ní Mhurchú has also stated: “Glactar le LS Phroinsiasach A20… mar chóip den mBun-Agallamh leis.”15 For these reasons, they are not used in the analysis undertaken in this thesis.
9 Flahive, 2014, “Reeves,” 167 10 Flahive, 2014, “Reeves,” 166 11 In this light, one may consider these works to share similarities with the poems of James MacPherson in the 1700s. This topic is not covered in the thesis. 12 Flahive, 2014, “Reeves,” 167 13 See Ní Mhurchú, Síle, ‘An tAgallamh Nua: athleagan déanach d’Agallamh na Seanórach’ in In Dialogue with the Agallamh: Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Aidan Doyle (ed.) Kevin Murray (ed.) (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 185-217 14 Stokes, 1900, Acallam, XII 15 Ní Mhurchú, 2014, “An tAgallamh Nua,” 185. Translation: Franciscan MS A20 is accepted as a copy of the original Agallamh.
4
2.5 Evaluation of Secondary Materials for Analysis O’Grady’s edition, as has been noted, is solely based on the Book of Lismore. One can therefore discount it from the linguistic analysis proposed in this thesis, as one may simply observe the original text which will have the added bonus of avoiding editorial errors or exclusions which may be present in the text. Stokes has stated of this edition that “hardly a single line [of the edition] correctly represents the ms.”16 One can regard this as sufficient grounds to discount O’Grady’s edition from the present study.
2.6 Evaluating Stokes’ Edition In his article discussing Latin literature, Keith Sidwell highlights the importance of critical editions allowing us “to provide a platform for better understanding of the wider context within which… texts were produced.”17 In light of this, it is important to discuss the edition which appears to be unanimously regarded as being the clearest for discussion of the Agallamh, namely, Stokes’ 1900 version. I first outline a number of criteria required for a critical edition and compare this with Stokes’ work. Although Sidwell is a Latinist working with the Hiberno- Latin corpus, the protocol he outlines holds true for the editing of texts irrespective of their original language. He notes that, when establishing a text for editing, or indeed analysis, a stemma should be constructed.18 This is not provided by Stokes and thus the relationship between the extant witnesses is not thoroughly discussed. In addition, a critical apparatus reporting variant readings is missing, making it difficult to clearly see the interrelatedness between manuscripts.19 Where this is not strictly necessary, it is a highly useful and good editorial practice to be included. Stokes often marks which manuscript he is using at any given point, but this marking is not clear nor fully consistent. Variant readings are often not given and thus the edition does not have sufficient apparatus criticus making it difficult to isolate such details. With regards to spelling, Sidwell mentions that, with the exception of filling in abbreviations and ligatures, it is best to “leave the orthography of the original text intact.”20 Stokes has done this, and it appears that he faithfully renders the spelling conventions of his manuscript sources. In spite of this, it will be seen from my own transcriptions that Stokes, as many other scholars of his generation did, occasionally ‘corrects’ the manuscripts. It is also
16 Stokes, 1900, Acallam, XI 17 Sidwell, K, “Editing renaissance Latin literature” in Cambridge Companion to Neo-Latin Literature, V Moul (eds.) (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015): 398 18 Sidwell, 2015, “Editing,” 401 19 Sidwell, 2015, “Editing,” 403 20 Sidwell, 2015, “Editing,” 403
5 noteworthy that a number of scholars have taken issue with other editions which he has made. Marie-Luise Theuerkauf notes that Stokes, in his editions on the Bodleian dindshenchas, omitted a number of poems because he considered them to be “chiefly composed of stupid strings of place-names.”21 Later, he made a further edition of the Edinburgh dindshenchas in which he “sought to publish only those dindshenchas articles which did not already appear in his edition of BD,” leading to a number of further poems and details being omitted as they existed as prose in the Bodleian manuscript and thus, technically, were already edited. Theuerkauf states regarding this that his “eclectic approach to the dindshenchas makes it impossible to appreciate the relationship between the prose and poems.”22 Stokes’ work on the Agallamh does not appear to have taken such an approach and much of the rendering appears close to the original manuscripts relevant to this thesis. Despite this, the fact that we see editorial practices such as that described by Theuerkauf in other works by Stokes will be borne in mind when discussing the materials used in this study.
Stokes also created one of the two editions of Togail Bruidne Da Derga (The Destruction of Da Derga’s Hostel). Concerning these editions, Ralph O’Connor notes that “neither of them [use] all the available manuscripts.”23 Importantly for this discussion “Whitley Stokes’ 1901 edition is based on U, with the beginning of the saga supplied from Y,D and other texts, with some variants provided in the footnotes.”24 When discussing this particular tradition it is of note that only Y and D are complete texts, whilst U is missing the first 214 lines. What this means for Stokes’ edition is that he has effectively made a best text edition, although his chosen text is incomplete and no explanation for this choice is given. The pattern of not explaining editorial choices made can be seen in his edition of the Agallamh as well. James Carney comments on Stokes’ edition that the poems in the Agallamh, and possibly the prose too, are in need of re- editing.25 He further mentions that “the method of edition… has served to conceal some very important facts.”26 The reliability of Stokes’ editing practices can be summed up by Liam Breatnach, who states that “it must be remembered that when editing texts which are written in
21 Theuerkauf, Marie-Luise, “The death of Boand and the recensions of Dindshenchas Érenn”, in Ériu 67 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2017) pp. 49-97 (50) 22 Theuerkauf, 2017, “The death of Boand,” 51 23 O’Connor, Ralph, The Destruction of Da Derga’s Hostel: Kingship and Narrative Artistry in a Mediaeval Irish Saga 1st edn. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): 29 24 O’Connor, 2013, Destruction, 29 25 Carney, James, “Two poems from Acallamh na senórach”, in Celtic Studies: Essays in memory of Angus Matheson 1912-1962 (London: 1968) pp. 22-32 (27) 26 Carney, “Two poems,” 28
6 a mixture of prose and verse, [that] he all too often omitted the verse passages.”27 Due to this, it is relevant to conduct a brief survey of the parts of the manuscripts of the Agallamh used in this analysis in comparison with Stokes’ rendering. The following examples underline the issues that may arise if basing a linguistic study of the Agallamh on Stokes:
The first example comes from the first poem in the tale known as Scéal Artúir, corresponding to line 193 in Stokes.28 Here we have gaidrine rendered from the manuscript as gaidhrine (with a
27 Breatnach, Liam, “Poets and poetry”, in Progress in Medieval Irish Studies, Kim McCone, and Katharine Simms, (eds) (Maynooth: Saint Patrick’s College, 1996) pp. 65-77 (65) 28 Stokes, 1900, Acallam, 6 29 Stokes, 1900, Acallam, 118
7
2.7 Translations It remains, then, to discuss the English translations of the Agallamh. Harmon’s translation, as we have seen, does not support academic work as it is looser interpretation of the tale. Hare and O’Grady’s translation is also largely unsuitable as it is entirely made on the Book of Lismore, making it unfit as a translation for language from the manuscript Laud610. This leaves us with a single translation, namely that made in 1999 by Dooley and Roe entitled Tales of the Elders of Ireland. The relevant sections of this translation can be found added to my appended transcription; however, I provide my own translation of the poetry in my analysis sections.
Historical and Research Background
3.1 Temporal History Concerning the Agallamh
When discussing the history concerning the Agallamh, one may start by describing Ireland during the 1200s, as this is the most relevant period in the development of the Bun-Agallamh. This time can be seen as the end of the Middle Irish period and the very beginning of Early Modern Irish (EMI). The Middle Irish period can be difficult to put an accurate date on and this holds true for both its beginning and end. The reason for this is that this era saw a large amount of change to the language and a consistent disjunct between spoken and written Irish.30 These changes culminated in the rise of a new linguistic standard, an Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach (Classical Modern Irish – henceforth CMI). The changeover from Middle to Modern Irish is, however, not smooth and there eventually arose two different written standards, CMI and EMI, which existed together during the same period, the former being used entirely for the production of bardic poetry. In order to illustrate the overlap between the language periods one should note that CMI is generally dated to 1200-1650 and EMI to 1100-1700, which overlaps significantly with the Middle Irish period (900-1200).31 Because of this, it can be difficult to tell where one era ends and another starts.32 It has been stated that the transition between epochs was one of “gradually changing scribal practice… and progressively more pronounced departure from the
30 Ó Cuív, Brian, “The linguistic training of the mediaeval Irish poet”, in Celtica 10 (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1973) pp. 114-140 (130) 31 It appears that there existed still in 1994 a level of disagreement as to the beginning and end of the Middle Irish period, for more on this see: Breatnach, Liam, “An Mheán-Ghaeilge” in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Phádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláirste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed pp. 221-335 (see in particular 221) 32 McManus, Damian, “An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach” in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Phádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláiste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed, pp. 335-447 (335)
8 earlier standard.”33 What is clear, then, is that, when discussing the period of composition of the Agallamh, we are at a moot point between linguistic epochs. This period can be characterised as a stage of new development and innovation within the literary tradition and these periods consequently require discussion. Although Codecs Van Hamel gives the language of the Agallamh as ‘Late Middle Irish’, EMI and CMI must also be described. The twelfth century brought church reforms to Ireland which was one of the significant factors changing the literary tradition. As a result of this, scholars “would become peripheralized and isolated. In such circumstances, orthographical and literary norms would be increasingly prone to give way to unconventional usage and innovations.”34
3.2 Middle Irish (900-1200)
Being the earliest period of Irish with contemporary relevance for the Agallamh, it will be discussed first. Uáitéar Mac Gearailt has published a number of articles discussing the language of the 1100s. He characterises it as being “close to the end of literary Middle Irish and the beginning of Modern Irish in which forms like atraacht… would survive as fossils or slip completely into disuse”, once more highlighting the overlap of the periods.35
In order to build up an image of the key features of the language of the 1200s, it is expedient to briefly outline the main changes from Old to Middle Irish. This outline is mainly based on chapter 12 of Kim McCone’s A first Old Irish Grammar and Reader which in turn “is heavily indebted to both of the aforementioned works.”36 That is, Liam Breatnach’s chapter ‘An Mheán-Gaeilge’ in Stáir na Gaeilge and McCone’s Early Irish Verb. I have followed McCone’s layout in constructing this outline, including only the elements I believe vital to a general understanding of Irish in the twelfth century.
Key sound changes
The merging of proclitic and unstressed final vowels in Middle Irish can be described as a process by which unstressed vowels in the Old Irish period became gradually less distinguishable from one another. This culminated in a situation in which “by the Middle Irish
33 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “The language of some late Middle Irish texts in the Book of Leinster” in Studia Hibernica 26 (Maynooth: Coláiste Phádraig, 1991-92) pp. 167-216 (204) 34 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language”, pg. 201 35 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “On the date of the Middle Irish recension II Táin bó Cúailnge” in Quiggin memorial lectures 11 (Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 2010) pp. 1- 33 (21) 36 McCone, Kim, A first Old Irish Grammar and Reader: Including an introduction to Middle Irish (Maynooth: Department of Old and Middle Irish, 2005) pp. 173-217 (175)
9 period any remaining distinctions between short unstressed vowels had been lost as a result of the conversion of all such vowels into an ‘obscure’ /ə/”.37 This sound change had a great effect on the usage of the dative singular case moving into the Modern Irish period, accounting for much of the interchangeability of vowels found in spellings at this time. An example of this can be seen in the Old Irish preposition oc having variants such as ac/oc/ic and all being pronounced /əg/. It is important to bear this particular sound change in mind, as it renders many variants which in earlier times may have denoted a separate case identical in pronunciation. An example of this is that slóg and slúg are both pronounced /sləγ/, whereas slúag retains a hiatus /sluəγ/. Such differences are important for identifying case that often lack formal distinction at this time.
Consonants
“The consonant system underwent little change between Old and Middle Irish.”38 Furthermore, assimilations such as ln/ld/nd occurred, being realized as Confusion between case forms This topic has been discussed briefly in the previous section concerning the merging of proclitic and unstressed vowels but will now be expanded upon. Old Irish rarely made a distinction between accusative and nominative plural forms, with ungai being both the accusative and 37 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 175 38 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 177 39 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 177 40 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic Training”, 11 10 nominative plural of ungae (ia-f.), for example. McCone notes that “in Middle Irish this distinction was beginning to be lost elsewhere, as in m. na eich ‘the horses’ (nom. for acc. pl. form as direct object; OIr. Inna (h)echu).”41 Effectively, we can see a breaking down of the accusative case during this period which is largely complete by the time of Modern Irish. As the Agallamh is a late Middle Irish text, we would therefore expect not to see distinctive accusative forms being used. We have a system at this time by which case is only shown in nouns in nom. and gen. sg. and in the nom. gen. and dat. pl. For example, nom. sg. doras gen. sg. doirse nom. pl. doirse gen. pl. doras dat. pl. doirsib.42 It should be noted, however, that these changes represent tendencies and trends rather than fast rules adhered to by people writing in the language. Scribes were likely aware of the existence of the different cases inherited from Old Irish and understood their usage, as evidenced by McCone’s observation that: “where an article and/or adjective was present [with a noun] the associated mutation pattern… normally… differentiated them.”43 One would therefore expect a late Middle Irish scribe to use mutation rules in order to distinguish cases from one another, to compensate for a lack of differentiation by inflexion. Numerals In Modern Irish as it is now, numerals are consistently followed by the singular form of the noun they qualify but in Old Irish “ba aidiachtaí infhillte agus neamhinfhillte iad na bunuimreacha 1-4 agus 5-10 faoi seach ach ba ainmfhocail iad na deicheanna eile (20-90), 100 agus 1,000.”44 This means that base numerals were followed by plural forms. These were also used predicatively, as they are in Modern Irish and it is important to note that nouns after the numerals, which themselves were nouns, for example decimals such as 100 and 1000, must be followed by a genitive.45 These two systems are notably different and therefore I shall lay out a discussion as to how the older system became what it is today. “Firstly, all non-neuter nouns with inherited [from Indo-European] homophony evolved an expressive neuter pl. 41 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 180 42 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 182 43 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 188 44 McCone, Kim, “An tSean-Ghaeilge agus a réamhstair”, in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláiste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed pp.61-221. (200) Translation: in Old Irish, numerals 1-4 and 5-10 were declinable and indeclinable adjectives but the decimals (20-90), 100 and 1 000 were nouns. 45 Thurneysen, Rudolf, “A Grammar of Old Irish”, D.A. Binchy (trans.), Osborn Bergin (trans.), (Louth: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dundalgan Press Ltd, 2010, 7th edition) 244 11 form.”46 This means there existed a notable distinction between singular and plural with the exception of neuter words which had a so-called long and short form, the short form being with numerals. It appears to be this short form, such as we see with trí chét, which gave rise to the situation we see in the modern language.47 “Early Middle Irish shows the complete elimination of homophony in all the old neuters which in Old Irish had long and short N/A pl. forms” after numerals.48 It is also of note that “there are very few exceptions to this distributional rule [of short forms after numerals and long forms in other positions] in Acallam na Senórach”.49 This should be remembered when analysing the numerals used in the text. Prepositions Although case appears to have been breaking down even in the Old Irish period, “The distinction between motion and rest seems to have been observed consistently in the case of i… and fo.”50 As with many other features of Old Irish, the system breaks down further in Middle Irish, leaving us with a system in which the dative plural was favoured as a prepositional form with no clear distinction being made in the singular.51 A text produced at this time would therefore likely only show a distinction between gen. and nom. in the singular and gen./nom./dat. in the plural. Personal pronouns A notable feature of the Irish language during this period is the “loss of the neuter as a grammatical category” which, amongst other things, made a number of infixed pronouns meaningless and may have precipitated the breakdown of the system of infixed pronouns.52 We have, in effect, an emerging system of pronoun usage similar to that of Modern Irish, with the use of independent pronouns being expanded from predicative use in copular constructions to replacing Old Irish infixes in most cases.53 46 Greene, David, “Distinctive plural Forms in Old and Middle Irish”, in Ériu 25 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1974) pp. 190-199 (192) 47 Greene, 1974, “Plural Forms”, 193 48 Greene, 1974, “Plural Forms”, 195 49 Greene, 1974, “Plural Forms”, 196 50 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 187 51 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 188 52 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 195 53 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 193 12 Relative markers “The nasalising relative clause inherited from Old Irish tended to be lost in Middle Irish, being replaced by its lenited counterpart or… by a clause introduced by co ‘[so] that’.”54 It is this feature which I will call a subsidiary clause (introduced by co) and which is still common in the modern language. Due to infixed particles dying out in Irish, other methods of demonstrating a relative clause were required. McCone notes the following on the topic: “the initial of the independent relative forms of simple verbs showed a marked tendency to be lenited in Middle Irish on the model of Old Irish relative usage after a pretonic preverb or particle such as no or ro.”55 It remains to note certain developments in the verbal system which occurred during this same time. The relevant changes are listed here. Passive, deponent and active verbs Old Irish passives only existed in the third person and required infixed pronouns to express the object of the verb.56 With the system of infixed pronouns giving way, a system appears to have been adopted of relative passive verbs being expressed by means of a palatal /r´/ and non- relative verbs, with a non-pallatal /r/ as in fir gontair ‘men who are killed’ vs. fir gontar men are killed.57 This ‘confusion’ also existed in deponent verbs, although there appears to have been a much stronger impetus towards the elimination of these verbs which was “virtually completed in the course of the Middle Irish period.”58 Despite this, deponent endings survived in the language as an often used marker of the subjunctive mood and future tense. The preterite Through a process of once-distinct paradigms for expressing person endings in preterite formations merging together, we get a paradigm which can be seen as a common system of inflection in the preterite:59 1.sg –(i)us 2.sg – (a)is 3.sg. – Ø or – a/i or – satar 54 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 196 55 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 197 56 Stifter, David, Sengoidelc Old Irish for Beginners, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2006) 154 57 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 201 58 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 201 59 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 206 13 1.pl. – sem(mar) 2.pl. – (s)ebair 3.pl. – (s)et(ar) Effectively, we can summarise these developments as formerly distinctive preterite and passive forms becoming confused in the Middle Irish period to the extent that many were interchangeable or became the individual stylistic choices of the scribe writing. The augment and other particles Many forms of the augment’s meaning, in terms of representing potentiality or denoting a perfective tense, were lost by the Middle Irish period and replaced by other constructions.60 The semantic field of the particle ro can be seen to have consequently become a preterite marker and eventually evolved further to be attached to other conjunct particles such as co and ní, giving us forms familiar to Modern Irish such as nír.61 This particle clearly came into competition with the preterite marker do, which may account for the augment becoming commonly used in conjunction with other preverbal particles. Nevertheless, it seems that these particles, along with the semantically meaningless particle no, were largely used interchangeably in the Middle and Early Modern Irish periods. Despite this, “by the mid twelfth century the verbal particle do had taken over from ro in the preterite and from the older no in the imperfect active.”62 We may therefore see ro in the preterite as a sign of archaization. It also appears that do had taken over from ro and no in speech, but was considered an inferior form in writing. This may have given rise to the use of the pretonic particle con in relative position as a literary alternative for do.63 If this is the case, one may envisage that the shifting between ro, do and no in texts from the Middle Irish period was a conscious decision made on the part of a scribe, based on intuition and individual style. It should be recalled that the Agallamh linguistically dates to the 1200s and the manuscripts to the 1400s.64 As we can see from the modern language, many linguistic features existed for a long time, particularly the sound changes. Nevertheless, it is important to briefly discuss the two other linguistic ‘types’ which overlapped with this period. 60 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 211 61 McCone, 2005, Middle Irish, 212 62 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Táin”, 22 63 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Táin”, 22 64 See section 2 on sources 14 3.3 Classical Modern Irish (1200-1650) CMI was a form of the language that was essentially artificial.65 In Damian McManus’ words: “Caighdeán léannta tacair a bhí ann a bhí i bhfeidhm... do chúram ar leith, cumadh an Dáin Dhírigh.”66 The accidence, phonetics and syntax of this language would not have been part of a poet’s native vernacular.67 A striking characteristic of CMI is its homogeneity. Local dialects during the Middle Ages differed increasingly from one another, as we may see from both EMI sources and also the marked differences inherent in modern dialects but there is no sign of these differences existing in the poetic form.68 CMI was used solely for dán díreach but one should note that this style of poetry was also written in EMI, the quality of which often appears to be high.69 Fenian lays do not strictly fall into the category of dán díreach and may be seen as a formalised style of more vernacular poetry, often referred to as brúlingeacht or ógláchas.70 During this period we see a change in semantics as well, in that the terms file and bard start falling together to some extent, with poetry being referred to rather consistently in the Late Middle Irish period as bairdne, implying that the two different offices were becoming one.71 We can therefore see that the period in which the Agallamh came about was one of both linguistic and social change. The 1200s may therefore be described as the degradation of the old traditions and the subsequent formation of new ones. 3.4 Early Modern Irish (1100-1700) The other language extant at this time is also of interest to this thesis. Dán díreach was a large part of Irish literature during the Early Modern Irish period, the corpus was far broader than this one and we must explore that other language, as all texts other than bardic poetry were written in it. Works in this form of the language can be divided into two sub-groups, namely A and B. Texts in A are primarily religious and contain more modern grammar than their classical counterparts but often have a vocabulary which is similar to CMI.72 On the other hand, texts of type B are far less similar both in grammatical forms and linguistic usage. One should note that, 65 Ford, Patrick (trs.), The Irish Literary Tradition (Massachusetts: 1992), Revised English edition of Caerwyn Willims, J.E., Traddodiad Llenyddol Iwerddon, (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1958) 161 66 McManus, Damian, 1996, An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach, 335 Translation: Classical Modern Irish was a standard of educated art which was in use... for a special purpose, composition of dán díreach. 67 McManus, 1996, “An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach”, 335 68 Ford, 1992, Literary Tradition, 161 69 Breatnach, Caoimhín, “Early Modern Irish prose” in, Kim McCone and Katharine Simms (eds.) Progress in Medieval Irish Studies, (Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, 1996) pp. 189-206 (198) 70 These terms shall receive their own treatment in section 3.5. Rules for dán díreach are briefly covered in appendix 6. 71 Ford, 1992, Literary Tradition, 155 72 McManus, 1996, “An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach”, 335 15 although this epoch of the language is commonly held as distinct from Middle Irish, this older system was influential, being the basis of the other written standards. This means that Middle Irish, particularly at the time of the writing of the Agallamh which, in many ways, represents a changeover between Middle and Modern Irish, was still an active form of the language. Despite being freer in style and thus closer than CMI to the spoken tongue, EMI was not representative of the vernacular of the time and one may conjecture that this may be due to the contemporary influence from Middle Irish forms. There exist, for example, many archaisms present that would not have been found in the spoken language when most of the texts were written, possibly reflecting this influence.73 The literary language used by the authors of this time was generally of “a marked archaic quality, and yet there are elements in it that suggest a more modern flavour.”74 The archaisms, some of which fell out of use during the 1000s, therefore merit discussion. Patrick Ford states that archaic forms are most often used correctly, implying that they were not there by accident. Nevertheless, there appears to be a confusion in many texts as to spelling, although there is little doubt that such forms were not used in the spoken vernacular of the scribes.75 We can see this, for example, from spellings where non-initial Ó Cléirigh’s work from the 1600s can serve as an example of the use of archaisms in EMI. MacGearailt states that “Very few contemporaries could have read or understood” his writings as he was effectively using a language which had been obsolete as a vernacular for 400 years.78 73 McManus, 1996, “An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach”, 336 74 Ford, 1992, Literary Tradition, 161 75 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Middle Irish archaisms in Early Modern Irish prose”, in Studia Hibernica 38, (2012) pp. 57-116 (67) 76 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 75 77 McManus, 1996, “An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach”, 336 Translation: They (the copyists) were not loath to recognize modern developments... and more worth was even placed on modern forms than on their own system of modern forms than on historical forms 78 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 58 16 Similar language usage can be seen in Lebor na hUidre and the Lebor Laignech, which were written in the 1100s but would not have existed in speech by the 1300s implying that many scribes were comfortable with the language of earlier authors and able to replicate it competently.79 Archaisms are clearly not here for help in comprehension and possible explanation for their presence is that the EMI scholars were not professional poets but nevertheless were working with material which was from earlier times and were therefore well versed in the older language. This points to a situation in which we have prose writers who were capable of producing archaized language that, although being of high quality, was noticeably not of the substrate of the earlier scribes and thus recognizable through the process of a thorough linguistic analysis. Mac Gearailt notes further on the scribes of the fourteenth century that “Ó Cianáin’s [†1373] orthography conforms consistently to Middle Irish pronunciation... [with] occasional non- standard spellings reflecting speech after the twelfth and thirteenth century” whilst other contemporary writers “avoided archaisms and everything that might hinder comprehension.”80 One may therefore infer that each scribe at this time had a style predicated on his own understanding of the norms of the language of the Middle Irish period. In addition, it is likely that a scribe’s choice in spelling will to some degree reflect his own speech patterns. I would suggest then that the existence of this writing style relates to prestige, in the sense that certain scholars wished to demonstrate their confidence with the use of the older language. While some authors wished to have their works understood by the people of the time, others attached themselves to the bardic tradition in some way, perhaps explaining why we effectively have multiple forms of Irish operating at this time.81 Gerard Murphy believes that “those themes in folk tradition which show signs of belonging specifically to Fionn have, indeed, always been prominent… in recorded Fionn lore”, seemingly coming from an oral tradition which had always been present.82 This appears to also be the period in which the Irish scribes were recording and codifying oral literature, pointing to the possibility of a large corpus of tales and poems, both written and oral, which scholars would have had access to. The Agallamh can therefore be seen as spanning a time in which much stylistic and linguistic change was occurring, meaning that there existed a large oral and possibly written tradition. 79 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 58 80 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 98 81 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 98-114 82 Murphy, Gerard, Dunaire Finn, The Book of the Lays of Fionn vol. III, (Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland, 1953) LXXI 17 As the composition of the Agallamh dates to the 1200s, many of the problems which may be presented by the existence of different linguistic standards will likely not hinder a linguistic analysis. This is because the classical language was in its infancy at the time of recording, meaning that the disjunct between the language of the poetry and prose written at this time would be minimal and that errors due to copying would not obscure the linguistic fingerprint left by the original scribe. Effectively, we can see from this description of both Middle and Modern Irish that we are dealing with a language at the time of the Agallamh which may be described as a crucible of different systems, with the older language competing with modern innovations mixed with pseudo-archaisms, restituted forms and spoken variants in addition to spelling confusions brought about by changes in pronunciation. This language was evolving into Classical Modern Irish and Early Modern Irish; however, we have hit a node in which such developments have not taken hold but are in the process of evolving. It is this linguistic landscape we will navigate in order to discuss the relationships between poetry and prose in the two earlier manuscripts of the Agallamh na Senórach. 3.5 Poetry As this thesis focuses largely on poetry, a description of the kinds of verse found in this time period is important. Cáit Ní Dhomhnaill states the following regarding Irish poetry: Trí chineál filíochta atá le haithint sa teanga Ghaeilge mar a leanas:- a) Rosc (filíocht aiceanta), I dtréimhse na Sean-Ghaeilge b) Filíocht shiollabach (neamhaiceanta), ó thimpeall is 700 A.D. go dtí timpeall is 1700 A.D. c) An tAmhrán (filíocht aiceanta), ón 14ú céad go dtí an 16ú céad (bíodh nach maireann aon chuid de ar phár ón am úd).83 It is clear from this that the prevailing metrical style at the time of the writing of the Agallamh was syllabic poetry. The details of the relevant forms of such syllabic poetry are the focus of this section but it is necessary to first historically discuss poets who wrote these styles to give a firm base for the discussion. Regarding dán dírech and related metres, it is important to know that the material preserved in this manner “is nearly as extensive as that in prose, and includes genealogy, history and pseudo-history, prophecy, didactic verse, topography, law, metrics, satire, praise-poetry, lyrics, hymns, devotional poems, calendars, monastic rules, and 83 Ní Dhomhnaill, Cáit, Duanaireacht Rialacha meadarachta fhilíocht na mbard, (Baile Átha Cliath: 1975) 1 Translation: there are three types of poetry which are recognized in the Irish language as follows a) Rosc (accented poetry) in the Old Irish period b) syllabic poetry (unaccented) from ca. 700 A.D. to ca. 1700 A.D. c) the song (accented poetry), from the 14th century until the 16th century (though none of it survives on parchment from that time. 18 translations of Scripture and apocrypha.”84 This list of genres spanned by syllabic poetry as a form evidences the scope of material extant in this style, supporting the idea that there was a vast swathe of Fenian the material written in dán díreach at the time of the Agallamh. Liam Breatnach lists a number of important sources for understanding such metres which are as follows: the Early Irish Metrical Tracts, edited by Rudolf Thurneysen in 1891 discussing and illustrating types of metre; the ‘Trefhocal Tract’, concerned largely with faults and criteria for incorrect metre; and finally the Auraicept na nÉces.85 A number of handbooks and discussions also concern themselves with these texts and some require brief attention here as they are important to our understanding of the Irish poetry and thus crucial to the proposed analysis. Chief amongst these is Gerard Murphy’s 1962 handbook Early Irish Metrics in which “an entirely different classification is adopted [to that of earlier handbooks], namely: 1. Stanzas belonging to the dían and rannaigecht type [in which lines b and d normally rhyme]… 2. Stanzas belonging to the deibide type [in which a rhymes with b and c with d] are grouped together.”86 This is the classification system used in this thesis. Mention should be made of O’Donovan’s 1845 Irish grammar due to it being the acknowledged by Thurneysen as a useful source for his analysis of the Metrical Tracts.87 O’Donovan’s work will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, as much of the work is still highly relevant and provides a detailed discussion of what may be termed ‘kitchen poetry’, the like of which is not often found in later handbooks. Apart from this, there exists very little, save archaic terminology, which is outdated and therefore unusable in a modern context. Breatnach has also marked out the value Brian Ó Cuív’s work in “distinguishing between the rules for Old and Middle Irish verse and those of the later dán dírech… [which] sets out ‘to outline developments which led to the adoption… of a formal distinction between dán dírech and the looser forms of riming syllabic verse’.”88 All of the above works have been described as “reliable structural reference-points”.89 Before discussing the craft of poetry in the mediaeval period, the poets themselves and their education must be outlined. Ó Cuív, in his article discussing the linguistic training of the mediaeval poets, builds a clear picture of the erudition of the poets, which forms the basis for the description given here.90 Firstly, there existed extensive grammatical terminologies from 84 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 65 85 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 66 86 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 67 87 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 67 88 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 69 89 Breatnach, L, 1996, “Poets and poetry”, 70 90 See: Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training” pp.114-140 19 the Old Irish period and onwards consisting of both classical borrowings and native words.91 The existence of such terminology suffices to demonstrate that the poetic elite who wrote dán díreach were very conscious of their language and its structure. This is backed up, Ó Cuív notes, by the fact that texts such as the Auracept na nEces (The Poets’ Primer) were studied through the twelfth century, further evidence that these individuals were highly educated in a formalized setting and focused on the language they were using.92 As previously discussed, a differentiation must made between the Middle Irish and Early Modern Irish period, a shift which the Agallamh is on the cusp of. One should note that defining the Early Modern Irish period as beginning in the twelfth century is “based on the fact that from that time on professional poetry has two distinctive features, the first linguistic, the second metrical”.93 In terms of the linguistic aspect of this, it is characterised by the use of a standard and normative grammar. The metrical aspect to which Ó Cúiv refers is namely a “clear-cut distinction between strict versification in syllabic metres, dán díreach, and other types such as ógláchas and brúlingeacht.”94 The specifics of these differing types of metre will be discussed in more detail together with the term ‘Fenian lays’. “We must remember that from the twelfth century on the spoken language changed considerably in pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary.”95 This means that the late twelfth century would evidence notable linguistic differences from scribe to scribe as the standard language emerged. As discussed, the existence of what was effectively two different languages suggests the difficulties which the poet of the 1200s would have had to navigate. He “would have to learn to use henceforth two forms of the language” and, as the standard modern language was just emerging, one can envisage that this led to confusion between the language forms amongst scribes, meaning that an individual style would likely be noticeable in both prose and poetry from this time.96 In support of this statement we can note that “spelling was far from satisfactory… and later scribes made a great advance in devising an improved system to reduce the likelihood of confusion. However, we find a mixture of the older and later systems.”97 This means that an individual writing in the thirteenth century would likely display a language in poetry and prose which was largely internally consistent due to personal spelling conventions. 91 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”,115 92 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 115 93 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 116 94 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 116 95 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 117 96 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 117 97 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 121 20 Ó Cuív notes, however, that even in the early Middle Irish tracts, scholars were conscious of the existence of variant spellings, pointing to the fact that it is highly likely that a poet would have been mindful of his writing system and have used general orthographical and spelling norms. The process of observing such norms is described in later chapters. This view of the poets of the time as both aware of spelling variants and not particular about following convention is further supported by Ó Cuív when he states that “the poets and the reciters had to be constantly alert to the differences between current pronunciation and that required for metrical reasons.”98 This implies that spelling and other orthographical concerns were not simply ignored by these poets, suggesting that poets of the thirteenth century were careful to conform to the rules of metrics but, as the standard language was on the brink of developing, habitually used spellings and forms according to school and personal preference. Ó Cuív draws the following conclusions based on Classical Modern Irish: “the hereditary poets were a highly- organised privileged class.” Furthermore, “those who took the initiative in forming the prescriptive poetic language had remarkable acumen in assessing the state of flux which existed in late Middle Irish and… [anticipating] future developments in the spoken language.”99 The grammar which was built up by the poets was also “phenomenally successful in providing the poets with a medium which… proved to be as popular with Anglo-Irish lords as it was with native Irish princes.”100 The period we are looking at is just before (or at the beginning of) the creation of this grammar suggesting that the forms found in poetry will be likely to match the prose of the same writer with more accuracy than would be the case in both Middle and Early Modern Irish. Mac Gearailt also observes, of the scholars of the twelfth century, that they were “the last representatives of the old class of learned ecclesiastics for whom there was no place in the newly reformed church.”101 From this we can assume that the skill of a scribe of the 1100s was likely noticeably different to that of a 1200s scribe, with a scribe from the latter era being plausibly more prone to pseudoarchaisations and incorrect usage of forms. This may be useful to keep in mind when observing the quality of poems within the Agallamh. Now that the erudition of the poets has been discussed, we move to a discussion of the poetry which they produced. As has been mentioned, rhyming, syllabic poetry was the predominant 98 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 124 99 Ó Cuív, Brian, “The concepts of ‘correct’ and ‘faulty’ in medieval Irish bardic tradition”, in Indogermanica et Caucasica Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1994), pp. 395-406 (405) 100 Ó Cuív, 1994 ,“The concepts of ‘correct’ and ‘faulty’”, 405 101 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Cath Ruis na Ríg and twelfth century literary and oral tradition”, in Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 44, (1991) pp. 128-153 (128) 21 form during this time in the Irish language. Within the Fenian corpus, there existed also a specific poetic form referred to as ‘lays’. The word ‘lay’ is cognate in English with the Irish laíd, a style of poetry which was non-syllabic.102 Murphy notes further that the word was “later used commonly to denote a poem.”103 In spite of this, the use of the term also appears to commonly refer to poetry pertaining to the Fenian Cycle, often collected in a Duanaire.104In contrast to Murphy’s definition, Alan Bruford states that lays were “composed in the literary syllabic metres of the later Middle Ages, though perhaps not to the standards required of poets of the first rank.”105 Ógláchas, which shall be discussed presently, seems to bear out this description and is generally preferred over the term ‘lay’ throughout this thesis. The fact that lays were collected into anthologies, similar to those edited by Gerard Murphy and Eoin MacNeill at the advent of the twentieth century also evidences that there existed an enormous amount of poetry discussing Finn and his Fian. It is clear that, regardless of terminology, we are looking at rhyming syllabic metre, henceforth referred to with the general term ‘poetry’ and dán díreach or ógláchas when relevant. For reference, a summary of the rules for syllabic metre can be found in appendix 6. The term dán díreach has been used a number of times and this style must be discussed. According to O’Donovan, there are seven requisites to determining a poem in this metre.106 These are listed as syllable count; a requirement of four lines per stanza; concord (by this, he means alliteration); correspondence (rhyme); termination (stanza or rann); union (half-rhyme/úaithne); and head (this appears to have been a variant of rann).107 O’Donovan uses this categorization system to determine different sub-types of dán díreach and the relevant forms will be discussed. deibide, a poetry type which makes up the vast majority of the poetry written during this period, has the following requirements.108 It must be written in rinn ardrinn, that is, the second and fourth lines must have more syllables than the first and third. In addition, each line must have seven syllables and requires alliteration, rhyme and half rhyme. Finally, “all must be perfect in the last couplet” meaning that, particularly in the final line, all these requirements must be 102 Laid, Gregory Toner (dir.), eDil, Available at:http://dil.ie (2007-) 103 Murphy, Gerard, Early Irish Metrics (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1961) 27 104 Bruford, Alan, “Oral and literary Fenian tales”, in Fiannaíocht: Essays on the Fenian Tradition of Ireland and Scotland – the heroic process: Form, Function and Fantasy in Folk Epic, Bo Almqvist et al. (eds.) (Dublin-Dun Laogaire: an Cumann le Béaloideas Éireann, 1987) pp. 25-56 (27) 105 Bruford, 1987, Fenian tales, 27 106 O’Donovan, John, A Grammar of the Irish Language, published for the use of the senior classes in the college of St. Columba, (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1845) 412 107 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, pp. 413-418 see appendix 6 For details on terminology 108 Ó Cuív, Brian, “Some developments in Irish metrics”, in Éigse 12, Brian Ó Cuív (ed.) (1967-68) pp. 273-290 (276) 22 fulfilled.109 As O’Donovan’s description of deibide is almost 200 years old, it is important to compare his rules with those of a more contemporary scholar. Work done by Ó Cuív shows that he agrees with O’Donovan on syllabic count and rhyme scheme. Despite this, Ó Cuív only requires the final line in the stanza to have perfect half-rhyme and alliteration between the last two stressed words. He also considers vowel elision to be a common feature of deibide.110 From this comparison, we can see that O’Donovan is remarkably accurate in his characterisation of this style, which can be taken to mean that he is equally accurate in his characterisation of other types of metre. A description, based on O’Donovan, of certain sub-types of dán díreach which one commonly may encounter follows.111 Rannaigheacht Mhor/bheag: requires seven syllables with a final word ending in one syllable, a rhyme scheme in which b and d lines must form rhyme and half-rhyme between lines 1 and 2.112 Ógláchas: translated by O’Donovan as “the servile metre”, is dubbed an imitation of dán díreach.113 It is of note that while Ó Cúiv calls this “the freer metrical form”, he does not give further details.114 This sub-genre, when imitating deibide, requires seven syllables and concord (alliteration) is considered ornamental. It is not confined by the rules of strict rhyme, alliteration or rann.115 Ógláchas may also be made imitating rannaigheacht metres in which “it is [still] indispensable that every line of the quatrain should end in a word of one syllable, and that there should be amus [vowel rhyme] between the last word of the first lines and some word in the middle… of the second line [internal rhyme].”116 Brúlingeacht: “is composed much after the same manner as the oglachas, but requires correspondence [rhyme]… and also a kind of concord [alliteration], union [half-rhyme] and head [rann]”.117 This is normally an imitation of seadhna and casbhairn metres and is thus of little import. However, I include it in order to outline the difference in terminology between this type of syllabic poetry and Ógláchas. 109 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 419 110 Ó Cuív, 1967, “Developments in Irish Metrics”, 277 111 Seadhna and casbhairn metres are omitted from this discussion as they are not relevant to the poetry in the Agallamh 112 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 422 113 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 424 114 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 118 115 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 425 116 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 425 117 O’Donovan, 1845, Grammar, 426-427 23 A framework for poetic analysis which has been based largely on the work of Ó Cuív will also be used in the assessment of the relevant poetry. In his article ‘Some developments in Irish metrics’ we find the following factors for evaluation: rinn, rhyme and alliteration which he lays out using an example taken from the poems of Blathmac as follows: “Rinn 0/2 = 0% Rime 0/1 = 0% Alliteration 0/4 = 0% Total 0/7 = 0%”.118 The denominator shows the requirements for each key feature while the numerator represents the presence of it in any given verse, allowing one to calculate a percentage against a hypothetically perfect standard. Effectively, this is an analysis of the vital metrical points required to produce a stanza in dán díreach. This section hopes to have provided a detailed discussion of poets and poetry of the time of the writing of the Agallamh as well as an overview of terms, names and recurring themes within the craft in the period (700-1700) aiming at gaining a greater understanding of the poetics employed in the Agallamh and other related texts, as well as elucidating the skill level of the poets who crafted these verses. 3.6 Research Background A brief, relatively chronological listing of the scholarly discourse surrounding prosimetric texts and other relevant topics is given in this section in an attempt to outline the modern consensus of prosimetrum in Irish studies and how the discussion on the matter has developed. A number of viewpoints have been described in a lengthy article by Proinsias Mac Cana in 1997 entitled ‘Prosimetrum in Insular Celtic literature’. This work appears thorough and detailed and sets out the work of other scholars clearly and concisely. For this reason, many comments on earlier scholarship will be referenced from this article to avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’. Although the origins of prosimetrum are of no direct importance for the argumentation of the current thesis, it is relevant to discuss the scholarly discourse from earlier twentieth century scholarship in order to provide a context to later developments on the topic. In the late 1800s Enst Windisch put forwards what can be called the Indo-European theory on prosimetrum, entailing that a connection existed between the Indian Brahmanas and Irish tales “and concluded that they both reflect a stage in the evolution of Indo-European narrative”.119 Myles Dillon notes, similarly, that in the Rigveda, a collection of hymns in Sanskrit dated to roughly 1200 BC, we see a development from samváda hymns, consisting of dialogues in verse, to texts in which one can see both verse and prose. Dillon uses the story of Purúvanas and Urvasí 118 Ó Cuív, 1967-68, “Developments in Irish metrics”, 279 119 Mac Cana, Proinsias, “Prosimetrum in insular Celtic literature”, in Prosimetrum, Crosscultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, Joseph Harris, Karl, Reichl (ed.s), (D.S. Brewer 1997) pp. 99-130 (105) 24 as an example of this and further notes that “in the Harivamsa, the whole story is in verse.”120 These he describes as points in the development from hymn to prose interspersed with poetry ending in the Harivamsa, a Sanskrit text which evidences “the fully developed epic form as we find it in Homer and in Beowulf.”121 Dillon states that this was the final stage in development for Indo-European poetry and further that “in Ireland the form preserved in the bráhmanas [considered prosimetrum] is the common saga-form.”122 This view that prosimetrum in Irish was reflecting a much earlier Indo-European style appears to have been the prevailing attitude throughout the early to mid-20th century which “has generally been accepted without question ever since Windisch perceived [the] analogy”.123 Nevertheless, Mac Cana mentions that “One Notable dissentient to Windisch’s Indo-European theory was Eleanor Knott [who] far from regarding the inclusion of poems within a prose narrative as an Indo-European feature, [was] inclined to the view that it was ‘comparatively late”’.124 Knott’s work on the subject of prosimetrum shall be taken up later, however, this brief history hopes to provide background for later dialogues concerning prosimetrum which were had throughout the latter part of the twentieth century. Mac Cana also notes that “Windisch and Dillon’s view that the Irish combination of prose and verse is a continuation of the Indo-European usage… seems no longer tenable”.125 Another important voice when discussing this medium is that of James Carney who, in his 1968 article discussing the prosimetrum in the Agallamh, reiterates an earlier statement by Dillon on prosimetrum that this is a common style in Irish literature with “the prose being used for narrative, [and] the verse for emotional statements by the characters involved”.126 Carney does not enter the debate on the origins of the form, but rather highlights a tendency amongst scholars to assume that poetry and prose “were a unity from the beginning” and notes that this supposition can be problematic.127 In order to underline why this assumption can cause difficulties in the reception of a text, he discusses two examples of poems from the Agallamh, Géisid Cúan (describing the mythical battle of Ventry) and Turus acam Día hAíne. What follows is a summation of his points seeking to underline both the methods Carney uses to come 120 Dillon, Myles, “The archaism of Irish tradition [Sir John Rhŷs Memorial Lecture]”, in Proceedings of the British Academy 33 (1947) pp. 245-264 (254) 121 Dillon, 1947, “Archaism of Irish tradition”, 254 122 Dillon, 1947, “Archaism of Irish tradition”, 255 123 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 105 124 Mac Cana, 1997, Prosimetrum, 107 125 Mac Cana, 1997, Prosimetrum, 122 126 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 22 127 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 23 25 to his conclusions and certain points which may be of import for the broader discourse on prosimetrum. Regarding the first poem, Géisid Cúan, Carney states that “there is no original relationship between the prose and verse”.128 His first reasoning for this is that the language of the poem suggests a Christian background, rather than a pagan one, and he notes that “Irish poets were never given to this type of anachronism… [but] were quite conscious of the fact that the cross was an exclusively Christian symbol”.129 Another argument Carney uses is that “in the poem we have a quite conventional and ordinary use of the pathetic fallacy” referring to the animals and beasts mourning for Cáel Mac Crimthainn’s death, a common conceit used by professional poets.130 In a third argument he rebuts the idea that the lines “in laech ro laiged lim” [the warrior who lay with me] are the words of a wife to her husband. Carney notes that “In bardic poetry there is a common conceit that the poet is the patron’s lover” leading to the conclusion that “there is no phrase or idea in the poem that is inconsistent with its being a conventional bardic elegy”.131 The language usage in the poem and its themes are “completely consistent with its being the work of a professional poet… strongly supported by the fact that the poem with which it is associated in the acallam, that is turus acam Día hAíne, demands a similar explanation”.132 Carney’s work on the Agallamh can be seen as an important article concerning both prosimetrum as a medium and also the relation between prose and poetry in such texts. He also makes mention of the fact that “Murphy, in his treatment of this poem [Géisid Cúan], fails to appreciate its nature, precisely because he regards the prose and poetry as an original unity”. 133 This reinforces the idea that the medium was historically viewed as a traditional style whose texts existed as a single unit in much the same way as the bráhmanas. It further underlines the importance of not taking such an approach when analysing this material which, Carney notes, “is precluded from giving any Christian interpretation” and therefore closes one off from possible angles of analysis which may lead to a clearer understanding of the work.134 Carney’s article exemplifies a change in the way that prosimetrical texts are to be viewed, namely that, rather than as a single piece of work in a traditional medium, the prose and poetry in these texts were beginning to be treated as separate entities sewn together by the author of the tale. This assumption is an important starting point in the linguistic part of this thesis. 128 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 24 129 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 24 130 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 24 131 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 25 132 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 26 133 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 26 134 Carney, 1968, “Two poems”, 27 26 On the topic of prosimetrum with regards to earlier discussion on the overall style, Mac Cana states in a paper in 1989 on ‘the Combination of prose and verse in Early Irish’ that “we must review the generalization that prose is the normal medium of narrative in Irish”.135This is supported by what we know of the broad scope of material which is found in verse, as has been discussed earlier.136 He continues to note that “it is quite clear that prose and verse were handled quite differently by those scribes and redactors who did the actual writing”.137 Mac Cana further observes that, in most instances, “verse had to be recorded more or less intact” due to the fact that “verse and roscad depend for their effect on their form… and are for that reason resistant to change”.138 These statements highlight that, regardless of age, the poetry is less inclined towards linguistic change. He also states that, at least where dindshenchas (placename lore) is concerned, “the verse is often the older of the two”.139 Mac Cana notes, concerning the possibly origins to the poetry, that “the matter suggests rather that the Fionn lays have developed from traditional speech-poems, especially those set within prose narratives”.140 This statement, although not confirming that one medium gave rise to the other, establishes a relationship between Fenian lays and poems inserted in the prose of Fenian tales. Could texts such as the Agallamh therefore be displaying a waypoint from the conversion of traditional poetry into written prose? It may also be the case that these poems, rather than being oral creations, were written artifacts which are now lost. Are the small poems in many of the Agallamh’s episodes in fact remnants of larger poems which have undergone such a process? In support of the idea, that the poems could have existed in written work which is no longer evident, it is of note that certain poems found in the Agallamh are attested in other texts, suggesting that the small items of poetry are also older than the prose surrounding them.141 According to Mac Cana, the difficulty with making a distinction such as this is that “several stages of written transmission sometimes makes it difficult to say precisely when a given piece of poetry was joined to its prose context”.142 Nevertheless, “one consideration that argues 135 Mac Cana, Proinsias, “Notes on the combination of prose and verse in Early Irish narrative”, in Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der frühen irischen Literatur, Stephen Tranter (ed.), Hildegard Tristram (ed), (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989) pp. 125-147 (130) 136 See page 19 of this thesis on this topic 137 Mac Cana, 1989, “Combination of prose and verse”, 128 138 Mac Cana, 1989, “Combination of prose and verse”, 129 139 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 131 140 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 130 141 Dooley and Roe, 1999, Tales, 230 (note 16) and 238 (note 80) discuss two such poems. 142 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 124 27 antiquity… is their palpable linguistic archaism” meaning that archaic forms are to be expected in a ‘borrowed’ poem, compared to the surrounding prose.143 These issues will be discussed in chapter 5 and make up a large part of this thesis but it should be noted here that such considerations regarding linguistic marking have been seen as an important factor differentiating prose from verse as far back as the 1980s. Mac Cana also cites Pádraig Ó Maolchonaire in the 1500s who says that ‘a tale without verse is insecure’ and ‘a tale without a lay to follow it is incomplete’.144 Taken at face value, this would appear to show that scribes of this time deemed that poetry was important for fleshing out a narrative. It should be mentioned however that although Mac Cana states these quotes referring specifically to the dindshenchas of Ceilbe he does note that such a statement would imply “allusion to the more general pairing of the two forms” again, at least within the realm of dindshenchas.145 Although Mac Cana does not site a specific methodology for why or how such conclusions towards date and combination of the two media, prose and verse, are reached, his statements imply that observations as to the different date of prose and poetry within a single text can readily be made and that one would, through linguistic work, be able to demonstrate such differences. We shall now move to the scholarly discourse concerning the purpose of prosimetrum. Mac Cana also takes up this matter in this same article from 1989. He bases his discussion on the work of Myles Dillon and reiterates that poems are used to mark a heightening of mood and to express greetings and other formal exchanges. He adds to this that they may convey “incitement of the hero by his companions, to express fatherly counsel or advice or to state magical prophecies” and concludes that - “the primary function of these [certain] poems is evidential. They serve to corroborate what has been told in the preceding prose and, consequently… they are generally attributed to well-known filid”.146 It would appear that prose may have been viewed as requiring metre to ‘complete’ and the question then arises as to whether this metre was composed by the prose writer or taken from external sources. Effectively, it appears that the function of poems in prosimetric texts is often to “set the seal of authenticity on the statement of the preceding prose”.147 Here, we have a continuation of Carney’s view on prosimetrum which is that, rather than seeing it as one entity (Windisch’s Indo-European 143 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 124 144 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 133 145 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 133, it should also be noted that the Agallamh is generally regarded as being a long work of dindshenchas, making this point more relevant. 146 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 136 147 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 137 28 theory), we have an image of poems being used as a form of corroborating the prose to which they are fitted. The only clue we are given by Mac Cana as to the original source of such poems is that some may be “embedded in fragmentary form” in the text.148 This suggests that poems were used in prosaic texts as a matter of style, and that they functioned largely to corroborate and bear witness their prose surroundings. In addition, we can imagine that poems were often taken from other sources and re-fit to purpose within a new context; sometimes fragmentarily, sometimes as whole works. Mac Cana also states that there appears to be “a general agreement that the process [of fragmentary poems being put into larger texts] could and did take place”.149 There appears, however, to be some scholarly disagreement as to the extent of this process, and indeed its occurrence, within the Agallamh, as we shall see. Mac Cana’s work and characterization of prosimetrum within Irish literature can be seen as a product of the academic discussion on the topic up until the 1980s. In a similar way, one can view his extensive article, ‘prosimetrum in insular Celtic literature’, as representing a solidified version reflecting scholarly opinion. Mac Cana reiterates in his 1997 article that “prose is the normal medium of narrative” and further states that this had not always been considered to be the case, as exemplified by C.M Bowa and Jan de Vries.150 As we do not know which prosimetric texts have been lost in transmission to the modern day, we cannot answer the particular question of whether the style was an extension of an earlier tradition or a later development. Despite this, we can focus on the function of verse within surviving works. To do this, one must consider the frequency of the style within different genres and the problem of “how to evaluate a literary corpus which exists in writing and which is largely derived from an oral literature which for a long time coexisted with the written text”.151 In exemplifying this, Mac Cana chooses to discuss the work of David Greene on the subject of written prose narrative, in which he (Greene) concludes that oral tales were largely written in verse. By this he implies that one can see poetry as representing oral tradition and prose as written, although “the facts are less than certain” according to Mac Cana.152 This however does lead one to wonder whether prosimetric texts may originally have come through a process of converting traditional poems into prose narrative that resembles a style we see in many sagas from the Old Irish period. Mac Cana proceeds to discuss the work 148 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 138 149 Mac Cana, 1989 “Combination of prose and verse”, 138 150 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 99 151 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 99 152 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 101 29 done by earlier scholars, as has been briefly outlined here, and concludes with the aforementioned comment on Knott’s work, observing that “the essential point implicit in professor Knott’s comments is a valid one: one cannot lightly assume, as has often been done, that the palpable abundance of prosimetrum narrative in the middle Irish period is a more or less true reflection of earlier literature”.153 A final word from Mac Cana on the matter of the origins of prosimetrum is that, regardless of how it came about “the use of prosimetrum in the middle Irish period becomes systematic”.154 We are also given a description of the elements which the common traditional tale, seemingly regardless of date, consists of. Namely, they are made up of a primary component, which is often quite variable in size and material (that is the prose narrative itself) and several fixed components such as poems and dialogues.155 These fixed components are subject to three types of treatment: namely, they can be omitted, copied in extensio or simply cited with the phrase incipit (implying that the poem was well known either because it existed in other written sources or was popular in the oral tradition).156 He does not, however, explicitly mention the possibility that large parts of certain poems may have been prosified, leaving only a small part of the poem still in verse form. Another function for prose in poetry which Mac Cana discusses is what he calls evidential verse. This type of verse is called a ‘documentary poem’ by Mac Cana; its “primary function is evidential: it serves to corroborate what has been told… in the preceding prose”.157 In this case one can see, especially in light of the comments made by Pádraig Ó Maolchonaire, that poetry appears to have had a distinctly authoritative function within prosimetrical texts. Furthermore, “it is not so much whether the verse is really more authoritative but rather the convention by which it purports to be so” that is of import.158 Many of the small poems within the Agallamh can be seen as falling into this category and one comes to wonder whether the scribe had access to poems but did not have a ‘primary variable component’ within which to embed them. If this were the case, considering the importance that corroborative poetry appears to have had, would a scribe possibly have prosified these and left verses as a witness to the fact in certain instances? Such an idea offers a possible reason as to why smaller poems with a documentary function may be found within the Agallamh which, as we will see, has been discussed by Geraldine 153 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”,103 154 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 114 155 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 108 156 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 108 157 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 111 158 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 111 30 Parsons. According to Mac Cana, another aspect of documentary poems, is that “to set the seal of authenticity [on a tale] …. It becomes in fact a résumé of it”.159 This statement gives the impression of a documentary verse containing the same material as the surrounding prose, meaning that a difference in context would likely not be found between the two media. In supporting the idea of transformative poetry, or at least of poetry being the older inspiration for the prose surrounding it, Mac Cana states that “the poems which are cited to corroborate the prose may in fact be the source whence it derives”.160 Such may be the case for ‘Cath Almaine’, a text which shares a number of similarities with the Agallamh. Ó Riain states that “the scéla of the battle would have taken the form of laíde, and I believe some of these to be now embedded in fragmentary form in the tale”.161 He further concludes that the core of the tale is based on contemporary annals and a collection of verse composed by various authors with the prose supplied by the author in the 900s.162 One can thus see that discussion of prosimetrum in the late twentieth century had become one of originality and age differences between prose and verse, rather than a focus on and discussion of the origins of the style. It is important to note that Mac Eoin largely refutes Ó Riain’s dating of the work based on linguistic evidence; however, he states that “the verse would seem to be earlier than the prose” supporting the general idea that poems were taken from other sources and woven into the prose tale as a form of witness.163 Mac Cana also discusses prosimetrum in translated works as well as in Welsh literature, but these points do not bear relevance to the Agallamh except in the fact that this text was used by Sir Ifor as an analogue for the Welsh ‘Saga Englynion’. Mac Cana notes that “the acallam is neither a close nor a particularly useful analogy for the post-dated Welsh narratives” and due to this, such discussions on the style have been ignored.164 In this article we are also provided with a brief map of the history of poesy in the Irish language. Mac Cana states that, until the 600s, unrhymed verse was popular and around this time it was displaced and replaced by rhymed syllabic metre. This became the dominant poetic form until the breakdown of the traditional system, when it was “superseded by the old, accentuated verse which had evidently 159 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 112 160 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 112 161 Ó Riain, (ed.), “Cath Almaine”, in Mediaeval and Modern Irish series vol. xxv, (Dublin: the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978) (xx) 162 O Riain, 1997 “Cath Almaine”, xxviii 163 Mac Eoin, Gearóid, “Orality and literacy in some Middle-Irish king-tales”, in: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der frühen irischen Literatur, Stephen Tranter (ed.), Hildegard Tristram (ed), (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989) pp. 149-183 (178-179) 164 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 121 31 continued in use throughout the intervening centuries among the lower orders of poets”.165 Such a statement may, however, appear to be rather too tidy and should not be accepted unquestioningly, as the existence of ógláchas and other forms of lay poetry in syllabic metre, for example, brings the accuracy of this statement into question. Nevertheless, the broad framework appears accurate. Unrhymed syllabic metre, reflecting the everyday language, returns to the Irish written tradition with the breakdown of the bardic schools in the 1600s, often referred to as caint na ndaoine (speech of the people).166 If this is the case, one could imagine that the poetry of the oral tradition did not, for the most part, consist of syllabic metre, such as we see comprising the poetry in the Agallamh. Due to this, such poems seem unlikely to have been copied directly from an oral tradition and incorporated into prose texts from the memory of the scribe. This suggests two options for the origins of the poems within the Agallamh. They must either be creations of the scribe or author of the prose as handed down to us or they must have existed in written form at an earlier time. Mac Cana has, in the two articles discussed here, largely outlined the use of prosimetrum in Irish literature and discussed the viability of earlier theories, whilst presenting a number of ideas concerning the working of the medium. This gives us an overview of the discourse on prosimetrum throughout the twentieth century, the conclusion of which can be summed up in the following phrase: bíonn ceathramha as a’ laoi ansiúd is annseo fighte fríd mar bhéadh asnaca ann.167 The likely picture as to the state of prosimetrum we are left with at this point appears very much to be that of the style coming about through a process of scribes weaving mostly older poetry and prose writing together to form new tales. In relation to our text, Mac Cana states “if it were justifiable to use the term plagiarism of what is still largely a traditional literature, then the acallam is one vast enterprise in plagiarism”. 168 The Agallamh may thus be seen to represent the height of such transformative activity within the Fenian corpus. The method and analysis proposed in this thesis will attempt to demonstrate this. Turning to discussions on prosimetrum in the 21st century, Sharon Arbuthnot writes that “compilation is… a recycling process whereby extracts culled from a variety of manuscript 165 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 124 166 Ford, 1992, Irish Literary Tradition, 220 167 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 126, Translation by Mac Cana from From Ó Grianna 1942, pg. 221: it is usual to have a quatrain from the lay woven into it [the text] here and there, almost like ribs. 168 Mac Cana, 1997, “Prosimetrum”, 121 32 sources are cobbled together to create new texts”.169 She also states that “metrical borrowings are almost exclusively of this type”; that is, the product of compilation that has been taken from other texts and recycled.170 Although Arbuthnot’s paper is more in the vein of discussion of compilation during the Middle Irish period, it appears that she views verse in compilatory texts to be a part of the material that has been taken from other sources. This discussion is relevant for the reason that it can also be seen in modern scholarship that verse is consistently taken from other sources in compilation texts and reworked. We are thus able to envisage a view of prosimetrum possibly being the result, at least in some cases, of compilatory activity. As the Agallamh is likely one such compilation, it brings the poetry, and its originality, into focus. Tomás Ó Cathasaigh has, in his discussion on the text ‘Félire Óengusso’ highlighted the occurrences of metre within the prose as comprising “four sequences of verse”.171 He concludes that, when looking at the function of the poems, only one “belongs integrally to the course of events recounted in the saga whereas others can be assigned to the type which Mac Cana describes as ‘evidential’”. 172 This demonstrates that, in modern times, Mac Cana’s work on prosimetrum is still accepted as a solidly based work with relevance. The fact that there exist poems which appear to have been written contemporary to the prose does, however, exemplify the nuance with which such texts were written and it presents the task of identifying which poems were integral parts of a given text and which were borrowings. The most recent time that has seen a great deal of discussion on prosimetrum within Celtic studies appears to be 2014 and I shall endeavour to represent the differing voices in the following paragraphs. In his paper ‘The reworking of Old Irish narrative texts in the Middle Irish period’, Murray reiterates that “in prosimetric texts, there is often a discrepancy in date between the prose and the poetry, with the poetry commonly being older”.173 He also mentions that, in forming compilatory texts, “the commonest building blocks… were materials from earlier written texts and from oral culture”.174 When this statement is applied to verse within prosimetrum, as we have discussed before, we get the image of a prosimetric text which is built 169 Arbuthnot, Sharon, “Medieval Irish compilation: conservatism and creativity”, in: Medieval Manuscripts in Transition, Geert Claassens and Werner Verbeke (ed.s), (Leuven: 2006) pp. 194-214 (1) 170 Arbuthnot, 2006, Medieval Irish compilation, 197 171 Ó Cathasaigh, Tomás, “The oldest story of the Laigin: reflections on Orgain Denna Rig”, in Éigse 33, (2002) pp. 1-18 (10) 172 O Cathasaigh, 2002, “Oldest story of the Laigin”, 11 173 Murray, Kevin, “The reworking of Old Irish narrative texts in the Middle Irish period: contexts and motivations”, in Authorities and Adaptations: The Reworking and Transmission of Textual Sources in Medieval Ireland Elizabeth Boyle (ed.), Deborah Hayden (ed.), (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014) pp. 291-306 (299) 174 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 292 33 up around scéla (stories) with poems inserted in strategic places as a matter of authority, and these poems most often coming from earlier written sources. It should be noted that, like Arbuthnott, Murray is focusing mainly on compilatory texts. However, his paper leaves some unanswered questions with regards to the Agallamh. What was the impetus behind the creation of such texts? Does it function as an exemplary text? How much does it draw on earlier traditions? Effectively, what Murray is inviting with his discussion involves viewing the prosimetrum as a whole and discussing what the type of prosimetrum might tell us about the purpose of the text. The focus of scholarly discourse appears to have shifted from the function of the poems in the text to the function of the text itself. Murray also states that “some of these questions may be answered by a detailed study and analysis”.175 In the same book, Authorities and Adaptations, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh also discusses the concept of poetic authority. She characterizes the process of the replication of tales as one in which “each retelling cast the narrative in a new form” thus purporting the idea that narrative works, or at least the non-fixed parts of texts, were subject to change and movement within an established framework.176 This she defines as a text being newly composed. With reference to poetry in such texts, Ní Mhaonaigh underlines that they are “especially marked” in that they can “serve to emphasise a specific incident in the tale”.177 Repeating Mac Cana’s observations on poetic function in prosimetric texts, she further states that “poetic authority carried weight” and that the “recycling of poetry was [therefore] an important aspect of the process of adaptation and renewal”.178 In order to exemplify such adaptations, she uses the case study of Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh, ‘the War of the Gaídil [Irish] against the Gaill [Scandinavians]’. This text bears similarities to the Agallamh in a number of ways, namely that it was written in the 1100s (slightly earlier than the composition of the Agallamh but belonging to the same period) and that “scattered throughout the long work…are a number of poems, ranging from single stanzas to longer verse compositions”.179 Due to the similarities in composition which they share, Ní Mhaonaigh’s case study demonstrates both a more modern view of prosimetrum, that of recycling poems into new texts, and also highlights that a clearer view of the poetry in the Agallamh is possible. She continues in her study to discuss the function of “the poems which 175 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 305 176 Ní Mhaonaigh, Máire, “Poetic authority in Middle Irish narrative: a case study”, in Authorities and Adaptations: The Reworking and Transmission of Textual Sources in Medieval Ireland Elizabeth Boyle (ed.), Deborah Hayden (ed.), (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014) pp. 263-9 (264) 177 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 264 178 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 265 179 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 265 34 could have formed part of the original text”, much of which appears to be corroborative verse in the form of prophecy or “introduced by phrases underlining their authority, amhail asbert Berchan; eámail asbert Beg Mac Dé [as Berchán/Beg Mac Dé said]”.180We therefore see that such corroborative poems appear to be commonly used by being introduced whith a brief phrase to the effect ‘as x said’ and an ascription to either a mythical or poetic figure for authority. This is reiterated by Ní Mhaonaigh: “in all cases, the phrase amail asbert, attributing the verse to a particular poet… accords the verse an authoritative tone”.181 Thus, we see that the use of poetry in a prosimetric text, as outlined by Mac Cana, “can shed light on the approach to composition adopted by the author”.182 This is relevant to the Agallamh because “the scribe’s approach to the prosimetrum ‘is likely to have been similar to that adopted by scholarly contemporaries for whom poetic authority was also a relevant theme”.183 One may similarly observe from my transcription in the appendices that the small poems in the episodes are introduced with a similar formula. The Agallamh may therefore be viewed as a work which likely is rich in corroborative poems which are older than the surrounding prose. This section concludes with the latest scholarly discussion on poetry in the Agallamh. Regarding professor Carney’s work and that of professor Seán Ó Coileáin. Ann Dooley asserts that “in this latest work [Ó Coileáin] deftly demolishes Carney’s theories about the relation of prose to verse in the tale of Cáel and Créide”.184 A paper, voicing strong objection to Carney’s view, then, has to be discussed. The main point which Ó Coileáin appears to take issue with is Carney’s statement that “sometime about AD 1100 in South Kerry, a man of some importance called Cael son of Crimthann was drowned”.185 Ó Coileáin first focuses on the location, arguing that “it is most unlikely that it would have been hit upon [as the location of Cáel] from the evidence of the poem itself” but rather, it requires the surrounding prose to make such a statement.186 He proceeds to deconstruct place names in the poem and concludes that “apart from [a] tenuous link, there is no other place name in the poem that can be claimed to belong 180 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 271-272 181 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 274 182 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, “Poetic authority”, 288 183 Ní Mhaonaigh, 2014, Poetic authority in, 288 184 Dooley, Ann, “The European context of Acallam na senórach”, in in Dialogue with the Agallamh: Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Aidan Doyle (ed.) Kevin Murray (ed.), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 60-75 (60) 185 Ó Coileáin, Seán, “The setting of Géisid cúan” in: In Dialogue with the Agallamh Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Kevin Murray, Aidan Doyle, (ed.s), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 218-230 (219) 186 Ó Coileáin, 2014, “Géisid Cúan”, 220 35 in the area”.187 It must be remarked that, although Ó Coileáin argues convincingly for this, it holds very little relevance for Carney’s statements regarding prosimetrum in the Agallamh. The crux of Ó Coileáin’s argument seems to be Carney’s claim that “the poet is using place names for pathetic effect” and that the place names are unidentifiable. One would think, however, that the place names mentioned not being identifiable in modern day Ireland would not hold much bearing on this and Ó Coileáin does not appear to demonstrate otherwise.188 On the contrary, the fact that the place names given in the prose are required to locate the tale in south Kerry and that such a location cannot be established by information given in the poem alone implies that the two texts share a different origin. Ó Coileáin does, however, make a number of highly valid points regarding Christian anachronism, stating that “Carney’s argument would require that the more fundamental division between pagan and Christian be strictly observed” and gives examples from the fianaigheacht corpus of the word cros being used in a pre-Christian context.189 This brings Carney’s arguments into question. Ó Coileáin does not discuss the second poem in Carney’s argument “since much of the argument would repeat what has been said earlier”.190 Nevertheless, it does not appear that Ó Coileáin has strongly refuted Carney’s work with specific reference to the relationship between prose and poetry in the Agallamh. Geraldine Parsons has also contributed to the discussion on the use of metre within the Agallamh. She noted in 2014 that, although Carney is possibly correct regarding the originality of the selected poems, and in believing that there is much more understudied poetry within the Agallamh which has not been scrutinised properly, he was wrong to state that it had been poorly integrated.191 The first point gives validity to this thesis which, in some ways, may be seen as a continuation of Carney’s observations and appears to not have been followed up on. The second point can be supported by the following general statement by Dagmar Schlüter concerning scholarly opinions of the work: “that earlier generation of scholars… considered Acallam na Senórach to be somewhat repetitive and perhaps a bit odd, while nowadays it is seen as a ‘work of considerable sophistication’”.192 Parsons makes the comment that, assuming the poetry was not written for the prose episodes, it is odd that many individual poems are strongly linked to 187 Ó Coileáin, 2014, “Géisid Cúan”, 221 188 Ó Coileáin, 2014, “Géisid Cúan”, 224 189 Ó Coileáin, 2014, “Géisid Cúan”, 227 190 Ó Coileáin, 2014, “Géisid Cúan”, 229 191 Parsons, Geraldine, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, in Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 24-25 (2009) pp. 86-100 (91-92) 192 Schlüter, Dagmar, “Boring and elusive? The dindshenchas as a medieval Irish genre”, in The Journal of Literary Onomastics 6:1 (2017) pp. 22-31 (30) 36 the themes of the prose.193 She further states that “there are grounds for questioning the validity of this assumption [that the poetry is not from the Agallamh]: the 35 percent of the text’s poems that are single-stanza summary poems are so context-bound that they must have been composed specifically for the prose of which they are a synopsis”.194 Parsons makes a compelling argument to this effect but there remains a question regarding the 35 percent of smaller poems and their originality. She states that “na hocht caire chollaide, therefore, provides a clear example of the sensitivity with which a pre-existing poem was introduced into the narrative and tied to its overarching concerns”.195 In her argument for these 35 percent of poems being original to the prose, she also sites work which has been discussed here, namely that of Tomás Ó Cathasaigh.196 Parsons claims that he “has shown that among them are poems spoken by Ferchertne which… belong integrally to the course of events recognized in the saga”.197 This is taken as evidence that other contemporary prosimetric texts contain poems written by the prose author. Despite this, as we have seen, the work in question only finds one instance of such: three poems not fitting this mould and likely taken from other sources are evident, which does not appear to set a strong precedent for prosimetrum being used in this way. This seems especially to be the case when we consider the large number of voices we have observed who lean more towards the contrary, that is, that the poetry is not integral to the text in many cases in this time period and is often taken from a different source. Yet in Parsons stating that the smaller poems must be the work of the prose scribe, we are brought back to a question. Firstly, are we speaking about the scribe of Lismore, the scribe of Laud 610 or the scribe of an architype which has not been discussed in Parsons’ article? A second question is, why, in light of the previous scholarship we have seen, would the small poems which Parsons mentions be considered as integral to the Agallamh? This claim seems implausible, given the fact that Parsons argues herself for at least three instances in the text where the poetry is unlikely to be original. In Parsons’ discussion on Carney, as mentioned, she does not refute the idea that Carney was incorrect in proposing that the poems were not likely to be original, but rather, she takes issue with his claim that it was done poorly. She thoroughly demonstrates the erroneousness of the 193 Parsons, 2009,” Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 87 194 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 88 195 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 91 196 See page 33 for this discussion 197 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 86 37 latter.198 Her conclusion on the work of Carney is that his “study reinforces… the conscious and skilful attempts to present a harmonized prosimetric text which made careful considered and creative use of pre-existing as well as original poetic compounds”.199 Despite this, the question of whether the poems which Parsons regards as original truly were of such a quality. There appears to be no dissenting voice. Parsons also highlights the skill with which the prose and poetry are integrated which raises the question as to why the smaller poems would not have undergone such a careful treatment, making them difficult to identify as non-original based solely on context? A second minor critique of Parsons is that, although she has criticised Carney for basing his work on a late fourteenth century recension, she herself has based her discussion only on Stokes’ edition. Such work, as we have seen in chapter 2.6, is not conducive to gaining a deep understanding of the relationship between poetry and prose. Parsons’ statement that prosimetrum in the Agallamh “has been hitherto discussed only in general terms” is valid and this thesis attempts to address the issue of these small poems mentioned.200 One final case study on the topic of poetry and prose as a medium, and their interrelatedness, is that of Amy C. Mulligan. In her book A landscape of Words, she discusses a text found in “most copies of the Dindshenchas Érenn, including LL” (Lebor Laigneach,/the Book of Leinster) describing the dindshenchas of the hill of Ceilbe.201 She states that the poem commemorating this place was composed by Muirches mac Pháidín Uí Máolchonaire in the 1500s, independently of the prose text concerning the same place. This was later added to the prose found in LL and four manuscript copies.202 Here we have yet another example of where a poem was used to ‘complete’ an already existing prose tale. In this section, we have considered earlier work on prosimetrum and continued to the discussion throughout the twentieth century, largely summed up by Proinsias Mac Cana, concluding that prose and poetry within texts do not always come from the same source. We have seen evidence in more contemporary discussion of this not being entirely the case and a view appears to be emerging that, within compilation work, poetry is almost exclusively present in prose texts as the result of re-fitting older metre to a new purpose. By taking a more thorough look at the scholarly discourse of the twentieth century, we can gain a view of a style (prosimetrum) which lends itself to compilation, a writing practice which the 198 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 92-95 199 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 100 200 Parsons, 2009, Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum, 86 201 Mulligan, Amy C., “A landscape of Words, Ireland, Britain and the Poetics of Space, 700-1250”, (Manchester University Press, 2019) 119 202 Mulligan, 2019, Landscape of Words, 120 38 time period in question, the 1200s, was well known for. One must however remember that a prosimetric text is not by definition the result of compilation. It is also clear that, regardless of the origins of the form, it was widely popular, with poetry seemingly most commonly being taken from older, normally written, sources and incorporated into a new context by contemporary scribes of the work in question. Parsons’ statement that “the 35 per cent of the poems that are a single stanza are so context-bound that they must have been composed specifically for the prose” is brought into question by looking at the broader research background of prosimetrical texts in Irish literature of the time.203 It cannot be denied that a number of poems has been taken from external literary sources yet that the smaller poems are claimed to be the work of the original writer. In light of the amount of scholarship which repeatedly demonstrates that poetry in such texts often comes from other sources and given the lack of evidence for scribes writing the poetry to their own tales, the originality of the smaller poems within the Agallamh requires further investigation. 4.1 Method (a Basic Framework for Analysis) Chapter 1 focused on constructing a clear hypothesis for this thesis, while chapters 2 and 3 built upon this by discussing the sources to the Agallamh as well as the relevant historical and research background. Now that we have set ourselves into the scholarly discourse surrounding the work, a methodology must be outlined as to how the hypothesis that the smaller poems are not original and date back to pre-existing, likely written, works, will be explored. A step-by- step discussion of this methodology follows. The first step is to choose the episodes within the Agallamh for analysis. Due to the restriction of space in this thesis, only a pair of episodes can be thoroughly analysed. These episodes are chosen because they fulfill two requirements. They have relevance to one another and also consist of a prosimetrum of a similar nature, namely, the episodes consist of a larger prose section with smaller, single-stanza poems interspersed throughout the broader text. The reasons for choosing these episodes are discussed in more detail in the section covering analysis (chapters 6 and 7). As discussed earlier, these episodes have been transcribed from their original manuscript renderings and analysed linguistically. 203 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum”, 88 39 Secondly, an overall analysis of the language of the prose of these episodes has been made and can also be found in the appendices, the validity of which shall be discussed in the next chapter concerning theory.204 The analyses consist of a full listing of the following: A verbal analysis of relevant forms found in the text which is further broken down in terms of the percentage of occurrence in comparison with overall scribal usage. This allows us to see trends in the language of the prose scribe. Irregular or otherwise peculiar verbs are also noted and analysed in terms of their occurrence in the prose of the scribe. The occurrence of initial mutations is listed and used to generate grammatical instances where we can safely assume the scribe used such mutations in speech. This is then used to note the particular tendency of the scribe to mark initial mutation with specific letters. The scribe’s use of prepositions, particles and pronouns have also been noted. Finally, instances of words in the prose which either occur in the poems or may be useful in comparing with their language are listed. This may, for example, include evidence that the scribe has used the dative case, his specific paradigm for certain words which can also be found in the poetry and his treatment of verbs in a relative position. This analysis of the prose will enable the scribes’ hand to be more clearly seen, as well as the tendencies of the writer of the prose in terms of orthography and grammar usage. An analysis of the poems within the various recensions of the Agallamh is also required. This consists of examining the selected poems both within and removed from their prose frame. The poems are firstly written out in the original Irish, followed by my provided translation, and then analysed in detail, word by word. A lexical translation is also supplied.205 The following criteria are then discussed in order to observe the episode more closely, allowing us to describe the poems’ relationship to each other and to the text each is embedded in. These criteria are as follows: Analysing metre is useful in gaining a clearer understanding of the style of the poems in question and of their individual quality. A guiding principle here is that if one repeatedly observes metrical imbalances within a poem it can be taken as a sign that the poem is poorly crafted206. Poems of a similar metrical quality and style may also belong together as parts of a larger poem, and this will be discussed where necessary. The opposite may also be true for 204 See appendices 2-5 to view the transcription, translation (taken from Dooley and Roe) and prose analysis 205 It should be mentioned that the translation of the poems provided in the appendices is not my own and will therefore differ (sometimes significantly) from my translation given in the analyses 206 The template for such an analysis is discussed on page 24 of this thesis 40 poems demonstrating great difference in quality and style. Misspellings which break the metre are also noted and compared with the trends of the prose scribe. A single imbalance, or a small number of irregular metrical features in a verse can be explained as non-critical errors or a “slip of the pen”; however, repeated inconsistencies imply that the writer of the poem was either not comfortable with the language or not entirely aware of the rules of the metre that he was writing, meaning he may have been copying from an earlier source. In this same vein, a well-composed metre implies a creator who was, to some extent, skilled at crafting poetry. Metrical inconsistencies can often be observed, particularly when looking at poems which would not fit into the category of dán díreach. Despite this, it could prove telling to note the metres and styles of the poetry in order to draw conclusions as to whether or not the poetics are likely to have all been written by a single author in a single context or taken from elsewhere. The metrical qualities of the stanzas in the episode shall also be compared with one another in order to discuss the relationships, or lack thereof, of the poems. The overarching principle when analysing metrical features is that, where they cannot conclusively tell us whether or not individual poems originally belong to the Agallamh, observation of the differences and inconsistencies amongst a larger selection of poems can indicate that certainly some of the poetry belongs in other contexts. Further analysis of the poems will be required in order to create a more detailed picture of the episode but metrical analysis creates a firm base for a further, more three-dimensional view of the material to be built. Each stanza is followed by a line by line lexical translation taking every grammatical feature into account, as has been mentioned above. These observations are then compared individually to the prose analysis in the appendices to establish their linguistic relationship to one another. This aims at confirming or contraindicating a link between the two media in addition to the metrical relationship, by entering a discourse as to the connection in terms of language usage between verse and poetry. Orthographical trends, for instance initial mutation patterns and spelling tendencies, are also noted. Such discussions are made on a case by case basis in sections 6 and 7. These angles of analysis aim at establishing reasonable relationships (or lack thereof) between the prose and poetry within the two chosen episodes. Differences in context to the connected prose episode are likely to be at least an equally important form of evidence as to whether the poems were originally part of the text in which they are embedded as one cannot refute such evidence as pseudo-archaising. Context may take a number of different forms, for example, if a poem contains more of a story, that is a more 41 detailed recount of an episode, than its prose counterpart, it may be concluded that the poem existed outside of the context of the Agallamh. This will facilitate comments on the originality of the poems, lending more weight to the argument that the text was created using pre-existing Fenian verse. It should be remembered that, although the evidence provided by the different criteria individually may not be compelling, the presence of a number of such criteria can be seen as strong grounds for concluding that the text as a whole was put together from pre-existing stories and poems, supporting the hypothesis under discussion. Such analysis attempts then to build a clear understanding of the poetry contained in parts of the Agallamh and this data can be further used in answering the main hypothesis of this thesis. Observing selected poems found in the chosen episodes of the earliest recensions of the text should give us a deeper understanding of the methodologies and possible intent of the various authors and redactors of the text tradition and will attempt to shed light on how the Agallamh was put together. This methodology may be termed ‘reconstructive reception’. What I mean by this is a process of firstly taking a reconstructive view of the evidence, to attempt to clarify, codify and create a representation of the evidence for analysis, commenting on the data from a linguistic and metrical viewpoint. Once the evidence has been analysed in this manner, it will be possible to discuss what it may mean for the individual texts and the interaction between them. The aim is to comment on possible underlying intentions informing the creation of the work in question and the direction in which the recensions were moving. Another way to describe this is that it is clearing the waters in order that we may observe the picture that lies beneath them. However, due to the painstaking work of reconstruction and analysis required, reception must in this thesis take secondary place to the establishment of relationships between prose and poetry in situations in which the consensus has been divided, as discussed in chapter 3. 4.2 Interpretation of the Evidence Using the proposed methodology to address the hypothesis can answer the question as to whether or not the small poems in either manuscript are likely to be the original works of the prose writer. The establishment of this relationship has broader implications regarding the overarching context of the Agallamh as a literary work. When looking at the poetry, the underlying idea is that, if the hypothesis can be supported, it will pave the way for further reception concerning what was considered by the authors and redactors of the time as belonging to the text. This will give us a clearer picture of the early Agallamh tradition and its construction. Logically, only two conclusions can be reached from such an analysis: either the poems were 42 designed for the prose of the Agallamh or they were not. The implications will be discussed here. Poems which are clearly composed for the context of the Agallamh will be discerned according to the processes outlined in section 4.1. By identifying verses that appear to be original to the prose of the Agallamh, we can understand the possible intentions underlying the later recensions. This may be done by observing what was kept in and left out once it has been given a clear origin point. We would, for example, know that the poems did not exist in other contexts parallel to the Agallamh, which would in turn have implications for how the text was viewed and developed. Poems which do not fit the prose context are extremely relevant as they will suggest the existence of previous literary sources which the Agallamh was drawing on. The establishment of a much larger literary corpus has implications as to what the purpose of the Agallamh may have been. The strength of the proposed methodology is that through a detailed analysis of language, one may observe features of the prosimetrum in the sources which may have been missed by focusing on other, non-linguistic based analyses. For example, relying only on context, as both Parsons and Carney do, makes it difficult to discuss the prosimetrum of single stanza poems and this inevitably leads to the conclusion that these pieces were composed by the prose author. More evidence can be examined in a linguistic analysis, allowing for a more detailed view which can uncover more nuanced results. 5.1 Theory (Possible Pitfalls of the Methodology) This style of analysis has its dangers; primarily, one must remember that “A penchant for using linguistic archaisms appears always to have been a feature of writing in the Irish language… It was particularly evident in the Late Middle Irish and Early Modern Irish periods”.207This means that there is a likelihood within the Agallamh of encountering features which are markedly archaic in nature without necessarily indicating that the poetic episode was not written by the scribe of the main body of the text. One may suggest, however, that pseudoarchaisms will be noticeable when compared to genuine older forms. Archaisms, particularly differences in orthography between the prose and poetic episodes, can nevertheless be a useful tool in such an analysis. 207 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Middle Irish archaisms”, 57 43 When discussing prosimetric texts, and also when re-analysing older scholarship, Kevin Murray notes a number of issues with the dating of texts based on the work of Mac Eoin and discusses them in detail.208 Due to the fact that many of the problems of dating are similar to those which may be faced in the proposed analysis, it is relevant to explore a number of them here. The six pitfalls mentioned by Mac Eoin are as follows: the fragmentary evidence of texts; the time lapse between text composition and extant manuscript recensions; the anonymity of the material; the archaizing tendencies of redactors; the dialectal influence on the writing; and the manner in which the texts may have developed.209 Some of these issues are not problematic for our purposes, as is a clear date is not being ascertained through the proposed analysis, given that this has been established by previous scholars. Murray states, for example, that “the fragmentary nature of the extant written corpus may serve to conceal the actual extent of cultivation of fíanaigecht in medieval Ireland”.210 This would pose little problem with discussing the interrelationships between two specific manuscripts and is more associated with the dating of texts within a corpus. In much the same way, the anonymity of the texts, which can make it difficult to date works, does not pose a great problem for the proposed study as there will be no need to rely on evidence based on ascriptions to historical or mythical figures. Due to the fact that we are not attempting to set up a relative chronology of texts within the corpus, the way the text has developed is of little relevance to us either. We are then left with three issues which can prove problematic and these are as follows: Influence from spoken dialects Where the issues in this regard have more to do with dating and less with the proposed linguistic work here, Murray points out that such influence “may be more relevant to the analysis of AS”.211 The propensity for the Agallamh scribe to use dialectal forms in his writing, for our purposes, may in fact be a factor favouring the defining of a difference between the prose and the poetry in the work. Where this may be the case, one must be aware that the Agallamh may exhibit dialectal forms in one or both media. On this note, it is also important to mention that “some of its [the Agallamh’s] constituent material… would seem to have emerged from a strong oral tradition”.212 One could therefore expect that the prose will exhibit linguistic forms similar 208 Murray, Kevin, “Interpreting the evidence: problems with dating the early fíanaigecht corpus”, in The Gaelic Finn Tradition, Geraldine Parsons (ed.), Sharon Arbuthnot(ed.), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2012) pp. 31-49 (34) 209 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 34 210 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 34 211 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 38 212 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 39 44 to the spoken dialect of the scribe whilst the poems (if not written by the scribe himself) would show more ‘formal’ or classical spellings, forms and vocabulary. Even more relevant here is a discussion of the possible variation in the quality of the poetry. For example, it may be an effective metric to observe the skill of construction of different poems. One may expect poems taken from the oral tradition to show fewer features of ‘literate’ poetry, such as not exhibiting characteristics which operate only on the visual level, that is not noticed in speech. From this we can see that, in relation to the sources under discussion, dialectal variance does not present any difficulty and may in fact aid the proposed analysis. Time lapse This detail may indeed pose a problem for the proposed work and thus there follows a relatively lengthy discussion on the topic. The issue is that the lapse of time between the writing of a manuscript and the composition of the tales contained within can be so great as to inhibit linguistic comparisons. There is a possibility that prose has been altered over time whilst verses have the advantage of “the metrical straightjacket in which they are set [which] helps to reduce the amount of textual interference that prose texts typically undergo”.213 In his discussion, Murray outlines a particular example highlighting this issue, namely the text Finn and the Man in the Tree. Linguistically, it dates to the 700s, but the manuscript in which the only extant copy is found is from the 1500s.214 We are thus dealing with a time lapse between archetype and witness of roughly 800 years, which allowed “for changing and updating of linguistic forms”.215 On this topic, Uáitéar Mac Gearailt has commented in his article ‘Forbairt na stíle i litríocht phrós na Gaeilge moiche’ regarding tales which were composed in the 800s with witnesses in the late 1100s. He states “tá sé deacair rianú níos mine ná seo a dhéanamh ar fhorbairt na stíle mar go bhfuil an litríocht ar fad i lámhscríbhinní déanacha agus nach dócha gur caomhnaíodh foclaíocht ná stíl na mbuntéacsanna gan athrú suntasach ar go leor acu le linn phróiséas”.216 From this we can gather that, as with the previous example, a gap of 400 years is likely to be too large for a detailed linguistic analysis to be fruitful. Despite this, he states in the same article that “le litríocht an 11ú nó an 12ú haois tá seans níos fearr ann go néireoidh leis an gcur chuige 213 Stifter, David, “Metrical systems of Celtic traditions” in: Grammarians, Skalds and Rune Carvers I, North- western European Language Evolution Robert Nedoma (ed.), Michael Schulte (ed.) (University Press of Southern Denmark, 2016) pp. 38-94 (63) 214 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 36 215 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 36 216 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Forbairt na stíle i litríocht phrós na Gaeilge moiche” in Léachtaí Cholm Cille 26 (Maigh Nuad: An Sagart 1996) pp. 7-49 (10) Translation: It is difficult to trace the style in more detail than this as all the literature is in late manuscripts and the wording and the original texts are unlikely preserved without significant change to many of them during the process [of copying]. 45 seo, mar tá na téacsanna i lámhscríbhinní an 12ú haois, LU ó 1106 agus LL ó 1200… [mar] táimid in ann a shamhlú réasúnta maith cé na hathruithe a d’fhéadfadh a bheith déanta ina dtraidisiún téacsúil ó thosaigh sé 50 nó 100 bliain níos luaithe”.217 This tells us that not only will texts from the Late Middle Irish period likely be better suited to detailed linguistic analysis but also that a time gap of 100 years is acceptable between archetype and witness. Furthermore, in his article ‘Cath Ruis na Ríg and twelfth-century literary and oral tradition’ Mac Gearailt remarks on the language and orthography of three versions of CRR (Cath Ruis na Ríg) from the 1700s.218 This evidences that a time lapse of up to 200 years also appears to not be a large issue for linguistic work of this nature. As has been demonstrated in chapter 2, the Agallamh has a time gap of roughly 150-200 years between archetype and earliest witness and may have only one generation of recension between archetype and witness. It also linguistically belongs to the Late Middle Irish period, which would not allow for the dramatic reworking of the prose we would expect to see in texts which have a greater time lapse. In addition to the work of Mac Gearailt demonstrating that a time gap of 200 years is acceptable for our methodology to be successful, there are a number of details pertaining particularly to the Agallamh itself which also make the concept of a time gap a minor issue. It should be noted that Finn and the man in the tree was composed in the Old Irish period and exists in recension in the Early Modern Irish period, meaning it has spanned the entirety of Middle Irish and all of the grammatical and phonetic changes which occurred in the course of the 900s to 1200s.219 Essentially, the lifespan of the tale skips over an entire linguistic era. The Agallamh does not and, although it does straddle a changeover period in the language, the changes are not nearly as great, as by the 1200s “the most important innovations which distinguish Modern Irish from Old Irish had already entered the language”.220 In addition to this, Murphy has mentioned that “a good 15th century scribe can be trusted to give a basically sound text of an eleventh century poem” which outlines exactly the situation with regards to the Agallamh. This implies that a fifteenth century scribe would be comfortable understanding and writing material from 200 years prior, supporting the notion that linguistic change due to modernization is unlikely to be a problematic factor between the thirteenth and 217 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Forbairt na stíle”, 11 Translation: with 11th or 12th century literature there is a greater chance that this approach will succeed, as the texts are in 12th century manuscripts, LU from 1106 and LL from 1200… we are able to imagine relatively well though the changes that may have been made in their textual tradition since it began 50 or 100 years earlier 218 Mag Gearailt, 1991, “Cath Ruis na Ríg”, 141 219 See section 3.2 for a general overview of these changes 220 Mac Eoin, 1989, “Orality and literacy”, 109 46 fifteenth centuries. 221 Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 3, the Agallamh was written during a period in which Classical Modern Irish norms were emerging and were thus not codified. This means that a manuscript copied from this period would likely not contain as many problems pertaining to linguistic updating as a manuscript from the 1600s or later. We have also seen in sources that Nuner’s linguistic dating of the Agallamh is highly accurate, as it can be supported by different internal dating methods. A well-established linguistic date such as this implies that the text was copied with most of the original orthography and accidence intact. On the topic of copying versus updating, it has been noted by Mac Gearailt that Thurneysen dated TBCII (Táin Bó Cuailgne II) to the twelfth century due to the existence of miβformen but that Mac Gearailt considers the text to be even earlier.222 This appears to evidence that non-standard orthography in and of itself implies copying from an earlier text. As one may ascertain with the Agallamh, there exists a noticeable irregularity with respect to orthography which may also denote direct copying rather than updating. Along these lines one may observe, in the two episodes which have been transcribed and analysed in this thesis, that the numeral system in both cases corresponds consistently with Old Irish rather than Modern Irish norms. One may suppose that a scribe who was actively updating the work would also have modernized the numbers. The fact that this appears not to be the case either in the prose or the poetry implies that such and updating has not occurred. Furthermore, we should recall that the language of this time period was very much in flux.223 If the language were on the cusp of such historical changes as described in this thesis, one would expect to see a manuscript from the 1400s to consistently exhibit significantly modern features had it not been copied more or less exactly from the original source. Due to the reasons discussed in this section pertaining to the time period in particular and the Agallamh itself, we can see that the issue of a time gap which Murray highlights is of little relevance to the proposed methodology. Archaizing tendency Murray notes the following with regards to the Fenian corpus. The issue of archaization occurring in transmission of Fenian works “affects only a small number of texts” and states further that “generally the dominant influence goes in the other direction”, that is, tending towards modernization of the language rather than archaizing.224 Due to this, worries of pseudo- archaization can largely be ignored and it should be noted that, in the same way that there is 221 Murphy, 1961, Early Irish Lyrics, xix 222 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 26 223 On this topic see chapter 3 of this thesis 224 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 37 47 likely to be little effect on the transmission of the language over a roughly 200 year time period, nor is there likely to be a great impact from archaization of the text. We can therefore consider this problem to be negligible. 5.2 Theory (in Support of the Methodology) Now that a number of objections to a linguistic analysis have been addressed, I shall attempt to provide support for the application and relevance of such a study by observing the work of previous scholars to give a foundation for the assumptions upon which it is built. Within neo-Latin texts in the Irish corpus, Keith Sidwell has discussed poetry, stating that the “linguistic amalgam… [as a result of analysis] is an important index [which] does help locate in large measure the linguistic material available to the writer”.225 This means that the language of poetry, at least in the realm of Latinity, can very well be noticeably different from prose and thus, a linguistic study with attempts to determine earlier sources is viable. Latin, however, is not Gaelic and it is therefore relevant to inspect further what scholars have said pertaining to the Irish language. The first issue to discuss is the feasibility of a linguistic analysis. Úaitéar Mac Gearailt, in his article discussing the Middle Irish recension of the Táin has noted regarding the language that “the dominant orthography in TBC-LL… points to a date of composition in the 11th century, that is perterites of compound verbs with internal ro- , t-preterites, reduplicated preterites, old preterite passives, s-subjunctives and -futures, old compound verbs”.226 Throughout this article he makes repeated mention of the LL-Táin having a distinctive orthography when compared to surrounding writings within the manuscript and that the “inconsistent use of older features… and recourse to otherwise unattested forms… show that the author’s productive knowledge of literary forms which were widely used in 11th century texts was limited”.227 These he believes to be reflecting the distinctive style of a particular twelfth-century school of scribe.228 We can assume from this that inconsistent usage and distinctive orthographical style points towards separate authorship. One example of this from Mac Gearailt is the LL scribe’s use of the very rare twelfth-century form bíth which occurs in a poem but is not found in any other recensions of the text.229 This is seen as evidence that the author of CRR-LL composed the poem himself. One may note therefore that distinctive forms (in fact in this case a single distinctive form) 225 Sidwell, 2015, “Editing,” 404 226 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 29 227 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 20 228 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 32-33 229 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 20 48 which are shared across media are enough to make relatively conclusive judgements on the originality of a poem. On the LL, Mac Gearailt also states that “sections… may be distinguished from one another on the basis of adherence to traditional orthography or deviation from it in favour of a later, pronunciation-based system”.230 One may note a similar trend in the orthography used in the Agallamh which may be explained in the same manner. Namely, it is likely that the relative inconsistency with orthographical forms may be due to the author switching between traditional spelling and his own speech habits. This would account for the irregularity of orthographical marking throughout the text. The idea then of scribal interference is of little import if one were to assume that the same author wrote both media. Even with interference evident, one would expect to see the same general trend in both prose and poetry. There is no reason for a later scribe to copy one medium and update the other, meaning that orthographical differences will still point to a different origin. In a similar vein, we see that in the text TT (Togail Troi) “the sudden change from Hechtoir to Hectoir mac Primalaind Priaim… strengthens the suspicion that this is a separate composition”.231 Here we have a further example of Mac Gearailt using individual orthographical features to conclude the fact of original or separate composition. One may also note his statement on the LL author’s use of pronouns that “there is no such uncertainty or inconsistency in his usage of the other kind of pronoun at his disposal, the independent pronoun”.232 This leads him to conclude that the author of the text was more comfortable with the independent pronoun than with infixes. Here we have three examples demonstrating how scribal tendency can be used in the way described by the methodology in this thesis. Consistency of scribal preference for variant spellings is therefore a relevant and important criterium which must be considered. Furthermore, Mac Gearailt has pointed out that there are areas with a peculiar orthography in LL. This constitutes “a distinctive writing style not found elsewhere in the LL Táin”.233 We may take from this that, in some way, scribal style is able to be defined and compared in order to discuss the originality of composition. Once more, as regards this particular scribe, Mac Gearailt has stated that “the form [of a specific word] one can expect from a twelfth-century scribe… occurs earlier in the first half of the text in virtually the same phrase… there is then a 230 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 179 231 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Change and innovation in eleventh-century prose narrative in Irish” in Re(Oralisierung) Hildegard L.C. (ed.) (Tübingen: Narr, 1996) pp. 443-496 (473) 232 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 26 233 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 168 49 considerable contrast in orthography and language”.234 This statement highlights the importance of being able to compare near identical phrases between media and also the concept that repeated differences in spelling and form between the same words in different sections of a text are significant in an analysis. It would appear that the usage of non-standard orthography “suggests… [it] is very much [the scribe’s] own” rather than a result of copying over time.235 One can therefore posit that, as a general rule, orthography reflecting a specific style will likely be the work of the original author, whereas abnormal forms and spellings are not the result of archaizing or copying, and thus can be described as being from another source. As regards the details, even small differences such as ro being spelt do appear to have significance.236 In addition to this, the consistent use of rarely-used verb forms appears also to be reasonable evidence of separate composition.237 It has been pointed out already in the current thesis that we are dealing with different styles of media, the main idea remains that a considerable contrast between excerpts implies separate authorship.238 These factors, if proven to be significant in the Agallamh, are enough to make a statement on the originality of the composition. Other factors merely strengthen this conclusion. Equally as important to a discussion on separate composition as orthography are factors such as style and diction.239 Such differences in separate works within the same manuscript make them “almost certainly not the work of one author”.240 It is therefore necessary to take these factors into account, especially as the data pool which we are comparing with the prose is not particularly large. We can see that stylistic and linguistic affinity will be a strong indicator of interrelatedness.241 On this subject, Mac Gearailt has discussed in his article on change an innovation in Middle Irish a particular scribe’s propensity to use alliteration and triadic formulas which “may ultimately reflect the aesthetic of oral storytelling”.242 One may suggest, however, that such alliterative features, if not a regular fixture of the prose style, may well imply transformative work. On this particular scribe’s style Mac Gearailt has observed that “cruthaíter 234 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 172 235 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 204 236 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 171 237 Mac Gearailt, 2010, “On the date of the Middle Irish Táin”, 20 238 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 172 239 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 167 240 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 168 241 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 205 242 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Change and innovation”, 448 50 an rithim seo le habairtí fada, ina bhfuil dhá fhrása nó níos mó den struchtúr céanna ina bhfuil eilimintí aiceanta a chomhfhreagraíonn dá chéile”.243These he calls “slabhraí aiceanta”.244 This chapter has discussed much work done by Uáitéar Mac Gearailt which focuses largely on the 1100s. Due to the fact that literacy standards were breaking down across the 1100s and 1200s, it follows that much of what has been said about texts from the twelfth century will also apply to the thirteenth. In support of the relevance of Mac Gearailt’s work, it should be mentioned that he refers in his article ‘Forbairt na stíle’ to a unique name appearing both in LL and the Agallamh.245Where this is not discussed further, it implies that Mac Gearailt saw the Agallamh to be somewhat contemporary with LL, meaning that many of his observations regarding the LL have some level of applicability to the Agallamh. It can thus be seen that orthography is an important consideration when drawing conclusions as to the originality of different sections of a given text. Mac Gearailt has also demonstrated that style, narrative method and diction are important when attempting to highlight differences within a tale.246 There exist, for example, extracts of TTr2 which Mac Gearailt notes have been fitted into the tale without any attempt to put them into the broader context of the surrounding text.247As we have seen from the work of Parsons, this is likely not to be the case in the Agallamh, however it is something one must be aware of when looking at the poems. If there exist elements within the prose itself which do not stylistically match their surroundings or the context, they may be the result of borrowings from the poems themselves. 5.3 Prosimetric Texts As prosimetrum within the Irish corpus has already been discussed at length, I shall simply add a number of points which appear relevant when discussing the methodology. “In prosimetric texts, there is often a discrepancy in date between the prose and the poetry, with the poetry commonly being older”.248This appears to be very much the accepted opinion of scholars, as has been outlined by Mac Cana and Carney, amongst others, and this statement by Murray (2014) should suffice to evidence that this consensus has not wavered into the present day. The overall lens with which the prosimetrum will be viewed is therefore that it is not necessarily an 243 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Forbairt na stíle”, 25 Translation: this rhythm is formed by long sentences, in which there are two phrases or more of the same structure with accented elements which correspond to each other 244 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Forbairt na stíle”, 27 Translation: accented chains 245 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Forbairt na stíle”, 138 246 Mac Gearailt, 1991-92, “Language in the Book of Leinster”, 167-168 247 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Forbairt na stíle”, 39 248 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 299 51 original unit and thus eligible for this methodology to bear fruit when discussing the nature of the texts. In addition, Murray’s statement underlines a point that we may see recurring within a discussion on academic sources, namely, that overall, it does not appear that scholars today are in disagreement with the majority of the scholarship of the twentieth century as a whole. In a similar vein to Murray’s comments, Mac Cana has stated that it is clear “that prose and verse were handled quite differently by those scribes and redactors who did the actual writing”.249This can be taken to mean that the verse texts within prosimetric pieces had to be recorded more or less intact, whereas the prose did not, possibly allowing for us to see more dialectal forms within the language of the prose. The image we get of prosimetrum in this case is that one would expect to see prose of an often-modernized linguistic substrate, representing the speech of the individual scribe, interspersed with poems that have a recognisably more old-fashioned ‘feel’ in terms of language. Given the previously made points, it can be argued that such linguistic evidence would also be visible within the corpus of Irish Gaelic poetry. In support of the notion that linguistic evidence would likely be clearly visible within the Agallamh, Robert Nuner has stated, in his analysis of verbs within the text that “no attempt will be made to collect verbal forms from the poetry… because the verse is frequently too obscure to give exact indications of the state of the verb [and] it may very well not be contemporary with the text itself”.250 It is worth mentioning that Geraldine Parsons has cited Nuner as a voice stating that the poetry was not composed for the text, which speaks for the current relevance of his work.251 This can be seen to clearly evidence the attitude towards the verse under discussion here that it was of a markedly different style to the language of the prose and indeed different enough to disqualify it from the analysis of the verbal system of the overall work. This appears to corroborate Sidwell’s earlier point. It is hoped that this section has given sufficient evidence for the view that the observable disjunct between prose and poetry in the Agallamh is due to the materials having different literary origins, supporting the analysis that attempts to investigate the hypothesis proposed in this thesis. These chapters have aimed to demonstrate through observation of similar work which appears to be approximately contemporary with the Agallamh, the importance of observing style, orthography, diction, vocabulary and accidence when discussing possible separate origins for 249 Mac Cana, 1989, “Combination of prose and verse”, 128 250 Nuner, Robert D. “The verbal system of the Agallamh na senórach” in Zeitschrift für Celstische Philologie, Julius Pokorny (ed.), Band 27, (Tübingen 1958-59) pp. 230-310 (236) 251 Parsons, 2004, “Prosimetrum”, 87 52 different excerpts within a broader text. The sections that follow will construct the theoretical framework that will inform how such distinguishing features are to be uncovered within the Agallamh. 5.4 Discussing the Validity of Linguistics as a Tool to Investigate Prosimetrum. Murray has previously posed a number of questions which are pertinent to the study of composite texts such as the Agallamh. Amongst these, we have the following. Does it function as an exemplary text? How much has earlier literature been a progenitor? How much does it draw on earlier, non-written traditions?252 He makes the point towards the end of his article that “some of these questions may be answered by a detailed study and analysis” which, once more, supports the proposed methodology given in chapter 4.253Although Murray does not discuss the details of linguistic analysis which would be appropriate here, he certainly opens up the possibility that, in order to have a discussion on the details of prosimetrical texts such as the one in focus here, linguistics play an important role, as he states that “it is only by investigation of the disparate elements of the transmission of the tradition that we can ultimately understand the tradition itself”.254As the latter is the primary aim of the thesis, it can be seen that the proposed methodology will prove instrumental when exploring the hypothesis. 5.5 Other Methodologies Used in Observing Prosimetrum. In order to further examine the relationships between prose and poetry, we move to a discussion relating to methodologies which have been used by certain scholars mentioned in this thesis. I shall briefly review their approaches here. Pádraig Ó Riain’s critical edition of Cath Almaine is based on a number of manuscripts, namely: the Yellow Book of Lecan, manuscript R.I.A.D iv 2 87R; the Book of Fermoy and ‘A Brussels MS’.255 His comments on the prosimetrum relate to this editorial work, meaning that he is using the differences between the manuscripts to discuss the poetry with relation to the manuscript tradition. In such a case, conclusions have been reached through comparisons between divergent readings. This approach, although very much within the realms of classical philology, could therefore be classed as non-linguistic. Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, in a similar manner to Ó Riain, has used differences between recensions and variant readings in order to make her claims about the prosimetrum and thus, it is through non-linguistic methods that a discussion on the originality of the prose has been investigated. James Carney 252 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 305 253 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 306 254 Murray, 2014, “Reworking”, 306 255 Ó Riain, 1978, “Cath Almaine”, xxi/xxii 53 has, as we have seen, relied largely on contextual evidence to make his claims about the poems under discussion in his article, such as the argument that the presence of Christian symbolism is out of place in the prose context, though he does make use of linguistic changes to some extent. In a similar way, the work of Ó Cathasaigh in his chapter ‘The oldest story of the Laigin’ makes exclusive use of context to make his claims regarding the verse in the tale ‘Orgain Denna Ríg’.256 It can be thus said that, although similar linguistic work has been carried out on contemporary prosimetric texts, such as LL and Cath Ruis na Ríg, such an approach has not been taken to the Agallamh. Much of the reason for this is the lack of witness material (two manuscripts appear to contain the oldest version of the Agallamh) which makes more traditional approaches to the work difficult. 5.6 Issues with Non-linguistic Approaches to the Material We are presented with a few problems when attempting to apply any of these evidenced methodologies to the Agallamh. Firstly, if one were to attempt to use interrelatedness between recensions, adopting variant readings in order to discuss the prosimetrum, we only have two recensions of the earliest version, both incomplete. Due to this, many episodes are included in one or the other manuscript and this does not allow for divergent readings, as there exists only one reading of much of the earliest text. Due to this, adopting a methodology based on manuscript variations will not prove useful. In instances where there is overlap in the manuscripts, selecting which variant reading represents the text becomes a choice between one of two, and there is, further, no third party to aid in clarifying the possible original when it comes to the poetry. If Parsons’ statement about the smaller poems of the Agallamh is correct, that one cannot establish the originality of most of the smaller poems through context, work modelled solely on that of Carney or Ó Cathasaigh would not be effective in clarifying such a discussion. We are left, then, with a single possible way to move forwards in discussing the relationship of prose and poetry within the Agallamh, namely, linguistic analysis. In support of such a methodology, Kevin Murray has made the statement that “linguistic dating remains by far the most important tool in our armoury in attempting to grapple with the thorny issue of dating”.257 While Murray is referring to dating and not to a discussion on prosimetrum when he states this, many elements and tools used in the linguistic dating of texts are relevant to a discussion on prosimetrum, especially in a case such as this, where it remains the only viable 256 Ó Cathasaigh, 2002, “The oldest story of the Laigin”, 11 257 Murray, 2012, “Interpreting”, 47 54 tool for such an investigation. Due to this, his statement may be taken to hold true for an analysis of prosimetrum and can also be used to support the efficacy of such an approach. 5.7.1 Existence of Individual Writing Styles in Mediaeval Ireland. It may be worth reiterating a statement which was made earlier in this thesis, namely that “Ó Cianáin’s orthography conforms consistently to middle Irish pronunciation... occasional non- standard spellings reflecting speech after the twelfth and thirteenth century are found”, whilst other writers “avoided archaisms and everything that might hinder comprehension”.258This must mean that there was a level of variation in terms of individual style from writer to writer. Given that that is the case, a detailed observation of this language would allow for general trends to be observed. Mac Gearailt’s observation that individuals are traceable due to their unique writing styles reinforces this. It is therefore pertinent to demonstrate the setting up of a common linguistic style within a chosen body of work. 5.7.2 Observing Language Trends in a Single Text In his article concerning infixed pronouns in Middle Irish, Strachan states that “It must be ever borne in mind that middle Irish is… an artificial literary language” and as such norms can be projected from the evidenced texts which are a main focus of this paper. 259I shall remind the reader here that, although late, the Agallamh belongs to the Middle Irish period, adding further relevance to Strachan’s work. Strachan sets about outlining numerous forms found in a large number of Middle Irish texts concerning the methods writers in the period used for representing infixed pronouns and then draws general conclusions regarding the language such as “in middle Irish -s- becomes the regular form” of the infixed pronoun.260Strachan forms a number of such conclusions based on the regularity of form and statistics, often using arithmetic and calculated percentages to support his claims. It is, however, relevant to note that there existed many divergent examples within his research pool. These divergences prompt Strachan to make statements such as “I have noted the following examples… but -n- is the most prevalent form, [in the text under discussion] I have noted twenty-nine occurrences’’.261In this way we see how, using arithmetic and percentages of occurrences, a predominant linguistic style may be outlined regardless of the existence of other forms. Similar observations pertaining to the percentages of 258 Mac Gearailt, 2012, “Archaisms in Middle Irish”, 98 259 Strachan, John, “The infixed pronoun in Middle Irish” in Ériu vol. 1, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1904) pp. 153-179 (153) 260 Strachan, 1904, “Infixed pronoun”, 157 261 Strachan, 1904, “Infixed pronoun”, 161 55 observable forms, as we have seen from chapter 4, will be a large part of this proposed analysis of the Agallamh. Strachan’s work contains another discussion that can be used for the purposes of theory concerning the methodology proposed which pertains to orthography. He states that “it appears from the normal middle Irish orthography that the pronoun was felt to be not -an- but -n”. 262 Essentially this statement can be interpreted to mean that, although grammatically speaking, the formal spelling of the pronoun should have been 5.7.3 An Individual Scribal Hand. When discussing the generalisation of a scribal hand and the linguistic tendencies of individual authors, the work of E.C. Quiggin can be observed. In his 1910 article discussing forms of the s-preterite in Middle Irish, he states that “forms will be cited for purposes of comparison from the annals of Ulster” amongst others.263This means that we have a study which is generalizing norms, most likely through use of the same tools as Strachan, and further noting the observed frequencies and trends within different texts. These generalisations are subsequently compared to one another in order to discuss the common usage of s-preterite forms in Middle Irish. This approach to linguistic analysis exemplifies the idea that, through analysis of statistical occurrence, comparison between different writings is possible. If this is the case, it can be stated that, within the field of Celtic studies, there exists a well-established background in setting up generalized scribal hands and their subsequent comparison. In this vein, Quiggin states of the works included in his study that “different texts vary very considerably in the employment of 262 Strachan, 1904, “Infixed pronoun”, 161 263 Quiggin, Edmund C., “The s-preterite in Middle Irish” in Ériu 4, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1904) pp. 191-207 (192) 56 the form” of verbs under discussion.264 Such variance reiterates that there existed no standard for prose writing during the Middle Irish period and thus individual scribal hands and styles exist and can be generalized on linguistic grounds, something which we have seen has been supported by a number of other Celtic scholars separately. This evidences the feasibility of forming a comparison between two bodies of statistical linguistic analysis in order to show trends. It has been noted, when discussing Strachan, that although observable norms can be generalized, variants do occur. Quiggin addresses this. He dismisses forms which occur with rarity as scribal errors and can be mitigated by comparison with another source. 265 When analysing texts in this manner, one should bear in mind that alternative forms which occur rarely can be discredited as being insignificant to the general style of an author and that only repeated usage evidences a trend. One must note here that the current discussion is being laid out with the express aim of arguing that, despite problems existing with the ‘linguistic method’, such analysis has a clear precedent within Celtic scholarship and thus is a feasible method of investigation. These specific works have been chosen to exemplify these concepts due in part to the fact that they pertain to the Middle Irish period which is the period in primary focus when analysing the Agallamh. Johan Corthals also discusses the use of such strategies in the forming of critical editions of Táin Bó Regamna and Táin Bó Fliadais. He states in his section “Die Sprache des Archetypus” that the “Ziel dieses Kapitels ist, die Sprache des Archetypus so zu charakterisieren”.266 In order to do this, Corthals lists a number of points which pertain to linguistics, the results of which I shall mention here. In his conclusion, after listing relevant data, he states: “Wenn wir diese Ergebnisse mit der altirischen Norm vergleichen, dann stellen wir fest, dass ein (obwohl nicht sicheres) Beispiel eines erhalten Neutrums … in unsure Text mit übereinstimmen”.267Here we have an example, which has been rendered down and shortened for the purpose of this thesis, of a general hand being defined and compared with already established norms in order to place a work within a certain time period. This is, in effect, an example of the practical use of a generalized hand in order to draw linguistic conclusions. Corthals also makes a statement over 264 Quiggin, 1904, “The s-preterite in Middle Irish”, 194 265 Quiggin, 1904, “The s-preterite in Middle Irish”, 196 266 Corthals, Johan, “‘Táin Bó Regamna’ und ‘Táin Bó Flidais’ Zwei altirische Erzählungen mit Einleitung, Text, deutscher Übersetzung und sprachlichem Kommentar” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Mürde des Doktors der Philosophie der Universität Hamburg (Hamburg: aud Brüssel, 1979) 39 Translation: the goal of this chapter is to characterize the language of the archetype’ 267 Corthals, 1979, “Táin”, 46 Translation: if we liken these results to the Old Irish norm we find that we can confirm an (although uncertain) example of a preserved neuter… matched in our texts 57 the way in which a general hand is to be discerned, stating that ‘Das beste Mittel, um sich ein Bild über die sprachliche Stellung eines alt- oder mittelirischen Textes zu machen, ist eine Analyse des Verbalsystems. Wichtig dabei ist nicht so sehr das vereinzelte Auftreten älterer oder jüngerer Formen, sondern die Konsequenz, mit welcher an einem bestimmten System festgehalten wird’.268 From observing this work by Corthals, we can see that the idea of building up a basic form of a text or scribal hand is supported and that, particularly, it should be based on the verbal system consistently used by a writer. In addition to this, we have a brief case study of how one can use characteristic language to make editorial decisions. In another article discussing the Áiliu poems in Bretha Named Dédenach, a tract concerning the privileges and expectations of the filid, Corthals demonstrates the way in which orthographical features may be described in order to determine a writer’s “tendency to orthographic mannerism” that is, a writer’s individual style of orthographic representation of the language he is using.269 This is done through cataloguing spelling forms extant in the text and effectively taking the form which makes up the majority of cases; Corthals calls these consistent orthographic features.270 This article constitutes another example of how statistics and the occurrence of grammatical and orthographical forms can be used to generalize a writer’s hand. In addition to this, Corthals illustrates how such work should be carried out in relation to the analysis of a scribe’s orthography. These highlighted examples set a clear precedent for the generalizing of a scribal hand at different levels, from linguistic generalization over a large corpus through to the generalizing of an individual scribal orthography. It has also been shown that generalized hands can be used in comparison with one another in order to reach relevant conclusions as to how the language was used. It must however be noted that, in these examples, the statistical pool has been large and therefore, an example of a generalization taken in comparison to statistically smaller works is required. 5.7.4 Comparing Works of Dissimilar Size. David Stifter has relatively recently published an article in which he outlines the similarities he has found between a selected number of poems. Based on metrical and stylistic features, he states that “the striking similarity [between the poems in question] suggests that an established 268 Corthals, 1978, “Táin”, 139 Translation: the best means to get an idea of the linguistic position of an Old or Middle Irish text is through analysis of the verbal system. What is important is not so much the isolated occurrence of older or younger forms, rather the consequence with which a certain system is adhered to 269 Corthals, Johan, “The Áiliu poems in Bretha Nemed Dédenach” in Éigse 37, (National University of Ireland, 2010) pp. 59-91 (64) 270 Corthals, 2010, “Áiliu poems”, 65 58 poetic formula underlies them”.271His discussion focuses around the occurrence of alliterative motifs such as fairrge findfhind, fairrgi fonngil, fairggae findfholt found in different poems ranging over a long period of time, concluding that such features constitute a poetic formula.272This discussion is of note for two primary reasons in relation to a the Agallamh. Firstly, we have an example of metrical analysis using similar principles to those proposed in this methodology being undertaken in recent times regarding a discussion of smaller poems (Stifter discusses two poems each consisting of a single stanza). This evidences that, when analysing episodes, one may observe stylistic features in order to discuss relationships between what may appear to be completely unrelated poems. Secondly, his work on this subject has shown that one can categorize stanzas which exhibit similar metrical and stylistic features as individual pieces belonging in groups which may consist either of individual stanzas or of larger poems interspersed throughout a text. Such groupings can indicate whether or not small poems in different contexts are related to one another due to their variance in style or lack thereof. A final point that Stifter’s work exemplifies is the idea that analysis pools of differing size may still be compared to one another and relevant conclusions be drawn. In an article from 2018, Stifter makes a thorough analysis of alliteration, described above, within the poems of Blathmac mac Con Brettan and concludes that “there are 75 examples of alliterating compounds”.273He uses these examples to compare with single stanza poems exhibiting a similar style of alliteration. Such an analysis highlights the usage of linguistic data to make claims of interrelatedness between pieces of differing size, based on the repeated trends observed in the larger data pool. This means, for example, that an analysis of prose forms compared with verbs of smaller poems can be made in order to discuss the relationship between the two media. Additionally, a larger text may be generalized, as discussed earlier in this thesis, to find evidence of a particular trend and such trends, once observed, may be compared to smaller materials in order to discuss interrelatedness. From observing and discussing scholarship from within the realm of Irish studies, in addition to work done in related fields, it can be seen that linguistic work discussing generalised hands and also the interrelationship between different linguistic and stylistic elements has been utilized within the field for over a hundred years. Quiggin published linguistic analysis in 1910 and other articles cited in the field are as recent as the last decade. These scholars can therefore 271 Stifter, David, “An early Irish poetic formula” in Fír Fesso, A Festchrift for Neil McLeod, Sydney Series in Celtic Studies 17, Ahlqvist et al. (ed.s) (Sydney: University of Sydney, 2018) pp. 223-233 (224) 272 Stifter, 2018, “Poetic formula”, 228 273 Stifter, 2018, “Poetic formula”, 288 59 also be used to point to the validity of the ‘linguistic method for analysis’ in the observation of prosimetrum. The precedent for such an approach to the witnesses which supports the methodology proposed in this thesis has therefore been set. Such work hopefully exemplifies, firstly, the setting up of statistical trends which can be generalized as the hand of an individual scribe and can be established through linguistic analysis. Secondly, that such trends can be used to compare different bodies of statistical analysis. And finally, how a generalized hand is to be made, with the aid of a thorough verbal analysis. We have also seen how one would build up an orthographical representation based on recurring spellings within a text. Stifter’s 2018 article exemplifies two final points. It shows that such bodies of statistical analysis, sets of observed data, do not need to be of similar size for relevant conclusions on interrelatedness to be drawn, and that merely one statistically significant body of analysis is required. Secondly, he shows that one may, in addition to the linguistic analysis highlighted in this section, use metrical and stylistic features in order to support such work. Analysis 1 6.1 Scéal Artúir It is relevant to discuss the Book of Lismore and the tale chosen for the first analysis. This is a manuscript from the 1400s and is the work of three different scribes. Ó Cuív states on these that “Ó Callanáin’s hand wrote the opening of ‘Acallam na Senórach’ which was continued by another scribe”.274 Scéal Artúir occurs early in the Agallamh, making up the third ‘frame tale’ of the text. The reason for the selection of this story is that it occurs in all central versions of the Agallamh Nua implying that the story was seen as central to the Agallamh over the course of its development and therefore merits close examination. 275 Dooley also notes that “while the tale itself recounts the British origin of the horse breed used by the Fíana… the point of the tale seems to be a way of introducing the final poem that gives the name of the warriors’ mounts. The poem, however, has no direct link to the tale”.276 On the grounds that the poem mentioned by Dooley appears unconnected to the prose text, I have chosen to omit it from my analysis. In addition to this poem, there exist five poems which are of interest. Joseph Nagy comments on the interrelations between Arthur and Finn which may have some relevance to the background of this tale. Firstly, the character Mongán Mac Fíachnae, Nagy 274 Ó Cuív, Brian, “Observations on the Book of Lismore” in; Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature 83c, (1983) pp. 269-290 (281) 275 Ní Mhurchú, “An tAgallamh Nua”, 187 276 Dooley, Ann, “Arthur of the Irish: a viable concept?”, in Arthurian Literature 21 (2004) pp. 9-28 (22) 60 points out, was said to have been slain by Artúir son of Biocóir of Britain. In addition, the conception of Mongán has similarities to the conception of Arthur and Mongán is, in some stories, said to be reincarnated as the hero Finn Mac Cumall.277 This implies that there is an interrelationship between Mongán, Arthur and Finn, a connection strengthened by the fact that, in this tale, as Nagy has noticed, Arthur is hunting at Sliabh Lodáin meic Lír, further tying it back to Mongán, as the son of Manannán Mac Lir. It is of relevance that the native Irish production of Arthurian tales “seems to have started in Ireland in the fifteenth century”.278Nagy, however, suggests that, due to the fact that Welsh allies brought by the Anglo-Normans in 1169 in turn brought parallel stories which were used by the Irish scholars of that time in their own writings suggesting that there may have existed some form of literary tradition centring around the British Arthur and the Irish Finn. Nagy’s observations are supported by Ann Dooley who states that “the choice of Arthur in the tale may have something to do with the interrelationship between the two characters giving rise to a possible (although small) literary tradition”.279If this is the case, it would be realistic to assume that there existed a body of work revolving around Arthur of Briton and a possible rivalry with Finn Mac Cumall. Dooley has also noted that a lot of the work on this tale appears to be transformative.280 Given these scholarly statements concerning the tale of Artúir son of Ben of the Britons, we can see that we have a tale about Finn possibly evidencing a sub-genre within the Fenian tradition which was seemingly central to the overall tale. Hence, it is possible that the author of the prose may indeed not have been the author of the poems in the episode. Scéal Artúir has thus been chosen as the first episode for analysis, as it is well suited for the type of in-depth linguistic and contextual scrutiny proposed in this thesis. 6.2 Poem 1 airim craeibi281ar conuibh Finn cona chuanart - blaith bhithbhinn - .ccc. [trí cét] gadhar - comhull nglé - ocus .cc.[dá cét] gaidrine282 277 Nagy, Joseph F., “Arthur and the Irish” in: A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Helen Fulton (ed.), (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture 58, Malder, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.) pp. 117-127 (118) 278 Nagy, 2009, “Arthur and the Irish”, 119 279 Dooley, 2004, “Arthur of the Irish”, 22 280 See Dooley, Ann, “Arthur in Ireland: the earliest citation in native Irish literature” in Arthurian literature 12 (1993) pp. 165-172 for her detailed discussion on this topic 281 Vowels which are not pronounced due to elision are written in bold 282 See appendix 2 lines 15-18 61 Translation: Reckoning as [leaves] of a branch, for the hounds of Finn/with his pack - ever- harmonious flowers-/300 hunting dogs (beagles) -a pleasing assembly-/ and 200 young hunting dogs (beagles). Syllable count and cadence: 71727173 rhyme: Finn/bhithbhinn (rinn-ardrinn) nglé/gaidrine rann (metre): deibide (aa bb rhyme) alliteration: craibi/conuibh cona/chuanart blaith/ bhitbhin (also contains internal alliteration) internal rhyme: cét may be seen as forming internal rhyme with itself between lines 3 and 4 Rinn: 1/2 = 50% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 3/4 = 75% Internal c d rhyme: 1/1 Total : 7/9 = 77% Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 airim – compare with O.Ir. Áirem vn. of ad rími = estimating/reckoning as craeibi283– compare with O.Ir. Cráeb (ā-f.) gen.sg. Also, with Mod.Ir. craoibh. = of a branch ar – no lenition is marked which implies the Mid.Ir. variant of prep. for, meaning over, upon or for = for conuibh – dat.pl. of cú (n-m.) = hounds Finn – personal noun as a genitive of possession = of Finn We see that the form airim is attested once in the prose of the text, ar n-airimh (25)284 and this has the 283 ā stems do not have an in the gen.sg. The presence of a gen. here may be due to analogy with iā- stems 284 All examples are given with a reference to their line number in the analysis found in appendix 3 285 The paradigm for this pronominal in the 3.pl.acc. is commonly given as forru which at this time would have been pronounced /forǝ/ 62 uncommon at this time as a representation of oblique cases in the plural. 286We see that the dative plural was favoured as a prepositional form for pronominals at this time and this form can therefore be considered distinctive and furthermore to represent a notably different system to the preposition usage demonstrated in this line. In support of the notion that the preposition usage demonstrated here in the poem is unique, we have three examples of the same written form representing ar (for/on account of); arar cinn (7), ar duine (37), ar in muigh (53). We also see the preposition íar being written Line 2 cona – combination of prep. co + a (poss. pron. 3.sg.m.) = with his chuanart – compare with O.Ir cúanairt/conairt (ā-f.) = pack of hounds blaith – compare with O.Ir. bláth (o-m.) nom. pl./ gen. sg. (triggers lenition) = flowers bhithbhinn – compound adj. from bith + binn, O.Ir bith + bind, = ever harmonious The 3sg. m. possessive pronoun a, found in the word cona, can be seen to be attested eight times in the prose and in all but one instance it is not followed by lenition. The scribe marks lenition of 286 See page 12 of this thesis for a discussion on case and pronominals in Middle Irish, it should be noted, however, that the preposition fo kept its accusative form longer than other pronominals meaning this is a realistic Middle Irish form 287 Line 25 of the transcription which I translate as: after having counted the hounds, they found that many of them were missing 63 with which the prose scribe was not familiar, which may explain the slight discrepancies we see in terms of orthography and, to an extent syntax, in this line. Line 3 .ccc. (trí cét) = 300 gadhar – no nasalization shown, compare with O.Ir. gagar (o-m.) in the gen. pl. =hunting dogs/beagles comhull – compare with O.Ir. comal, v.n. of con lá normally meaning a bond or union although it is commonly given in chevilles with a meaning of ‘assembly’= assembly288 nglé – adj. compare with O.Ir. glé with nasalization = bright/pleasing In the third line of the poem we see the numerals, .ccc., followed by the word gadhar in the gen. pl. The nasalization of nglé implies that the author of this poem is treating comhull as a neuter noun. In addition to the difference in orthography, gadhar is not attested in the prose at any point (the scribe repeatedly uses forms of cú/coin). Thus, we have an instance of a form with which the scribe may have been relatively unfamiliar. In support of this notion, one may note that it has been pointed out recently by McManus that there two types of hounds used for hunting that “are consistently distinguished, the [one] being gadhair… the [other] coin”.289It is also of note that the Mod.Ir. word gadhar is still used with specific reference to a harrier or a beagle.290 Within Irish literature, hounds used for rousing game are consistently juxtaposed with hounds kept on a leash for pursuing the quarry and, in this text, the word gadhar occurs only in this specific stanza, the hounds are otherwise referred to using the word coin. The use of gadhar in the poem is highly indicative that the dogs which were the focus of the poem were not the same as either the coin in the prose nor the three famous hounds of Finn, also referred to exclusively as coin and not gadhair. This may mean that the stanza in question was originally referring to other dogs within the house of Finn as part of a larger, unrelated poem. I note earlier that 288 eDil, comal available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=1+comal&search_in=headword 289 McManus, Damian, “The hunt in Medieval Ireland, with special reference to the evidence of Classical Irish poetry”in Éiriu 68, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2018) pp. 145-192 (160) 290 gadhar, Scannell, Kevin, et al., Teanglann, available at: https://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/gadhar 64 of orthographical difference between the scribe and poet. The marking of nasalization on Line 4 ocus – conjunction = and .cc. (dá cét) – num. = 200 gaidrine – gadhar with diminutive suffix -ín (for Old Irish -án) declined as an o-m. noun. Variants may have been gagrán (O.Ir.) and gadhairín (Mod. Ir.); this may represent a plural form. The only word of interest in the final line is gaidhrine, which appears to represent a nominative plural form not in keeping with the system of representing nouns after cét. This form does not represent any paradigm in the Old Irish treatment of the word (declined as a disyllabic o-stem). If one takes the first instance of gadhar to be a representation of word with which the poet was not familiar, it could be assumed that an earlier attested form may have been gadhrán/gadhrín which the scribe recognized as a diminutive and hyper-corrected by adding an unstressed vowel, similar to the Modern Irish cailín/cailíni. In support of this explanation, it is of note that the final line has an odd cadence created by the fact that the final word in the final line is trisyllabic instead of disyllabic. This implies that something has happened to the words in this line of the poem. The lack of a genitive after cét may imply a hyper-correction by someone who mistakenly thought that such a form would be a reasonable poetic variant, implying that the poem existed externally to the Agallamh. Both the existence of this hyper-correction and the subsequent breaking of metre implies a disjunct between prose and poetry which may indicate the treatment of the poem by someone unfamiliar with its language substrate. This disjunct may be taken to mean that the poem existed elsewhere before being used in the Agallamh. 291 Strachan, John, “Contributions to the history of Middle Irish declension” in Transactions of the Philological Society 25 (1903-6. 1906): pp. 202-246 (207) 65 Context in comparison to the prose: Within the tale itself, this poem is introduced by a discussion of the fian returning from hunting at Benn Édair. The prose ends with the phrase “ro hairimhit coin tighi Finn annsin amail ba gnáth aca 7 ba mindha a coinsiumh, amail adbert in file” (they counted the hounds of the house of Finn as they were wont to do and there were fewer hounds, as the poet says)292. Following this is a verse describing how many and fair the hounds of Finn were. One would expect this phrase in the prose to be followed by a verse discussing the hill of Benn Édair or possibly the elopement of Artúir with Finn’s three hounds, as these are relevant themes to the story yet neither Artúir, the three hounds nor the hill of Howth (Benn Édair) are mentioned. Instead, we are given a verse concerning a different type of dog to those described in the prose and discussing their number and fineness. If one assumes that the author of the Agallamh also authored the poems, it is odd that he would have made no mention of these pivotal points in the tale in this verse. The fact that this is not the case supports what has been shown by linguistic analysis, which is that it appears unlikely that the scribe and the poet were one and the same. It is also interesting that, in the context of the prose tale, the number of Finn’s hounds is not given; we are however told in the poem that the pack was 500 strong whereas only three of Finn’s hounds were missing in the prose with no mention of the others. Such an enumeration in the verse appears out of place for the tale and would seem more at home as part of a longer poem discussing the belongings of the house of Finn Mac Cumhall rather than referencing a member of Finn’s retinue absconding with his three prized hounds, which would not be referred to as gadhair. An in-depth analysis of the first poem, reveals a number of forms, mutations and grammatical systems, as well as contextual discrepancies which do not neatly match with the general norms of the prose. This may be taken to illustrate that the author of the Agallamh did not compose this verse but took it from a separate source and used it in his work in a way which has been demonstrated to have been commonplace at the time of composition of the text. Every line in this stanza displays grammatical, orthographical and lexical inconsistencies with the prose text surrounding it. In addition, the context given by the prose seems to have a different focus when compared to the information conveyed in the poem itself. Such oddities suggest that it is likely that this stanza has a different original source to the prose text of the episode in which it is embedded. 292 See appendix 2, lines 13-14. The translation supplied is my own 66 6.3 Poem 2 trí coegaid ro bui i tigh Finn do tháisechtaib fiain fírgrinn is .ccc. (trí cét) gilla ngradha .cc. (dá cét) dalta dingbhala293 Translation: Three fifths which were in the house of Finn/of chieftains of the very diligent Fianna/ and 300 loyal servants/ 200 worthy fosterlings Syllable count and cadence: 71727273 rhyme: finn/fírgrinn (rinn-ardrinn) ngradha/dingbhala rann: deibide (aa bb rhyme) scailte fota (7x7x+17x7x+1) This is assuming that the value for x is different in lines three and four of the cadence.294 alliteration: gilla/ngradha dalta/dingbhala internal rhyme: robui/tigh Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 3/4 = 75% Internal c d rhyme: 1/1 Total : 7/9 = 88% On a relationship to poem 1: There is no metre with a possible cadence ending in a trisyllabic word in the final line of the stanza. Nevertheless, if this is taken to be a representation of ógláchas rather than dán dírech, we can see that such metrical inconsistencies would be permissible in “the freer metrical form”.295In such a case, we see that the metre of deibide scailte fota, as discussed above, would fit for poems 1 and 2. In terms of stylistic similarities, both stanzas use alliteration as their main feature, including attestation of internal alliteration and elision in the first line. The only characteristic which is not shared by the poems is the use of internal rhyme in the first line of poem 2 but otherwise neither poem uses any other form of stylistic ornamentation. Both poems also utilize a rinn ardrinn rhyming scheme. There is also a strong similarity in theme for the two stanzas. Poem 1 discusses the hounds of Finn (using Finn as the final word forming a rhyme with the final word of the next line). The third line discusses the existence of 300 hunting dogs, with a cheville to complete the line, and the last line of the verse also contains the numeral 200. In the second poem, we have the first line discussing the people in the house of Finn. The third line here also uses the number 300, in order to state the number of servants in the household, 293 See appendix 2 lines 21-24 294 Murphy, 1961, Early Irish Metrics, 65 295 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 5 67 and a final line containing the number 200. One can therefore see that both verses are preoccupied with enumeration of the possessions of Finn Mac Cumall and have almost identical structure in their final two lines, suggesting a motif. They appear to be inextricably linked as a single metrical unit both in terms of metre, style and context, in addition to containing strikingly similar elements. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 trí – num. = three coecaid – compare with the O.Ir. ordinal numeral cóiced (o-n.) nom. pl. = fifths ro bui – substantive verb, augmented preterite in relative position = which were i – prep. (nasalises) = in tigh – form of O.Ir tech (s-n.) here in the dative singular = house Finn- proper noun in gen. = of Finn The verb ro bui, when compared to group 1 of the verbal analysis, is marked out. This form, using the augment ro as a preterite marker is almost never used in forming preterites in this section of the text. In group 1 of the analysis, which contains the verbs surrounding poems 1 and 2, the scribe uses ro to mark the preterite in a minority (22%) of cases.296 There are no initial mutations written in this line of the poem although it may be assumed that trí is leniting. The lenition of in ro bui is however of interest. This is in relative position and it therefore follows that it must be lenited, although this is not marked orthographically. As the analysis of the scribal hand has noted, he has a strong tendency to show this lenition of this letter in the orthography of the prose (81% of instances). We can also see that the scribe lenites consistently after the augment ro. This form would not have shown lenition in the earlier language and the treatment of the verb in this line implies that the scribe responsible for the poem and the scribe responsible for the surrounding prose may not have been the same person. The phrase i tigh is likely to be pronounced nasalized /i di:/; a detailed discussion on this form will have its own section in the analysis as it is an important attested form. Finn is most likely lenited as in poem 1 and this has the same implications as discussed, namely that it is uncommon for the scribe to 296 In addition to this, we have an example of this verb in a relative position, do.búi (1), using the particle do in stead of ro 68 leave The form i tigh and its implications Ó Cúiv, in his discussion on the linguistic training of the mediaeval Irish poet, lists six criteria which were commonplace in about the year 1200, during the development of the newer emerging language.297 Amongst these is that “there are phonological variants, such as oi/ei, representing Old Irish ai etc. [developing.] Among the nouns we find variants such as… teach/teagh/t(o)igheadh as gen. pl. of teach/teagh (O. Ir. T(a)ighe)”.298Although not listed, the dative form in keeping with those given here would be t(a)igh.299 The form given in the poem is in the dative singular, tigh, which must be discussed in contrast to this change in spelling variants and this word may therefore be considered to display a more archaic language than that used in the prose. We may expect, for example, to see forms such as toigh or teigh standing in for the dat.sg. tigh. Although one does find tigh in Modern Irish, it is no longer in common use and generally exists as a calcified form in expressions such as tigh Phádraig or tigh diabhail. Furthermore, this form is interchangeable with i dteach and we do not see the dative used with the preposition i as it is used here. 300 This implies that we are looking at a dative in an older system rather than a modern innovation. I shall now give three examples of a modernized substrate extant in the prose text in order to highlight this difference. Firstly, Ó Cuív states that “among the many new features in the verbal system are (i) substitution of do for other preverbal particles”.301 In group 1 of the verbal analysis, it is clearly the case that the surrounding verbs exhibit this trend. The fact that 33% of all the verbs attested in the prose use do as a preterite marker, making up the majority group in the analysis, shows that 297 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 18 298 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 21 299 eDil, tech, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=tech&search_in=headword 300 Elision in the line means that the scribe deliberately used the preposition with the dative i tigh, giving the pronunciation /di:/ which would not be correct in the modern language 301 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 21 69 there is a substantial amount of such substitution occurring between do and the older ro. The other forms in the prose may be due to pseudo-archaizing or transformative work from poem to prose, however, the fact that the trend of do being used as a preterite marker occurs in a majority of cases is sufficient to evidence our first example of a modern feature which consistently appears in the prose. Secondly, it can be observed in the prose that adbert is consistently used as a verb in its own right and this exemplifies a second development in the language. “The Early Modern Irish reflex of the stem ep- in v.n. epert and in the finite dependent forms of the present and imperfect is not eib- but ab-… another feature of this verb is the remarkable change in the junction consonant cluster in non-dependent forms which has resulted in initial d in the stressed elements in forms such as a-déar, reflex of earlier at-bér (= O. Ir. As-bér with infixed pronoun).”302 This modernization of the verb appears to have taken place in the language of the prose scribe, which can be evidenced by highlighting two facts. Firstly, there are no instances of infixed pronouns being used in the text and, secondly, we have an instance of no (the semantically meaningless preverbal particle) being used as a preterite (relative) marker, no bhidh (20). This evidences that the scribe did not understand the system of infixing pronouns. Because of this, the form adbert, used by the scribe, evidences a calcified verb-form as described by Ó Cuív. Ó Cuív discusses in his criteria that “modern speech-forms in general use, adopted to the exclusion, or near exclusion, of the corresponding old forms” are another sign of Early Modern Irish, as opposed to Middle Irish.303One such form given specific mention is the use of “na as plural form of the definite article for all genders and cases”.304We have no instance of the OI plural forms a, in or inna (earlier forms of the article) in the text. One example of the nominative plural of cú found with the article na (this is an OI masculine n-stem word which would have the nom. pl. form in choin(n)) should suffice. The form for the plural in the text, however, is repeatedly given as na coin. Such demonstrations of modern innovations and reflexes would imply that the scribe was not familiar with older spellings, phrases, forms and grammar and therefore unfamiliar with the usage of earlier forms such as i tigh Finn. A final point may be mentioned concerning Coecaid, meaning fifth (part). This word would require something for 302 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 20 303 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 18 304 Ó Cuív, 1973, “Linguistic training”, 19 70 there to be a fifth of, that is to say, for example the Fíanna of Ireland, of which three fifths resided with Finn, however, no such description is given in either poem or prose, implying that the poem originally discussed another topic prior to its inclusion in the Agallamh. It has been noted beforehand that the only attestation of áirimh outside of poem 1 is found in close proximity to the verse itself (taking the two poems as a single metrical unit, there is only one full line of prose which separates the attestation from the poetry). The same may be said of the only attestation of tigh in the episode, which occurs in one attestation on line 20, prose, and then immediately again in line 21 as a part of this verse. Here we have a possible instance in which it may be seen that the prose of the scribe has been influenced by the poetry of the work. It has been demonstrated that the prose scribe most likely did not commonly use archaic forms such as the dative form of the word tech being i tigh and it can therefore be conjectured, given the proximity of the only prose attestation to the poem in which it is found, that the scribe may have been inspired, or reminded of the existence of, archaic words or turns of phrase and mimicked them in his own writing. This is not an unfamiliar phenomenon, referred to as ‘formulation’, and is common for people who are not comfortable with using an unfamiliar language or system.305The noun qualified by the numeral trí is, as in the prose, followed by the nom. pl. It is however of note that this simply means that both prose scribe and poet are using an older numeral system, which is consistent with the other numerals we have seen so far and not indicative of the same author. Line 2 do – prep. followed by lenition and dat. case = to/for/of tháesechtaib – compare with the dat. pl. of O.Ir. taísech/toísech (a-f.) (Modern Irish toiseach) = chieftains fiain – this appears to be the word fían being treated by the poet as an o-stem in the genitive. This form is exceedingly rare, there appears to be no attestation listed in eDil, and it can also 305 Berggreen, Harald and Tenfjord, Kari, Andrespråkslæring, Gyldendal Akademisk (Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS, 2011) 2. edn. 33 A definition of ‘formulation’ is as follows: Tidlige mellomspråk inneholder også ofte formularer, dvs. uttrykksmåter som innlæreren husker som en helhet, men der komponentene som uttrykket består av, ikke er ‘forstått’ eller analysert av innlæreren – de er simpelthen bare husket, Translation: Early intermediate language also often contains ‘formulations’, that is, modes of expression which the learner remembers as a whole, but where the components that the term consists of are not ‘understood’ or analysed by the learner – they are simply remembered 71 be seen from the analysis that the prose scribe consistently uses the form féine/feinnedha to form the genitive of this word.306= of the Fianna fírgrinn- compound of fír (very) + grind (diligent) = very diligent Here Line 3 is – short form of the conj. agus/ocus = and .ccc. – trí cét = three hundred gilla – compare with O.Ir. gilla (o-m.) = servants ngradha – gen. pl. from O.Ir. grad (u-n.) together with gilla = loyal servants The only point of interest in this line is that, as the analysis of the orthography has noted, the prose scribe does not nasalize Line 4 .cc. – dá cét – num. = 200 306 Stokes renders this word as riain however it can be clearly seen from the manuscript that the poem has the word fiain. 307 Refer to appendix 3 for the analysis of the prose scribe’s hand 72 dalta – compare with O.Ir. daltae (io-m.) gen.pl. = fosterlings dingbhala – compare with O.Ir. dingbáil/dingbáltach v.n of do.ingaib = excellent/worthy Context: This verse follows poem 1, with a single line of prose separating the two, namely ‘ba mór do dhainib icá ra bhutar sin’ ar Padraig ‘as fír ámh duitsi sin ar Cáilte ‘ór ba hé so in lín i tigh Finn’.308Such a context fits very well with the poem and it is clear that this verse is intended to be used as a corroborative verse, as has been described in section 3.6 of this thesis. If poems 1 and 2 can be considered a metrical unit due to the fact that they share a many metrical similarities, this has implications for the context of poem 2. The fact that the first poem does not appear to fit the context of the surrounding prose should be considered, along with the fact that we only have one line separating it from this verse. It can be said that these poems have been sewn into the episode using a single line of prose, possibly inspired by the poem itself, to supply the background. Due to the fact that the context for poem 1 is odd and that the only context for this verse is a single line of prose introducing the motif of the verse to come, it is likely that the poem was taken from an external source and used in this episode. In support of the idea that this may have been a larger poem of which parts were prosified, I would draw attention to lines 10-13 of the transcription in Appendix 2. Here we see, firstly, a number of alliterating words in succession; cuan, calad, crich, tiagait, tir (line 10) as well as fhfhiadach and bhfhianchoscar. There also exists rhyme between tir (10) and meic Lir (11).309 In addition to these instances of words appearing in a stylized manner, we have the alliterating Edair meic Etghaeith (line 13). There is furthermore no mention elsewhere in the story of Etghaeth in relation to Benn Édair. These lines appear then to show evidence of transformative work, which may be taken to support the idea that there existed a larger poem that was drawn upon by the scribe, of which we have a pair of stanzas extant. We can see a large number of instances of initial mutation in these poems which were uncommon for the scribe, particularly the showing of a nasal 308 Dooley & Roe, 1999, Tales, 8. Translation: ‘Great was the number who owned them,’ said Patrick. ‘You are right about that,’ said Cáilte, ‘for this was their number in the house of Finn’ 309 We see tir written with a short whereas the only other instance of this word has a long (tír on line 8). This may be further evidence that the two words were intended to rhyme. 73 was the scribe of the prose text. Through a detailed analysis it can be demonstrated that, in addition to a tangible linguistic difference between the poem and the prose, there exists a stylistic link to the previous poem which can be seen to not fit the context of the overall episode. There are also signs in the preceding prose pointing towards transformative work being done on the episode. This supports the notion that the two verses have been taken from an external source and reshaped for their new purpose here. 6.4 Poem 3 mac Taidg meic310 Mórna don muig mac Faeláin meic Fheradaigh mac Fiach meic Airt don mhuigh mac Muiredhaig meic Eoghain311 Translation: son of Tadg the son of Morna of the plain/son of Faelán the son of Feradach/ son of Fiach the son of Art of the plain/ son of Muirdhach the son of Eoghan. Syllable count and cadence: 71737172 Metre: cummasc annaigechta móire ocus casbairdne (incomplete cadence on the final line) Rhyme: muig/Fheradaigh mhuigh/Eoghain Alliteration: Faeláin/Feradaigh/Fiach (note that this exemplifies alliteration across lines) mhuigh/Muiredhaig (also translinear alliteration). Rinn: 1/2 = 50% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 2/4 = 50% Internal c d rhyme: 0/1 Total : 5/9 = 55% At first glance, this poem may appear to be an instance of poetry Stokes would have dismissed on the grounds of being composed of stupid strings of names. However, it can be seen that this poem was constructed with deliberate thought as to style, metre and rhyme and is not a poor creation, as shall be discussed presently. A name for this metre is given as cummasc annaigechta móire ocus casbairdne (literally meaning a mixture of great metre and direct bardic verse) and one may assume that such a metre having a slight inconsistency in cadence would not have regarded as problematic considering it is ógláchas. 312The lines of this verse can be viewed as individual poetic ‘blocks’ which make up the poem and one can see that, with the exception of line one, the final word in each line alliterates with the first word of the proceeding 310 It should be noted that the manuscript contains all forms of meic/mac written as the abbreviation M (with a c over the top) the forms then are provided by myself projected by mutation rules which are shown. 311 See appendix 2 lines 32-35 312 Murphy, 1961, Early Irish Metrics, 48 74 line and that the second name in the pair consists of a vowel (represented in line two with a lenited Comparison: In comparison to the previous two poems, poem 3 has a notably different metre and, although it makes use of alliteration as a stylistic feature, we have instances of interlinear alliteration, something which is not shared by poems 1 and 2. The quality of poem 3, although not poor, can be seen to be significantly inferior to the two previous verses. Only two words alliterate, there is no internal rhyme between c and d and the cadence of the second line contains an extra syllable. In addition to this, the subject matter of this poem appears to bear no relation to the previous two verses in this episode. The stanzas therefore do not appear to come from a single source. Lexical translation and analysis: Due to the fact that many of the words are repeated, I shall only mark initial instances of a word in each case, after which it will be marked in the translation with NA (not applicable). Line 1 mac – compare with O.Ir. mac (o-m.) in nom.sg. = son Taidg – proper noun in the gen.sg. = of Tadg meic – from mac in gen.sg. = of the son of Mórna - proper noun, famously the father of Goll = Mórna don – combination of the prep. do and the article = to the/of the muig – compare with O.Ir. mag (s-n.) in the dat.sg. = plain/field It can be seen from line three that 313 The analysis in appendix 2 shows that the prose scribe marks lenition of 75 the preposition do is not attested in the prose with an article affixed to it, while it appears thus twice in this stanza. mac – NA Faeláin – NA meic – NA Fheradaigh – NA Fheradaigh is mutated in the predictable way after a genitive singular o-stem in the Old Irish system; the scribe has a strong tendency to show lenition of this letter and as such, there is nothing in this line which would be inconsistent with the scribal hand. Line 3 mac – NA Fiach – NA meic – NA Airt – NA don – NA mhuigh – NA It should be noted that marking lenition on Muiredhaig – NA meic – NA Eoghain – NA There is nothing new to be discussed within this line. 76 From the language used in this verse, it is impossible to conclude whether or not the scribe of the prose was the scribe of this poem as well; such a judgement will rely on contextual evidence. It can however be stated that the orthography implies a confusion in terms of the marking of lenition, despite there being very little which would be confusing to a speaker of the language. This can be taken to imply that the poem may evidence an orthographical system which is not of the same origin as that of the prose scribe. Context: The material of this poem is unusual in that it is the only poem of the five which gives a genealogical list of a character, despite genealogies existing for other heroes in the tale, some of which are given in the prose text itself. One can wonder why, if there existed genealogies of other heroes in the tale, and assuming that the scribe of the work was inclined to manufacture poems out of such information, there would not exist further poems consisting of genealogies in the episode. Such poems are not given and that can be interpreted as the scribe not displaying this initiative. A second matter of note with this poem is the names given in the verse. There exist two similar genealogies of Goll Mac Morna. The first example is found in the MS Rawlinson B487 version of the same text: Goll Mac Morna móir maic Geraid Glunduibh maic Aedha Cinnclair maic Conaild maic Shainbh meic Ceit mac Maghach.314 It is of note that this recension of the text is known to have a larger amount of transformative poetry in it than, for example, the Book of Lismore which we are working with here. Such a list of names as the one given here is highly likely to be one such transformative work given that there is an equivalent genealogy in verse form given in Lismore. It is also important to mention that the names given here are completely different to those in the Book of Lismore, with only the name Morna being shared. The second example is taken from the Macgnimartha Find as edited and translated by Kuno Meyer, found in Laud 610. Very early in this text is an eight-stanza poem which starts with the following verse: Goll mac Dare Deirg co m-blaid mic Echach Finn – Finn a gail – mic Cairpre Galaid conn-gail 314 Dooley, Ann, 2004, “Arthur of the Irish”, 25 77 mic Muiredaig a Findmaig315 In addition to this being a list of names in verse, one should note that the name Muiredach is shared with the poem found in the Agallamh episode and the use of maig in the final word Findmaig is also present. The poem also repeats a word in final position in two lines in order to form a rhyme and relies on alliteration as its main stylistic feature. I am not suggesting that these two poems are from the same source, simply that they share similarities. Additionally, the author has stated in the prose above this poem; Ainm n-aill don Dare sin Morna Muncham.316It is interesting that the name Morna Muncham may have a similarity with Morna Mór (found in the Rawlinson version of the genealogy) in that both names have an alliterating epithet. Mór could easily replace the more complex muncham as a variant reading. This information can be taken to imply that, at the time of the recording of Macgnimhartha Find (in the late 1100s), there existed different etymologies for Goll which contained different names, and we have three examples of this here. It is clear from the metre that poem 3 is not related to poems 1 and 2, and we can see similar poems were in existence before the Agallamh, meaning that the author of the Agallamh likely did not write this poem. The fact that there is also a noticeable confusion in the orthography of the verse supports that the poem in the Agallamh was not original to the tale as recorded but existed in another form, possibly as a part of a much larger lay regarding Goll and his ancestry. The Rawlinson version, it should be noted, is likely the product of a similar poem with different names again being used. The fact that the scribe appears to have felt the need to explicitly state that there existed other names for both Goll and his father in Macgnimartha supports the idea that the scribe was aware of similar works existing at the time of his recording of the text, which involved different names. Due to the fact that the poem found in Macgnimartha is a lengthy poem, it may be safe to assume that, if similar works existed, they were in this same long poetic format and belonging to a tradition which is no longer available to us. This verse may likely be from such a poem. 315 Meyer, Kuno (ed.) “Macgnímartha Find” in Revue Celtique 5 (1882), pp. 195-204 (197) 316 This I translate as: Another name for Daire is Morna Wry-Necked 78 6.5 Poem 4 nír’ ér Oisín duine riamh im ór ná im aircet ná im biagh ní mó do chuinnigh ní ar nech gémad inn-righ a oinech317 Translation: Oisín did not refuse a person ever/ with regards to gold nor silver nor food/he hardly asked anything of anyone/ though his generosity [would be] fit for a king. Syllable count and cadence: 71717172 rhyme: riamh/biadh nech/oinech rann (metre): deibide do-cheil a chubaid (aa-bb rhyme with rinn-ardinn in the final two lines) alliteration: ér/Oisín ór/aircet (ná and im are unstressed) ní/nech inn-righ/oinech internal rhyme: chuinnigh/ inn- righ note: although not strictly a stylistic feature in itself, this poem also relies heavily on elision. Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 4/4 =100% Internal c d rhyme: 1/1 = 100% Total 9/9 = 100% On the metre: Murphy gives the following as an exemplar for the metre we have in poem 4: cía ó tucaissiu, a fhir/cherdda, in ndelg n-arcait gil?/is döig lemm is é mac/dúasach Domnaill do-ridnacht.318 From this, we can see that the following features of the poem are of import: a disyllabic rhyme in the final line of the stanza; the use of elision as a metrical feature to make the lines work; and enjambment occurring between lines. We can see, when comparing our poem, that the poet here also relies significantly on elision to make the syllable count and one may therefore consider elision to be a requisite feature of this type of metre. Comparison with the previous stanzas: The fact that there are noticeable similarities with the exemplar poem given by Murphy can be seen to imply that we are dealing with a poetic style associated with this particular metre. Effectively, we are likely dealing with a poem written by a professional bard. As the scribe is unknown, it is impossible to say whether or not he was a poet himself, however, we have a number of examples of metrical inconsistencies in the previous poems of this section as well, possible mistakes and corruptions, implying that the scribe has demonstrated a slight lack of competence when it comes to the poetry written down in the Agallamh. This may denote a 317 See appendix 2 lines 41-44 318 Murphy, 1961, Early Irish Metrics, 66 79 separate composer at work to that of the surrounding prose. This poem, however, is in perfect dán díreach and one wonders why, if the author has displayed an ability to write poems in this metre, he also wrote others in ógláchas. It would seem an unlikely stylistic decision to clearly show competence with production of dán díreach and then create compositions of lower quality, assuming the same person wrote the verses found here. We are therefore presented with a number of questions. Did the scribe of the episode write this high-quality poem and copy the other verses from other sources? Was none of the verses a poem original to the prose author? What is clear is that the author of the Agallamh has not written all of the poetry in this episode. It can be seen in the analysis of the previous three poems that there is a significant enough orthographical, stylistic and contextual disjunct between the poems and prose to believe them to not be the work of the prose scribe. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 nír’ ér – ní + ro + O.Ir. éraid = did not refuse Oisín – proper noun = Oisín duine – compare with O.Ir. duine (io-m.) and with Mod. Irish duine (m4) = somebody riamh – from O.Ir. ríam = before/ever Due to the fact that there appears to be inconsistency between the scribal hand and the system of the poet, in addition to the existence of a Middle Irish verb-form which likely was seen as a poetic form, it can be said that this line exhibits strong inconsistencies with the system of the scribe which may imply a separate origin for the stanza. Line 2 im – compare with prep. imm = with regards to ór - compare with O.Ir ór (o-m.) = gold ná - adv. of negation = nor im - NA aircet - compare with O.Ir argat (o-n.) = silver ná - NA 80 im - NA biagh - compare with O.Ir. biad (o-m.) In this line, the poet consistently uses the preposition im (three attestations). There is no attestation of this preposition in the prose which does not imply that the scribe had no understanding of this word but, rather, preferred other constructions to the one evidenced here. In support of this, one may note that on lines 38/9 we have the following sentence: in té nár ér duine riamh acht gu mbeth cenn re caithimh neich aigi which contains the only prose attestation of the verb ér. We see that, although the verb-form is identical, the scribe chooses to follow the phrase with a subsidiary clause introduced by the conjunction acht rather than using a prepositional phrase, which may imply that the prose scribe was not comfortable using the exact phrasing found in the poem. The spelling of aircet is also of interest, as it appears to be a restitution of the earlier argat which would, according to Old Irish convention, be pronounced /ar´gəd´/, possibly implying that the poet understood the older system of pronouncing orthographical 319 The voiced spirant /v/ must rhyme with another voiced spirant meaning that the gh in this case cannot be intended to be a silent letter, see appendix 6 for more details on rhyme in Irish poetry 81 here is likely silent in final position. Something else which supports the possibility that the scribe saw final It may also be noted that the scribe, on line 13, spells the genitive of fian as féinnetha. Furthermore, we have have an instance, on line 3, of the same form being represented as fhéinnedha which implies that the prose scribe saw Line 3 ní – negative copula, pres. 3.sg. = it is not mó – comparative/superlative adj. of mór = greater (together with ní it can be translated as ‘hardly’) do chuinnigh – compare with O.Ir. con.dieig/condíacht (later conniacht) + pret. Particle do = asked/demanded ní – neuter pron. form of nech/neich = anything/nothing ar – prep. = upon/from nech – indef. Pron. m. = anybody There exist no instances of verbal usage or mutations which appear inconsistent with the scribal hand, however, the use of ní and nech in the poem, neuter and masculine indefinite pronouns, 82 implies that the poet had an understanding of their usage in the language. There is no attestation of either pronoun in the prose episode, whilst there are instances of other pronouns such as hedh (1) and in té (38), which implies, especially considering that the neuter had disappeared from the language by the twelfth century, that the prose scribe would not have recognized these forms. While the evidence is lacking to make a clear statement about the scribe’s use of these pronouns, his lack of such use can be seen as a contrast to the poem, which demonstrates a familiarity with these words. Line 4 gémad – late form of cía in the 3.sg. subj. = though (it would be) innrigh – Compare with O.Ir in- fit for.320 Compare with Modern Irish indéanta (fit to be done) or intuigthe (intelligible) in this case one may see the prefix to be added to the word rí giving us the translation = fit for a king. a – 3. sg. possessive pronoun = his oinech – compare with O.Ir. enech/ainech meaning ‘face’ or ‘front’ but which came to mean, amongst other things, honour/generosity. This word is closer to the modern reflex oineach = honour/generosity This line holds very little grammatical material of use to the argument; however, one should note two features of the surrounding prose. Firstly, as the analysis has shown, the occurrence of the word riamh is attested only three times in the text and all three attestations are in close proximity to poem 4. Two of these instances are particularly interesting. The most notable occurs on line 38, where we see: an té nár ér duine riamh. This almost identically reflects the first line of the poem, with the exception that we have the clause in the prose as a relative. Such echoing has been discussed before in relation to other poems and this may be another instance of the same. The second instance is nír fuiligh a lám ar duine riamh. It is of note here that, with the word lám, we have a lenited 320 eDil, in, available at: http://www.dil.ie/advanced_search?q=in&partSpeech=pref#search_results 83 Context: This verse is introduced by the following prose passage: ‘ór nir’dhibraic a lám urchar nimroill riam 7 nír fuiligh a lám ar duine riamh nach bhud marbh ria gcinn nomaide go Oissin mac Finn in té nár ér duine riamh acht gu mbeth cenn re caithimh neich aigi 7 cosa re himtecht is mor in teisd sin a cailti’ ar Patriac ‘as fír cidh sin’ ar Cáilte which I translate: for his hand never hurled weapons which did not diverge and his hand never bloodied a person who was not dead within nine days, Oissín Mac Finn, the one who never refused anybody provided that he would have a head for drinking and feet for walking, that is great praise Cáilte, said Patrick, that is true, said Cáilte.321What is interesting about this passage is that we have a rhyme in the prose (gcinn and Finn) and, in addition to this, a different focus on the description of Oissín. Where the poem focuses on his generosity, the prose preceding it appears to discuss his prowess as a warrior. One may suggest that, if the scribe had been taking inspiration from a longer poem which he was prosifying, it would explain both the sudden change of tack from a description of Goll Mac Morna as well as the repetitive elements in the prose before it. This poem, as well as the stanza before it, function as introductory stanzas to two of the Fenian heroes in the tale, that is Goll Mac Morna and Oissín Mac Finn. Nine heroes are listed as making up the group which carried out the raid to capture Artúir, including Finn’s other son Mac Lugach. Ann Dooley notes that “the placement of the tale would seem to be deliberate. Its theme of the uncouth young prince chimes with the Fenian tale of the boorish young Mac Lugach told a little later on”.322 This would appear to agree with Geraldine Parsons’ claim that “the acallam displays a propensity to consider a problematic issue from multiple perspectives [in the past]… before reaching a conclusion in the patrician present”.323 The exploration of such perspectives, according to Parsons, is through the telling of related stories and bearing that in mind, it would appear that the tale under discussion here, and the aforementioned tale concerning Mac Lugach are inextricably linked. One wonders, considering that Mac Lugach is featured in ‘Scéal Artúir’, why he is not given a poem of introduction as are his half-brother Oisín and Goll Mac Morna? If one were to hold with the hypothesis that the author of the Agallamh had in fact written the poetry as well, it would make little sense that such an important character in the overall frame- episode is ignored and the poetry devoted to other characters instead. If one were to assume, however, that the author of the Agallamh was in fact taking the single-stanza poems from other 321 This line is then followed by the poem in question 322 Dooley, 2004, “Arthur of the Irish”, 23 323 Parsons, 2009, “Acallam as prosimetrum”, 95 84 sources, as posited by this thesis, one may remark that the main poem concerning Mac Lugach is found intact.324 The existence of this poem in full may explain why there exists no introductory poem for him in ‘Scéal Artúir’. Assuming the author of the Agallamh required an external source for his poetry, and a poem concerning Mac Lugach existed, as we have seen it did in the Agallamh, it may have been seen by the scribe as more proper to render this poem intact in the episode concerning Mac Lugach, explaining why the character is left without an introductory poem in ‘Scéal Artúir’. This theory could in no way be substantiated, however, the fact remains that only Goll and Oisín have a poem dedicated to them whilst other important characters, foremost of these Mac Lugach, do not. A possible explanation of this is that the poetry was not available to the author of the Agallamh, and thus was not included in the tale. This would mean that the scribe was not authoring the poetry himself, supporting the evidence which has been gathered through linguistic and metrical analysis. It has been shown that poem 4 demonstrates certain linguistic irregularities when compared with the prose, chief amongst these is the poet’s pronunciation of final non-palatal 6.6 Poem 5 do ratsamar Artúir linn co dherna a cura re Finn cur ba oglach d’Fhinn iar soin cuisin laithi luid d’ecoibh Translation: We brought Artúir with us/in order to make his peace before Finn/so that he was a vassal of Finn after that/until the day he departed to a [natural] death Syllable count and cadence: 71717172 rhyme: linn/Finn soin/d’ecoibh (note the only second rhyming pair is rinn-ardrinn) rann (metre): deibide do-cheil a chubaid alliteration: laithi/luid 324 For a rendering of this poem see Stokes, Acallam, 17-18 85 aicill: Finn (line two)/ d’Fhinn (line three), this can be considered aicill internal rhyme: nderna/cura Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 1/4 = 25% Internal c d rhyme: 0/1 = 0% Total: 5/9 = 55% This poem would very much be classed as ógláchas due to it meeting very few of the requirements for a stanza in strict dán díreach. Comparison to the other poems: One may observe that the metre for this stanza is the same as poem 3, however, there is little else that marks them out as related to one another. In addition to this, poem 3 discusses Goll whereas poem 5 presents Artúir, with only the prose linking these two characters together. This means, effectively, that there is no direct contextual link between this and the other stanzas. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 do ratsamar – preverbal preterite particle do + ratsamar compare with O.Ir. do.beir perfective form with 1. pl. ending = we brought Artúir – Personal name linn – conjugated prep. le/la 1.pl. = with us The word do.ratsamar appears to be a perfective form based on do.rat, a suppletive root of do.beir which is normally inflected as an s-preterite.325 The ending for an s-preterite in the 1.pl., however, would be -sem rather than -samar (as we see here) and this may be explained by analogy with the deponent inflexion, with such analogy being common for s-preterites in Middle Irish.326It can be seen that the form do ratsamar is attested as a verb form in Middle Irish, however it cannot be found in the prose.327 There do exist, however, two verbs in the 3.sg. which display an s-preterite, iadhus (54) and ainices (55). Iadhus comes from O.Ir. íadaid meaning ‘clasps/grasps’.328 We see that this verb is being used correctly as an s-preterite, as we would see in the Old Irish system, with the prose scribe not displaying analogy with the 325 Green, Antony, Old Irish Verbs and Vocabulary, (Cascadilla Press, USA: 200,0 3rd edn.) 40 326 McCone, Kim, The Early Irish Verb (Maynooth, An Sagart, co. Kildare: 1987) 236 327 eDil, do.beir, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=do.beir&search_in=headword 328 Iadhus would be pronounced /i:γǝs/ which replaces the ‘proper’ infelxion which would have ended with a final palatal 86 deponent s-preterite inflexion as we have seen with do ratsamar. The second verb is from aingid ‘saves/protects’. It is of note that the standard preterite form of this verb is r’anacht (using the augment) and that aincess is a relative form.329It may be suggested that the scribe of the Agallamh in this instance has confused the present relative form of the verb aingid with an s- preterite. Once more we see the scribe using an s-preterite after the older system rather than forming analogy with the deponent inflexion. Had the prose scribe had the tendency towards analogy such as we see in this line of the poem, we would expect to see forms such as *Iadhusatar and *aingesatar330 which are not what we see used. This demonstrates that the scribe of the prose had a different understanding of the s-preterite and inflexion of the Irish verbal system to the composer of this poem. A third verb is highly relevant to this discussion, namely, tucsam (55). This is another suppletive root for do beir, from do.ucc, meaning that we have evidence of the prose scribe forming the preterite stem of the verb in question from a different root to that which is used in the poem here. We also see the same ‘correct’ usage of an s-preterite conjugation (here in the 1.pl.) which is another example of the scribe not demonstrating analogy with the deponent endings. Additional evidence supporting the notion that these examples display two distinctly different systems of verb formation is that the form in the poem, do ratsamar, makes use of the preverbal particle do whilst all three examples of s- preterites in the prose have no particle added to mark the preterite. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is not demonstrated any instance of a passive ending used with a preterite verb in the prose hand, with the exception of 1. and 3. person singular. The uncommonness of this verb form in comparison with other verbs, both in its conjugation and the restitution are highly uncharacteristic of the habit of the prose scribe, implying that the poem in question may have been taken from another source. Line 2 co – conjunction/prep. usually meaning ‘till’ here = so that/in order to dherna – vn. of do.gní subj. sg. (O.Ir. dénam) = make a – 3. sg. m. possessive pronoun = his cura – compare with O.Ir. córae (ia- f.) = peace/amity re – prep. (followed by nasalisation) = before 329 Green, Antony, “Old Irish Verbs”, 12 330 Details on this common Mid.Ir paradigm can be seen discussed on page 14 of this thesis 87 Finn – personal name The 3.s.m. possessive pronoun a should lenite the word following it and we see that in 88% of cases using this pronoun, the scribe does not mark lenition following it. This instance of lenition is therefore noticeably inconsistent with the prose scribe. We furthermore see the particle co as leniting rather than nasalizing, as it commonly would and does in the system of the prose scribe (the clearest examples are gu mbeth and mbeielgibh on lines 39 and 58). The lenition in the poem may be dismissed as an error, however it is nevertheless not in keeping with the orthography of the prose scribe and therefore uncharacteristic. Line 3 cur ba – co + ro + pret. form of the copula = who was/so that he was oglach – compare with O.Ir. óclach (o-m.) = warrior/vassal d’Fhinn – prep. doL + Finn = to/of Finn iar – prep. = after/afterwards soin – variant form of O.Ir. sin, demonstrative particle = that We have no instance of cu + is/ba in the scribal hand and only one instance of cu before a verbal in the prose (cu nach shnamhdis, 6) There are eight instances throughout the prose text where the scribe uses the copula ba and these are: ba tuillmech toirtech (2) ba maith lais (3) amail ba gnáth aca (13) ba mindha a coinsiumh (14) ba mór (19) ba hiat so a nanamanna (29) ba hí so (36) and mac righ ba ferr (45). In these instances, we have no attestation of the prose scribe using this verb with the augment. In addition to this, most instances of the verb appear to be fixed expressions: ba ferr, ba maith, ba gnáth, for example. The substantive verb occurs in excess of nine times throughout the text and often occurs with an augment, for example ro bhiú (36) and ro bái (45). ro bai is attested in the sentence mac righ ba ferr luth 7 lámach ro bai a n-Éirin.331 Here we have the construction ‘who was + prep.’ expressed with the substantive verb ro bai rather than the copula, as we see evidenced in the poem. The data given here implies that the scribe did not use the augment ro with the copula. He appears largely only to have used the copula verb in expressions and prefers to use constructions similar to the one found attested in this poem using the substantive verb in preference over the copula, implying that cur ba oglach is a construction uncharacteristic of the prose scribe. This poem also makes 331 See appendix 2 line 45 which I translate as: The son of the king was the best warrior who was in Ireland 88 use of a variant spelling of the demonstrative pronoun soin. The prose scribe demonstrates this spelling only once in his writing, soin (2), yet uses the form sin nine times. The scribe clearly preferred the form sin, making soin appear to be an almost foreign variant to him, strengthening the argument that a different individual wrote this line. Line 4 cuisin – combination of prep. cu and the article in = until the laithi – compare with O.Ir laithe (io-n.) = day luid – Mid. Ir. pret. form of téit 3.s = he went/departed d’ecoibh – combination of prep. do and écoibh, dat.pl. of éc = to death (often indicating a natural death) = to a [natural] death The word laithi according to the Old Irish system, it should be noted, would formally be gen. sg. and the only other case with a similar i-ending would be the dative singular, laithiu. It is possible that the was lost at some stage, leaving only the genitive form remaining; however, it should also be mentioned that, in all cases of the spelling (dat. gen. nom. sg., that is laithiu/laithi/laithae) they would, at this time, have the pronunciation /laehə/ in speech. This word occurs after a preposition, putting it into an oblique case. The form luid is perfectly consistent with Middle Irish norms as the irregular preterite of téit. The modern representation of this verb is chuaigh; it is not clear when the verb téit/luid fell out of usage in the language. Despite this, we have scribal representations of the meaning “went/departed” within the episode which we may compare to this poem, for example tiagait a tir (10). EDil discusses this particular verb in the following phrase “of vbs. téit, fo-gaib dies: tiagait báas n-apaig”.332This entry is highly compacted but what it notes is that the verb tiagait as well as the preterite of fo- gaib, that is fuair, were both used in the expression tiagait báas (he died). This implies an ambiguity in the Irish language between forms of téit and fo-gaib. We see the usage of the ‘incorrect’ form of the verb in the prose (tiagait appears to be a future form of téit) and ‘correct’ usage in the poetry, according to the Middle Irish system. This can be seen as a strong indicator that the poet in this instance was using a language closer to the Old Irish norm and thus was not the author of the prose. Context: 332 eDil, fo.gaib, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=téit&search_in=headword 89 Dooley has noticed that in the prose “towards the end of the tale… confusion of narrator Cáilte about his designated audience (Patrick or Finn) would strongly imply that there was a ballad- type Arthur poem already in existence of which Cáilte recited a few lines”.333There is nothing else noteworthy concerning the context of this poem except for the fact that Cáilte, the narrator, does not tell the fate of Artúir in the prose. We are told that his twenty-seven retainers are decapitated, which may imply that Artúir himself had a grimmer fate ahead of him than the one described in the poem. When one compares these contextual differences with the disparities in terms of the language usage and orthography which the analysis has shown, it can be said fairly conclusively that this stanza is, as Dooley contends, highly likely to be from a separate, possibly much larger poem. It can be seen that all five small poems found in this tale demonstrate a large number of orthographical and contextual inconsistencies. One may therefore make the statement these poems being the work of a single author who was also the author of the surrounding prose, seems very unlikely. We now move to an analysis of the second episode found in the manuscript Laud 610. Analysis 2 7.1 Laud 610 Laud 610 contains the oldest witness to the Agallamh text, which makes up a large part of the Book of the White Earl, written for the Butler dynasty in the early 1400s.334 It is of note that, in the same manner as with the Book of Lismore, it is stated that “a single scribe appears to have written all known fragments of the Book of the White Earl” which includes the entire Agallamh text.335 On the place of the Agallamh in the context of the broader manuscript, a number of glosses made by the scribe “suggest that they are headings for sub-divisions within the Acallam and constitute a guide for reading it”.336Thanisch states that, although the scribe’s other works are mainly collections of texts, this is not necessarily to say that the scribe believed the Acallam to be a compilatory work, which may imply that the text itself had a specific function within the broader manuscript. It seems that Stokes used much of this marginalia in his edition and may have followed the sub- divisions of the tale laid out in the manuscript itself.337Of these sub-divisions, there exists a 333 Dooley, 2004, “Arthur of the Irish”, 22 334 Thainisch, Eystein, “What the Butlers saw: Acallam na senórach and its marginalia in the Book of the White Earl” in Aiste 4, (2014) pp. 35-57 (38) 335 Thanisch, 2014, “What the Butlers saw”, 39 336 Thanisch, 2014, “What the Butlers saw”, 43 337 Thanisch, 2014, “What the Butlers saw”, 40 90 specific episode entitled “How Cáilte, Cass Corach and Fer Maisse helped the Tuath Dé Danann of Assaroe in their battle with the troops of Lochlann” (pages 192-195 in Stokes’ edition).338This episode is similar to Scéal Artúir for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes up a part in the larger frame-tale in which Cáilte leaves Patrick and begins his own adventures with Cass Corach. In addition to this, the episode, as I have defined it in my transcription as starting at line 6923 and ending at line 7005 in Stokes, contains five single-stanza poems which describe actions also related in the prose, much like in Scéal Artúir. Finally, as the Arthur episode deals with a foreign hero causing trouble for Finn and his Fianna, this tale recounts a foreign army and their dealings with the three central Irish heroes of the latter part of the Agallamh. Such similarities may seem insignificant; however, one may consider that tales discussing foreign forces from either Wales or Scandinavia are likely to have had a literary corpus of relatively similar size and thus make for a good comparison. A final note, which is of less import, is the simple fact that this thesis is written in the realm of Viking and Mediaeval studies and as such, it is fitting to discuss an episode involving Vikings, henceforth Lochlannaigh, in an Irish context. The focus, however, is of course on the language of the episode in question and not the Norse raiders therein. 7.2 Poem 1 is é lín tainic ille míle long co hesmaire tangadar co cenn trachta seirrgind ocus sithbarcca339 Translation: It is the full number which came hither/a thousand ships, swiftly/they came up to [the] head of [the] beach/small sailing boats and longships. Syllable count and cadence: 72737273 rhyme: ille/hesmaire trachta/sith-barcca340 (rinn- ardrinn) rann : deibide (aa bb rhyme) fordúan (cadence x2x3x2x3) half rhyme: ille/mile alliteration: seirrgind/sith Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 1/4 = 25% Internal c d rhyme: 0/1 Total: 5/9 = 55% It can be seen that this stanza fulfils some of the basic requirements for a poem in 338 Stokes, 1900, Acallam, VI 339 See appendix 4 lines 1-4. As with all poems in this tale, except poem 5, they have been rearranged here according to Stokes in order to observe metrical qualities. Original orthography has, however, been kept 340 It is of note that, while cht is meant to rhyme with cc, /χt/ and /k/ 91 dán díreach; however, despite stylistic features being used, the distinctive features as discussed beforehand are lacking. This stanza should very much be classed as ógláchas. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 is é – copula verb 3.sg. + ind.3.sg. m. personal pron. = it is lín – compare with O.Ir. lín (u-m.) nom.sg. = full number tainic – irregular verb from do.icc, here in relative position = which came ille – adv. compare with O.Ir. illé = hither/here Comparing this to the prose, it can be noticed that the scribe is not attested as using a copula construction such as that used in this line, that is, he either uses the copula in superlative constructions, as ferr (24), or in set phrases like is ann sin, a phrase which the scribe uses seven times in the episode. In addition to this, we can see the use of the substantive verb instead of the copula in the prose, particularly in reporting information/numbers to the reader. An example of this is the phrase in nech as ferr do boí ar in domun (24). Furthermore, the use of the independent masculine pronoun é by the scribe can be seen to be used in place of the direct object on three occasions, ro thócbadar a muinter léo hé (23); tabair damsa am laim he (29); and ro gabusardar hé (30). We also have at least one instance where the subject of a phrase, rather than being referred to with the independent pronoun é as we see here, is referred to using nouns, such as in duine in in gnim do rinde in duine (24). It must be noted that I am not suggesting that a construction such as the one found in line 1 of this poem was not recognized or understood by the scribe, but rather that he does not use the construction in his prose writing and can be seen to express similar meanings using other verbs and noun phrases on a number of occasions341. This shows a style of scribal preference which is different to that attested in this line. Furthermore, the verb tainic in relative position is attested only once in the prose, thanac (32) and this attestation is lenited with a non-palatal ending, rather than the palatal ending shown in the poem. The scribe also lenites 341 We also see here that the prose scribe uses the independent pronoun to denote the direct object rather than the subject in a copula construction 92 uncharacteristic. These details imply that a different scribe may be responsible for writing line 1 of this poem. Line 2 mile – num. míle = a thousand long – Compare with O.Ir. long (ia-f.) nom. sg./gen. pl. = ship/ships co – prep. + dat./acc. = to/till (often used in the modern language to turn adjectives into adverbs) hesmaire – Middle Irish form unattested in eDil = swiftly This final word, esmaire, appears to have a root which may be likened to the Modern Irish adjective eas meaning ‘swift’. The maire ending may also be compared to the adjectival suffix mar in the modern language, which we see in words such as bríomhar/ceolmhar/fíochmhar. The gen. sg. f. of this adjectival form in Modern Irish would be fíochmhaire. It should be noted that long is a feminine a-stem which may account for the form esmaire (gen. f. sg. or used as a marker of the plural). Although Old Irish rarely used the preposition co as a means of forming adverbs from adjectives, this is the norm in the modern system.342 Co hesmaire is therefore translated as ‘swiftly’. Very little material here can be used in comparison with forms found in the prose, however we see no instance of a similar adjectival formation. In addition to the distinctive adjective made adverb, it can be seen in the analysis in appendix 5 that, although it is attested, the prose scribe rarely uses the preposition co to form an adverb in the manner demonstrated in this line and commonly uses it as a preposition. This may point towards possible separate origins for the poem. Line 3 tangadar – compare with the 3.pl. pret. of do.icc = they came (Mid. Ir. Form) co – prep. + dat./acc. = up to cenn – compare with O.Ir. cenn (o-n.) acc./nom. sg. = head trachta – compare with O.Ir. trácht (i-m. in late Mid. Ir., a-f.) here in gen. sg. = of the beach 342 Thurneysen, Rudolf, 2010, A Grammar of Old Irish, 238-239 93 Although the verb tangadar has one attestation in the prose, we see that the scribe prefers the form tainic in 71% of cases. This makes tangadar an uncommon form for the prose scribe to use. In a similar vein to this, trachta as the genitive form of trácht is not attested in the prose whereas genitive form trága, from traig, can be found on two occasions (lines 11 and 25). This demonstrates a similar trend to the verb tangadar in terms of scribal usage and implies that the scribe did not write this line. Trága shall be discussed further in the analysis of line 4, however it is of note here that in this line we have a verb form which the scribe did not often use and a noun which has no attestation in the prose. It can be seen, then, that line 3 is also uncharacteristic of the scribal hand. Line 4 seirrgind – compare with O.Ir. seirrcenn (o-m.) in nom. pl. = small sailing boats (not fit for voyaging)343 ocus – conj. = and sith-barcca – compound formed from sith (ship) + bárc (a-f.) = longships There is nothing in this line which is inconsistent with the prose scribe, however we can see from a detailed observation of the language and comparison with that of the scribe throughout all other lines that there exist a number of inconsistencies in verb usage and spelling forms which together strongly imply that this poem was not written by the scribe of the prose. Context: I shall quote a small part of Dooley and Roe’s translation of the episode here: “A man came to the door of the síd and said that the coast was covered with ships and boats, and that a huge army of thirty battalions, each with three thousand men, had landed on the nearby shore. ‘It is beyond numbering,’ said Caílte and recited these lines”.344 This account of the army from Lochlann has two problems when comparing it to the poem. Firstly, we are given a number of 90 000 men making up the Viking army. Comparing this to the account of a fleet of a thousand ships described in the poetry, some of which we are told were small boats not for voyaging, it would require every ship to hold 90 men (over twice the normal capacity of a raiding boat). While these observations may seem irrelevant, I am simply 343 eDil, Seirrcenn, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=seirrcenn&search_in=headword 344 Dooley and Roe, 1999, Tales, 194 94 pointing out that the size of the army does not fit with the size of the fleet they arrived in. In addition to the fact that the arithmetic does not fit, we are also told by Cáilte that, presumably the fleet, is “beyond numbering” but he then proceeds to number the fleet in verse. Where this final point may likely be a matter of hyperbole on the part of the scribe, it still points towards a disjunct between the numbering in the prose and in the poem. A final issue with context that one notices here is that the poem makes no mention of where the fleet is from and names boats which one would not necessarily expect to be making up the fleet of an invading army. These three discrepancies, in addition to the linguistic differences which have been listed may lead to the interpretation that this poem likely existed outside of the Agallamh in some other capacity, possibly involving Vikings who may have been settled in Ireland already, and has been taken and re-purposed in this tale. 7.3 Poem 2 in Garb ro marbad ar tus a mesc a tshluáig na remtus ro marb Cáilte cona neim d’urchuir aindisc rop engbaid345 Translation: it is Garb who was killed firstly/in the confusion of the battle, in its foremost position/Cáilte killed him with his ‘venom’/by a fatal cast which was fierce Syllable count and cadence: 71727172 rhyme: tus/remtus (rinn-ardrinn) neim/engbaid (rinn- ardrinn)the rhyme is correct rann: deibide (aa bb rhyme) chummaisc also called rannaigecht chummaisc by Murphy; however, this is not a rannaigecht metre due to the lines b and d not rhyming.346 alliteration: cáilte/cona aindisc/engbaid (rop is unstressed, allowing the words on either side to alliterate) Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 2/4 = 50% Internal c d rhyme: 0/1 Total: 6/9 = 66% It can be seen that this stanza fulfils the basic requirements for a poem in dán díreach; however, despite stylistic features being used, the distinctive features as discussed beforehand are lacking. This stanza should very much be classed as ógláchas. 345 See appendix 4 lines 19-22 346 Murphy, 1961, Early Irish Metrics, 53 95 Comparison with the previous stanza: As the poetic analysis has shown, this stanza is slightly closer to the norm of dán dírech. In addition, the metre used is different to the previous poem, meaning that it forms a separate metrical unit. The most notable difference due to this metre is that the cadence of lines two and four in poem 2 is disyllabic, whereas it is trisyllabic in poem 1. This verse also uses alliteration more extensively than the previous one, which only has one alliterating pair, whereas no half-rhyme nor internal rhyme can be detected in this stanza. It can be said, then, that the two poems do not share any strong metrical relationship to one another. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 in – copula 3. sg. = it is Garb – personal name = Garb (incidentally also an adjective meaning rough) ro marbad – compare with O.Ir marbaid, here the conjunct stem of a relative pret. passive similar to .gabad + augment = who was killed ar – prep. = upon tus – compare with O.Ir. tús (o-m.) together with the prep. = firstly/at first One may note that the spelling in Garb (in likely being a misspelling of is)347occurs only one time in the prose text, in line 25, traig in Gairb which may be translated as ‘the beach of the rough one/the Garb’. The other copula forms, excepting the set formulaic phrase is ann sin, are all as (on lines 5, 23 and 24). Is is by far the most prevalent form of the copula with the scribe, used in 76% of cases. Here we can see that line 25 has the only instance of what may be the copula verb being spelt in. The form of the name given here is also attenuated (Gairb), implying that the scribe was using the word as a genitive in the prose, where it seems clear that the poem is using it in the nominative with the copula. One may speculate that a confusion between the personal name Garb and the adjective garbh (rough) may help to explain this error; however, this confusion would require the scribe to have misunderstood the copula given in this line to be the article in. Such a misunderstanding would require there to have existed a written poem from which the scribe was copying with the orthographical mistake evident, implying that this verse existed as a poem prior to its inclusion in the Agallamh. Regardless of whether or not the scribe recognised the form to be a copula verb, it appears unlikely that he did; the fact that the 347 Taking in to be the definite article would leave the line without a main verb 96 only spelling of this verb as in is telling and can be explained as a copying of a misspelling in the poem (or a misunderstanding) which implies that the poem itself must have existed in written form prior to the writing of the prose. It is also of note that the name Garb is only given in the prose in this line, he is elsewhere referred to as rí lochlann (16), in rí (17) and in rig (45) which leaves no connection, except a placename, to the king of the Viking host or his death at Cáilte’s hands. Line 2 a – prep. i = in mesc – compare with O.Ir. mesca (ia-f.) literally means ‘middle’ but figuratively ‘bewilderment’ or ‘confusion’ = confusion a – article compare with nom./acc. sg. article a n-348 = of the tshluáig – compare with O.Ir. slóg (o-m.) gen. sg. = army/battle ‘na – prep. i + a (poss. pron.) = in its remtus – compare with O.Ir. remthús (o-m.) = foremost position There are several features of this line which are of interest here, the first of which is t-prefixation before a genitive masculine word starting with Line 3 348 This article should be the masculine pattern in gen.sg. which would ‘correctly’ be int. It is of note that both a tshluaig and int shluaig would be pronounced /ə tlu:g´/ 97 ro marb – compare with O.Ir. marbaid in non-relative position, 3.sg. + augment = he killed him349 Cáilte – personal name, the subject of the verb = Cáilte cona – prep. co (with) + poss. pron. 3.s. m. = with his Neim – compare with O.Ir. neim (n. and f.) = venom (seemingly the name of the spear Cáilte is using) The verb do/ro marb occurs only twice throughout the prose, do marbad (on lines 24 and 44), making the form of the verb given here uncommon in the prose. It may also be noted that the prose scribe has a tendency to add anachronistic endings to simple (that is not regular) verbs such as ro rígsat (44), ro dingbad (44) or ro gabusardar (30), which supports the notion that this form may not be consistent with the scribe himself. A final piece of information concerning the conjugation of the verb marbaid is that the third singular conjunct preterite of this verb would be ro marb in the Old Irish system, meaning that the poet may have had an understanding of the Old Irish preterite system which is not strongly demonstrated in the prose hand. An example of this is the scribe’s version of the preterite ro gab being written ro gabusardar (30). In addition to this, we have no instance of the preposition co combined with the possessive pronoun a in the prose. Once more, it must be stressed that such a combination is highly unlikely to have not been recognized by the scribe, however, the fact that the scribe does not use it shows that he has a tendency to express the agent of an action using other constructions such as the preposition le/la or ac. Line 4 d’urchuir – prep. do combined with O.Ir. urchar/airchor vn. of ad.cuirethar, usually means extends/prolongs, figuratively a shot = to a shot/by a casting aindisc – adj. = utterly destructive/fatal rop – combination of augment ro + pret. copula (normally b’) here in a relative position = which was engbaid – adj. = fierce/cruel 349 In order to have Cáilte as the subject one must assume that there is a 3.sg.m infix which has not been written functioning as the direct object. This would normally be written ra.marb however without the assumption of an infix one must read Cáilte as the object. This issue shall be taken up again when discussing context. 98 Very little here needs to be remarked upon, except that the use of the copula verb in this way points towards a number of inconsistencies with the prose. Firstly, there is only one prose attestation of the copula verb in the preterite, ba (33). This evidence is sparse, but it tells us once more that the scribe does not show a tendency to use the copula in the past tense, nor does he use it in relative position. The fact that he does not use this verb in relative position is supported by the fact that the present tense attestations of the verb are also never shown in the relative. It may be added to this the fact that there is no evidence of the scribe mixing and in his writings, which may again imply the hand of another individual. By looking at the language of the poetry, we can see a number of noticeable inconsistencies in comparison with the prose which imply that the scribe of the prose was indeed not the author of the poems. Context There exist some further issues when context is considered, supporting the notion that the prose and poetry may not have originally been a single unit. The first of these is the verb ro marb. As has been pointed out, for Cáilte to be the subject of the phrase one must assume an unwritten infixed pronoun. Where this is possible, it would also be inconsistent with the prose scribe’s style, it is just as possible that Cáilte was the intended object. There is a confusion between subject and object and it is unclear without the prose context as to who killed whom in this verse.350 The fact that a spear called Neim is never named in the episode but occurs in the poetry should be compared with the fact that we hear in the earlier prose that there are three magical weapons prophesied to be used in the battle with the lochlannaigh. These are a sword called Cró Coscair, a spear named Ben Bodba and a javelin called Deoch Báis.351Neim does not occur in relation to the tale, which may indicate the existence of separate traditions involving the Lochlann leader Garb. This idea is supported by the fact that the prose mentions directly before the poem that “ro thoit in rí ar lár a tshluaig” (15-16) (the king fell in the centre of the army), giving a different location for the king (that is Garb) at the time of his death.352 Such a detail may be interpreted as insignificant, however, when viewed in light of a number of other details regarding this episode, it lends support to the idea of the existence of multiple traditions surrounding this tale which produced the verse we see here. 350 This is supported by the fact that Cáilte, as I have transcribed it, is represented by <.c.> in the manuscript, requiring the prose context to confirm it as being the character in question 351 Dooley and Roe, 1999, Tales, 193 352 We see that Garb falls at the forefront of the army in the poem 99 7.4 Poem 3 ro marb Cas Corach na cét in ningin – ní h-imarbrég – ro fhagaib hí ar in traig is cubar ina comdail353 Translation: Cas Corach of the Hundreds killed/the girl – it is not an exaggeration –/he left her on the beach/and foam in front of her Syllable count and cadence: 71737172 rhyme: cét/h-imarbrég (rinn-ardrinn)354 traig/comdail355 rann: This metre is, effectively, corrupted – the cadence in at least one line has one syllable too many, or requires an extra one, in order to make a passable metre internal rhyme: ingin ní/fhagaib hí alliteration: Cas/corach/cét ingin/imarbrég fhagaib/hí cubar/comdail Rann: 1/2 =50% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 4/4 = 100% Internal c d rhyme: 0/1 = 0% Total : 7/9 = 77%. If one counts internal rhyme to be a requisite feature of dán díreach, regardless of position in the stanza, the percentage of correct features is increased to 8/9 = 88% which is easily the closest to a poem in strict dán díreach metre which has thus far been seen in the episode. In addition to this, it has been observed that there appears to be some possible corruption due to a hyper-correction, likely involving the final word of the second line. This can be determined due to the rhyme and metre, as has been discussed in the footnotes. If one were to assume a once correct cadence in line 2, the poem is not lacking a single feature of a dán dírech poem. Comparison to the previous stanza: This stanza does not share the same metre as the previous poem, although if the assumption is made that a mistake has occurred in line 2, the metres were originally the same. In addition, the two poems share a similar score when it concerns the metrical requirements for dán díreach (although it can be seen from the analysis that poem 3 is of a slightly higher quality than poem 2). There is one element that may strongly imply a linkage between the two stanzas, however- namely, the first line of each stanza shares a rhyming element (in Garb, poem 2, ro marb, poem 3). This feature could be considered fodrad 353 See appendix 4 lines 39-42 354 This rhyme only works if the 100 freccoboil, a common feature of syllabic poems. One may observe also that the verb ro marb, which has been discussed in relationship to the prose in analysis of poem 2, also occurs in this stanza in the same form as in poem 2. It must be noted, however, that this poem, while also making great use of alliteration like poem 2, contains an instance of internal rhyme, a feature which poem 2 lacks. It can be said that there are notable similarities between the two stanzas which may imply the two to be considered a single metrical unit. The similarity between these lines will however be commented upon where relevant in the lexical translation and analysis, as well as in the discussion on the context of this poem. This poem likely existed elsewhere, and the mistake is, one way or the other, due to transmission. There is, however, no way to tell if this happened as a result of copying the stanza from another text or if it occurred during the transferring of the Agallamh itself. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 ro marb – compare with O.Ir. marbaid 3.s. pret. + augment = he killed Cas Corach – personal name functioning as the subject of ro marb = Cas Corach na – gen. pl. m./n. article = of the cét – compare with O.Ir cét (o-n.) in the gen. pl. = of the hundreds Ro marb has previously been discussed in relation to poem 2; however, I shall reiterate certain key points here. Marbaid has two attestations in the prose, both in relative position and with a different ending, which would not be found in the accepted Old Irish paradigm for a weak verb (The correct form would in fact be ro/no.marb, as evidenced in the poems here). The relationship to the prose is unnecessary to discuss here although the fact that exactly the same augmented form is used in this poem, and a noticeably different construction is used in the prose, is another reason why these two stanzas were likely originally verses belonging to a longer poem. Line 2 in – acc./nom. sg.f. article = the 101 n-ingin – compare with O.Ir. ingen (a-f.) here the direct object of the verb marbaid. = girl/maiden/woman ní – negative copula 3.sg. present indicative = it is not h-imarbrég – compare with O.Ir. imar (without) + bréc (lie) (a-f.) = without a lie356 together with the negative copula = it is not an exaggeration The article here adds a nasal Line 3 ro fhacaib – compare with O.Ir. fo.áccaib + augment = he left hí – 3.sg.f. indefinite pron. Functioning as direct object = her ar – prep. = upon/on in – sg.m. article = the traig – compare with O.Ir. trácht (u-n./m.) here in dat.sg. = beach There is no attestation of this verb (ro fhacaib) in the prose. The ending here is ambiguous, as this verb would commonly have the following forms: ro.fhác or ro.fhacbais (rel.), neither of 356 Together with the copula, we get the translation ‘not without a lie’ which most likely translates as ‘no lie’ 357 Accusative singular would be in/a n-étach eDil étach, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=etach&search_in=headword 102 which is similar to the form shown here. Despite this, ro.facab appears to be a preterite form in late Middle Irish. Ar in traig has been noted as containing a dative form and from the prose analysis we see that, while the scribe shows he was aware of the dative case and attempts to use it, he is inconsistent with its formation. One should, however, note, one attestation of this word, conid traig (25). This appears to show that the scribe did indeed use a dative form for this particular word, meaning that such a form possibly could be from the scribe’s hand. However, it should be mentioned that u-stem datives were commonly used in correct position into the modern period (for example (i) maigh Nuad = in Maynooth from mag meaning plain). The fact that u-stem datives were common into relatively contemporary times means that there is no direct reason to believe that the attestation of the form in the prose definitively means that the same scribe also wrote this line. The verbal usage may imply a different writer, but we must look at this line in conjunction with other evidence in order to reach a more definitive conclusion. Line 4 is – short form of the conj. ocus/agus = and cubar – compare with O.Ir. cubar (o-m.) = foam ina – combination of prep. i (in) + poss. pron. 3.sg.f. a = in her comdail – compare with O.Ir. comdál (a-f.) here in the dat.sg. = presence/front358 Once again, we get a dative being expressed correctly: comdail. In comparison to the prose analysis, we see only the word láim being similar in form, that is with the dative expressed through attenuation of the final consonant. It can however be seen that the scribe rarely attempts to formally distinguish the dative singular, thus making this form less likely to be written by the scribe. In addition, the form of the conjunction ocus is not attested in the prose written in the short form is, as we see that the scribe tends to represent this with the symbol 7 (short for disyllabic ocus) and occasionally writes the word out in full. This form is likely used in order to meet metrical requirements, but nevertheless, it is not attested in the prose, which is a noticeable difference. 358 eDil gives the translation of this line as ‘and foam in front of her’, comdáil available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=comd%C3%A1l&search_in=headword The etymology of the word appears to be a combination of com (a prefix meaning mutual/equal/complete) + dál (part/share) which implies being enveloped by the water. 103 Context: Once more, the tale in the prose is slightly different to the information which is conferred in the poetry. Firstly, the prose ends with “he struck off her head. He brought it with him to the Túatha Dé Danann and Caílte recited these lines” whilst we are told in the poem that “she was left on the beach with foam in front of her”.359 No mention is made in the poem of the warrior-woman’s head or what became of it, although the prose states she was decapitated. There is also mention in the prose of each character being wounded thirty times before Cas Corach landed a blow over the warrior-maiden’s shield. Neither the manner of her death nor the thirty wounds which each sustained during the fight is recounted in the verse. Nor does the prose explain what happened to her body, simply stating that Cas returned to the Túatha Dé Danann.360 The lines in the prose discussing the duel are as follows: ro chomraicetar co fuilech fo bhartach fír gnimach indus co tuc cechtar díb (tríocha) crecht n-ághmar n-inothrais ara cheile.361 Here we can see alliterating words fuilech/fo n-ághmar n-inothrais ara and also rhyming between bhartach and gnimach as well as ben and cenn. The rhymes which are still extant may in fact be remnants of what was once internal rhyme in an earlier poem, as they occur next to each other in the prose. It is also of note that the poem makes use of internal rhyme as a stylistic element. One may also say that these lines have a natural rhythm and cadence which imply transformative work from poetry to prose. Similar features have been noted in Scél Artúir. The possibility of transformative work occurring in this passage adds weight to an explanation of the interrelatedness of this and the previous poem, as has been proposed in the analysis of poem 2. It is possible that no mention of the details of the fight is given in the poetry because the verse describing this had been transformed into prose with this stanza being given as corroborative evidence of the tale. Regardless of possible explanations for the lack of information in the poem, it remains the case that a number of notable features, particularly the taking of the warrior-woman’s head, are not mentioned, implying a disconnect between the two media. When this is combined with the grammatical inconsistencies regarding the poem, particularly the usage of certain verbs and 359 Dooley and Roe, 1999, Tales, 196. 360 The line in question is: tarraid béim bhegail tar bile in sceith furri, cor’ ben a cenn di 7 tuc leis hé d’indsaighi Túathe Dé Danann which I translate as: he caught a blow over her shield’s rim on her which struck her from her and he took it with him to the Túatha Dé Danann 361 See appendix lines 35-36 Translation: they then fought bravely with bloody valour. Each had given the other thirty terrible wounds (Dooley and Roe, Tales, pp. 194-6) 104 dative forms which are notably different to the prose scribe’s hand as well as the use of an accusative article, it can be said that the poem is likely not from the same source as the prose. On the connection between poems 2 and 3 As previously noted, a number of similarities link these two poems and I shall advance the suggestion, once more, that these may come from an original longer poem discussing the episode at hand. This is largely based on the confusion of names, weapons and other details such as the place of the slaying of Garb being different in the poem and the prose, as well as the details of the death of the warrior woman. In addition to this, it appears that we have evidence of a rhythmical, alliterative style in the prose between the two verses which may suggest that there existed prior to the Agallamh a separate poem describing this same episode which was partly interwoven into the Agallamh in order to leave certain lines as a reference. 7.5 Poem 4 ro thoit lé mac na maissi Eolus ba lánchaem taissi cor’fhacaib hé ar in tuind i llepaid ind uair édruim362 Translation: He fell before the fine boy/Eolus was a very noble corpse/so that he left him363 on the wave/ in a bed of very cold, buoyant [water] Syllable count and cadence: 72727172 rhyme: maissi/taissi tuind/édruim (rinn-ardrinn) rann : deibide. According to Murphy, there is no form of deibide which has a cadence of one syllable in the third line and two syllables elsewhere; however, if the cadence of the first line were to be a single syllable, we would see the same as in poems 2 and 3, that is rann chummaisc alliteration: mac/maissi, fhacaib/hé,364 induair/édruim internal rhyme: fhacaib/llepaid365 (this is, to be more precise, internal half-rhyme, but it nevertheless demonstrates internal rhyme. 362 See appendix 4 lines 60-63 363 One may suggest a freer translation: who he [Cas Corach] left on the wave 364 365 and 105 Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 3/4 = 75% Internal c d rhyme: 1/1 = 0 Total: 8/9 = 88% We can see that the only flaw this poem has is that of a single word in the first line giving the couplet an odd cadence. This could be due to corruption or simply a mistake by the poet. Comparison with the previous poems: The quality of this poem is high, and it shares the same metre as poems 2 and 3. In addition to this, poem 3 shares this poem’s stylistic use of internal rhyme (including the presence of the word fhacaib). There are also similarities between this and poem 2. Firstly, both start with an augmented preterite form, ro marb and ro thoit respectively. Both verses also have the augmented form of fagaib followed by an independent pronoun as the first structural unit in the first line, ro fhagaib hí and cor’ fhacaib hé. It is therefore very reasonable to consider these two poems, and thus also poem 3, to be parts of a single metrical unit. In support of this, it may be noted that both this and the previous poem share a motif of the body of the person slain being left floating on the water. Furthermore, there is no strong link to the battle described in the prose and these verses may just as easily describe a routing Viking army or even a sea battle. The location of these poems, in other words, does not have to be limited to a set of duels fought on land, as described in the prose. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 ro thoit – compare with O.Ir. do.tuit 3.sg.pret. + augment = he fell lé – variation of the prep. ré (followed by the dat.) = before mac – compare with O.Ir. mac366 = son/boy na – gen.sg.f. article = of the maissi – compare with O.Ir. maise (ia-f. later io-n.) in gen.sg. = of beauty/fineness, together this epithet can be translated as “the fine boy” The preposition lé occurs once in the prose as the more common ré (56) and twice more spelt re on lines 9 and 17. One may say, therefore, that the form shown in this verse is inconsistent with the common usage of the prose scribe. It is also of note that there is one example of the word maissi spelt maisi (47). A slightly different spelling is seemingly unimportant; however, 366 This word is written in the manuscript as a ligature making the intended case impossible to discern 106 we have further examples of a double Line 2 Eolus – personal name which may be related to O.Ir. eólas (o-m.) meaning knowledge ba – 3.sg.pret. copula = was lánchaem – compound of O.Ir. lán (full) + cáem (noble). We have an expression attested of lanreimis being translated as ‘full king’ (as opposed to a half-king).367= (fully) noble taissi – compare with O.Ir. taise which often occurs in the plural taisi(b) = corpse.368Where this is often referring to the relics of a saint, one should remember that the name of this character is Eolus (lit. knowledge) and thus the translation ‘holy/revered corpse’ is not unrealistic. The translation for these two lines therefore will be given as = very noble corpse369 lánchaem is also a compound and it is of note that, whilst Line 3 cor’fhacaib – compare with O.Ir. fo.ácaib 3.sg.pret + co + augment = so that he left hé – independent 3.sg.m. pron. functioning as the direct object = him ar – prep. = on in – f. article = the tuind – compare with O.Ir. tonn (a-f.) in the dat.sg. = wave 367 eDil, lanreimis, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=lanreimis 368 eDil, taise, available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=taise&search_in=headword 369 This is further supported by the fact that the word taissi can be used adjectivally as in the following example: luid fo thalmhain taissi a cúil (her hair’s soft tresses), the translations noble/nobleman corpse therefore appears reasonable 107 The verb cor’ fhacaib is the same verb as ro fhagaib found in poem 3, and which appears to be conforming to similar mutation rules. Once more here we get a clear dative singular ending the line, tuind from tonn. This is an a-stem noun which has undergone raising and attenuation in order to form the dative, exactly as would have been done in the Old Irish period, but which would likely have become obsolete by this time. We do not see raising occurring in the scribal hand, which strongly implies a different, and likely older, source for the language of the poetry. Line 4 i – prep. = in llepaid – compare with O.Ir. lepaid (i-f.) = bed ind – compare with the intensive prefix and or with an in Modern Irish = very uair – adj. (gen.sg.) compare with O.Ir. uar = cold édruim – compare with O.Ir. étromm (here in gen.sg.) = buoyant Comparing this to the analysis of the prose, one should remember that the scribe uses the preposition a in the place of i in 75% of cases, making i an overall unusual spelling of the preposition. Furthermore, one sees that the Context: This poem does appear to recount the slaying of Eolus by someone who is called mac na maissi and though this does not necessarily have to refer to this character, it likely does, based on the fact that Eolus is described as being slain by Fer Maisse, and the mentioning of Eolus by name in this verse implies that this is who is referred to by the epithet. Despite this, the fact that this particular poem seems to be linked to the last two stanzas and, given that they contain discrepancies when compared to the prose episode, in addition to linguistic differences found both here and in the other verses, one may conclude that this also is part of a larger poem concerned with the episode but not written by the author of the Agallamh. It should be added, when observing this poem, that the three verses (poems 2, 3 and 4) are likely a collective 108 metrical unit which means that, in addition to the linguistic inconsistencies found here, the differences in the other poems contribute to form a much larger overall data set for comparison to the prose, making the sum of the differences significant. 7.6 Poem 5 is é sin scél na traga cipé no b’eth ‘gá rada erbaid in tshuaig táinic thuaid a lochlaind – co méit mor-uill – 370 Translation: That is the story of the beach/to whomever it be told/the destruction of the army which came from the north/from Lochlann – so [extremely] vast – Syllable count and cadence: 72727172 rhyme: traga/rada thuaid/moruill rann : This metre type has no attestation in Murphy and appears to likely have undergone corruption due to the fact that, in order to give the count and cadence of line 3 as 71 one is required to read both tshuaig and thuaid as monosyllabic words. This implies that a disyllabic word, possibly erbaid, was added to the line in tshuaig táinic thuaid, which broke the metre and cadence for that line. In support of this theory, one may note that the word erbaid is completely unnecessary for the line to make sense. The poem has therefore been scanned with the exclusion of the word erbaid, giving us a count and cadence of 72727272 deibide nguilbnech recomarcach alliteration: sin/scél cipé/b’eth371 táinic/thuaid méit/mor-uill aiccill: thuaid/lochlaind Rinn: 2/2 = 100% Rhyme: 2/2 = 100% Alliteration: 4/4 = 100% Internal c d rhyme 0/1 = 0% Total 8/9 = 88% note that if one takes Ó Cuív’s rules over that of O’Donovan this poem would undoubtedly be classed as dán díreach. Comparison with the previous stanza: This poem is of a high quality which the others do not quite reach, marking it out from the rest. The metre is also different. Where the previous three poems were written in deibide chummaisc (albeit with corruptions and inaccuracies) this verse is in deibide nguibnech recomarcach, meaning amongst other things, that the poem does not make use of rinn-ardrinn rhyming schemes, a large discerning feature differentiating it from the other poems. A final quality which marks this poem out from the others is that the features common to the last three poems, which have been discussed previously, pertaining to 370 See appendix 4 lines 64-67 371 The first syllable is unstressed in cipé meaning that the alliteration starts at the p, pronounced /b/ 109 commonly repeated motifs such as cor’/ro fhagaib hí/hé in poems 3 and 4 and the use of the verb ro marb Cas Corach/Cáilte in poems 2 and 3, are not shared here. From this, it can be stated that we most likely are dealing with a separate metrical unit to the previous three poems. This poem, like poem 5 in the Book of Lismore, is possibly the work of a professional poet. Lexical translation and analysis: Line 1 is – copula 3.sg. = it is é sin – ind. pron. 3.sg.m. + demonstrative pron. = that scél – compare with O.Ir. scél (o-n.) = (the) story na – gen.f. article = of the traga – compare with O.Ir. tráig (i-m./f.) in the gen.sg. = beach/shore This line starts with the copula construction is é sin which cannot be seen in the prose. As has been discussed in an earlier analysis, the independent pronoun is not preferred by the scribe to express the subject of a copula construction. The word traig is found in the prose twice as the genitive of na trága (11) traig (25), although it should be noted that the form found in this poem has a short which may imply a different system being used.372 Where this difference is minimal, compounded with the evidence of the use of the independent pronoun as the subject of a copula construction, this may be taken to imply a different origin for this line. Line 2 cipé – Middle Irish form derived from O.Ir. cía + bé compare with Mod.Ir. cibé = whoever no b’eth – semantically meaningless particle no + 3.s. past subj. of attá (at this time it could be used as a present subj.) = it may be ‘gá – version of the conjugated prep. do + 3.sg.m. possessive pron. a = to his rada – compare with O.Ir. ráda (vn. Of ráidid) = speaking Translation: whoever it may be to his speaking => to whomever it be told 372 The words tracht (o-m.) and tráig (i-m.) both mean strand which may have led to declensional confusion in the Middle Irish period possibly explaining the difference between long and short a 110 None of these forms is found in the prose; of particular note is that the scribe appears largely to avoid using the subjunctive; as there are no attestations of such in the prose episode. There is also no attestation of the form cipé and the scribe of this episode does not tend to make use of independent pronouns in place of a subject but prefers to use other constructions, as has also been discussed earlier. One may therefore say that the word cipé as the subject of the main verb is uncharacteristic of the scribe. It can also be seen that there exists a single attestation of the particle no in no.bith (49). This appears to be used as a relative marker by the scribe, with a preterite form of the substantive verb, making the form here also uncharacteristic with the prose. The construction ‘gá rada is also not attested in the prose. There is also no evidence of the prose scribe confusing the spelling of the preposition do and go, often pronounced /go/. A lack of attestation does not mean the scribe was unfamiliar with these forms at all, however it does imply he preferred other constructions over them as a method of expressing the same meaning. Line 3 erbaid – compare with O.Ir. airbaid = destruction in – gen.sg.m. article = of the tshuaig – gen.sg. of O.Ir. sluag/slóg = army táinic – Mid.Ir. form from do.icc, here in relative position with no marking = which came thuaid – compare with O.Ir. thúaid (adv.) = from the north The only noun of this line which is attested in the prose is sluag, given ar lár a tshluaig (17). It can be seen from this that this word is not inconsistent with the scribe’s style although the presence 111 Line 4 a – compare with prep. ó = from lochlaind – alternative form/dat. of Lochlann = Norway/Scandinavia co – variant of chomh/ho = so méit – compare with O.Ir. mét (a-f.) meaning greatness/magnitude, it should be noted that ho méit is attested with the translation ‘so great’373= vast mor-uill – compound of O.Ir. mór (big) + oll (great) = very big (méit moruill appears to have the intended meaning of ‘so [extremely] vast’) The preposition ó is only attested once, combined with the article as ón (8). This is sparse evidence to go by, however, the preposition used by the scribe is not a in this case, which implies a different style or system operating in this line. The word Lochlann is attested twice in the prose, lochlann (16) and Loghland (43), both times intended to be a genitive. This word, according to eDil, is a possible compound of the words loch and lann (o-m.) meaning that the dative likely would be formed by raising the a to u giving a dative lochlu(i)nn. There are so many variants of this word that no paradigm is given in the dictionary.374 With this information in mind, it can be seen that the prose scribe treated the noun as an indeclinable word, much like a personal name such as Cáilte, whereas the writer of the poem likely confused the dative and genitive forms of an o-stem paradigm leading to the form we see in the poem. This word, in conjunction with the oddity in preposition form implies that the language representation system of the poem does not match that of the prose, pointing to a separate origin. Context: It is of interest that this poem directly refers to the destruction of the army that came from Lochlann. In contrast, the prose only mentions a number of duels and not a fully-fledged battle scene. This inconsistency may also be the reason for the confusion between the place where Garb is killed, which may lead one to assume that the poetry is referring to a full battle whereas the prose only describes the duels of heroes. Garb in the poem, as we have observed, is killed in the confusion of the battle, at its forefront, whereas the prose tale states that he falls in the centre of the army. The former implies the clash of the two armies and a lengthy, confusing 373 eDil, méit available at: http://www.dil.ie/search?q=m%C3%A9it&search_in=headword 374 eDil, Lochlann available at : http://www.dil.ie/search?q=lochlann&search_in=headword 112 battle scene in which the king falls. The latter implies a duelling situation in which one or both armies surrounded the combatants to observe a fight occurring in its centre. Mac Gearailt has noted in his article ‘change and innovation in eleventh-century prose narrative in Irish’ that there are a number of factors typical to Middle Irish battle-tales. These are as follows: a description of the first attack, the onrush of the army, the defence, the happenings of the most valiant warriors, the futility of their efforts, the fury of the warriors, blood flowing from their bodies, the trembling of the earth from the noise of the battle, the horror of the onlookers and the death of the king.375 It is clear that in the prose, none of these elements is described well. However, when we look at the poetry, we see stanzas discussing the dealings of individual warriors, as well as a description of the invaders’ ships and an account of the death of the king of the army. It has also been seen that the part of the prose discussing the wounds of Cas Corach and Ben Bodba may be transformative.376 Considering both the noticeable orthographical differences which have been noted, as well as these details regarding context, it is possible to postulate that the five poems found in this episode are the remnants of one, or multiple, larger poems discussing similar material to the prose which has been transformed or woven into the new context in this episode. A final note on poetic quality in the episode: Through analysing the metre and quality of the poetry, we have seen three poems of a relatively high quality, one poem (poem 1) of a moderately low quality and one poem (poem 5) which is of such high quality that it would be classed as dán díreach. The range in quality is important when determining the origin of the poems because, as it stands here, for the prose scribe to have written all the stanzas himself, he would have had to display both a high competence in a variety of metres as well as quality of production. It is, due to the education of a poet, not unlikely that one who had been so deeply educated in the craft would be capable of producing a variety of stanzas in different metres. However, one is left with the question as to why a poet who is clearly capable of producing poems in dán díreach would also choose to produce verse which would seem to be a pale imitation of proper metre. This further points to the notion that the poems do not all share the same origin but are taken from separate, pre-existing sources. 375 Mac Gearailt, 1996, “Change and innovation,” 485 376 See ‘context’ on page 105 of this thesis 113 8.1 Conclusions It can be seen from the analysis of the two sections that none of the poems displays itself as containing a convincing level of similarity to the generated norms of the scribal prose in which it is embedded. This is to say that the poems all exhibit noticeable linguistic, orthographical and contextual differences which point to them having a seperate origin to the prose. In addition, it has been noted through both metrical and linguistic observations that many of the poems seen in the prose episodes share a relationship to one another. The evidence gained through the analysis in this thesis thus shows that neither the Agallamh found in Lismore nor in Laud 610 can be said to contain small metrical units in notably important episodes which are likely to have been written by the prose author. Due to the analysis performed, it can be said that the Bun-Agallamh is therefore likely drawing on pre-existing written poetry which is now lost, with the prose provided by the author of the work himself, possibly in part as a result of transformative work. It is unlikely that the poems come from an oral tradition, which leaves us with a single solution, that the poems must come from other written sources, pointing to a larger literary corpus. 377 It is also clear that the poetry appears to be ‘evidential verse’, implying that the author of the Agallamh was using longer written poems to base these two episodes on and that there is evidence of transformative work being done. One may say, therefore, that the method has been successful in investigating the proposed hypothesis effectively. This detailed analysis of the poetry has shown that the quality of many of the metrical units is very high and are likely to be related compositions from a larger poem. The quality of the metrical work, along with noticeable difference between prose and poetry when it comes to orthography, accidence and context indicates that many of the single-verse poems in the text were copied from external sources. 8.2 Suggestions for Further Research This preliminary work supports the notion that the author of the Agallamh was basing large parts of his work on poetry already in existence which poses a number of further questions: Is the Agallamh an exercise in prosifying older poems rather than copying them as verse? Why would this be done? With this in mind, what may the Agallamh represent? Might this be an attempt at preserving traditions due to influence from the Anglo-Normans? Or an attempt at making poems appear to be more traditional and thus distinct from bardic works? A greater understanding of the Bun-Agallamh, it would seem, is still required and this would entail an in- 377 See pp. 31-33 of this thesis for the discussion on these topic 114 depth analysis of both earliest recensions, focusing on drawing comparisons between them. This thesis has hopefully demonstrated the merits of such an approach as it applies to the Agallamh. One may also ask what the implications are of the fact that the Bun-Agallamh is a synthesisation of a greater corpus of literary works. Perhaps the work may be viewed as the formation of a canon within the Fenian corpus. There may furthermore be a lot to learn from the derivative works which it spawned and the way the later traditions diverted from these versions. Pádraig Ó Macháin has stated on the Agallamh: “is féidir glacadh leis an Acallam mar iarracht ar chódú a dhéanamh ar an bhFiannaíocht a fheiceáil… [agus] mar chnuasach dinnshenchais a d’fhéach fear an dara haois déag air”.378This viewpoint appears to be supported by the observations of this thesis and further work in this direction would seem to be a viable suggestion for research on the topic. This thesis has hopefully provided a basis upon which other reconstructive and receptive works may be based in the future and has also achieved some success in clarifying the interrelatedness of some strains of this extensive and culturally significant masterwork of literature. 378 Ó Macháin, Pádraig, “Aonghus Ó Callanáin, Lebhar Leasa Móir agus an Agallamh bheag” in In Dialogue with the Agallamh Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Kevin Murray, Aidan Doyle, (ed.s), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 144-163 (154) Translation: the Agallamh can be taken as an attempt to codify Fiannaíocht literature… and as a collection of dinnshenchas viewed by the twelfth-century man 115 116 Appendices Appendix 1 (Bibliography) Primary Sources Book of Lismore. Derbyshire, Chatsworth Private Collection. Accessed through Irish Script on Screen: https://www.isos.dias.ie Meyer, Kuno (ed.) “Macgnímartha Find” in Revue Celtique 5 (1882), pp. 195-204 MS Laud Misc. 610. Oxford: Bodleian Library. Accessed through Digital Bodleian: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk Ó Riain, Pádraig (ed.), Cath Almaine in Mediaeval and Modern Irish Series vol. xxv, (Dublin: the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978) Stokes, Whitley (ed.) and (tr.) Acallamh na senórach in Windish, E and Stokes, W, (eds.) Irishce Texte mit Wörterbuch, vol. 4:1, (Leipzig: Verlag con S. Hirzel, 1900) Secondary Sources: Arbuthnot, Sharon, “Medieval Irish compilation: conservatism and creativity” in Medieval Manuscripts in Transition, Geert Claassens (ed.) Werner Verbeke (ed.), (Leuven: 2006) pp. 194-214 Berggreen, Harald and Tenfjord, Kari, Andrespråkslæring, Gyldendal Akademisk (Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS, 2011) 2. edn. Breatnach, Caoimhín, “Early Modern Irish prose” in Kim McCone, Katharine Simms (eds.) Progress in Medieval Irish Studies, (Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, 1996) pp. 189-206 Breatnach, Liam, “An Mheán-Ghaeilge” in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláirste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed pp. 221-335 Breatnach, Liam, “Poets and poetry” in Progress in Medieval Irish Studies, Kim McCone, Katharine Simms, (eds) (Maynooth: Saint Patrick’s College, 1996) I Bruford, Alan, “Oral and literary fenian tales” in Fiannaíocht: Essays on the Fenian Tradition of Ireland and Scotland – the Heroic Process: Form, Function and Fantasy in Folk Epic, Bo Almqvist et al. (eds.) (Dublin-Dun Laogaire: an Cumann le Béaloideas Éireann, 1987) pp. 25- 56 Carney, James, “Two poems from Acallamh na senórach” in Celtic Studies: Essays in Memory of Angus Matheson 1912-1962 (London: 1968) pp. 22-32 1968 Corthals, Johan, “‘Táin bó Regamna’ und ‘Táin bó Flidais’ Zwei altirische Erzählungen mit Einleitung, Text, deutscher Übersetzung und sprachlichem Kommentar” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Mürde des Doktors der Philosophie der Universität Hamburg (Hamburg: aud Brüssel, 1979) Corthals, Johan, “The Áiliu poems in Bretha Nemed Dédenach” in Éigse 37, (National University of Ireland, 2010) pp. 59-91 Dillon, Myles, “The archaism of Irish tradition [Sir John Rhŷs memorial lecture]” in Proceedings of the British Academy 33 (1947) pp. 245-264 Dooley, Ann, “Arthur in Ireland: the earliest citation in native Irish literature” in Arthurian literature 12 (1993) pp. 165-172 Dooley, Ann, “Arthur of the Irish: a viable concept?” in Arthurian Literature 21 (2004) pp. 9- 28 Dooley, Ann, (trs.) Roe, Harry, (trs.) Tales of the Elders of Ireland, Oxford World Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) Dooley, Ann, “The European context of Acallam na senórach” in In dialogue with the Agallamh: essays in honour of Seán Ó Coileáin Aidan Doyle (ed.) Kevin Murray (ed.), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 60-75 Flahive, J, “Revisiting the Reeves Agallamh” in In Dialogue with the Agallamh Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Kevin Murray, Aidan Doyle, (eds.), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 164-184 Ford, Patrick (trs.), The Irish Literary Tradition (Belmont Massachusetts: 1992), Revised English edition of Caerwyn Williams, J.E., Traddodiad Llenyddol Iwerddon, (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1958) II Green, Antony, Old Irish Verbs and Vocabulary (Cascadilla Press, USA: 2000) 3rd edn. Greene, David, “Distinctive plural forms in Old and Middle Irish” in Ériu vol 25 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1974) pp. 190-199 Mac Cana, Proinsias, “Notes on the combination of prose and verse in Early Irish narrative”, in Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der Frühen Irischen Literatur, Stephen Tranter (ed.), Hildegard Tristram (ed), (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989) pp. 125-147 Mac Cana, Proinsias, “Prosimetrum in insular Celtic literature” in Prosimetrum, Crosscultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, Joseph Harris, Karl, Reichl (eds.), (D.S. Brewer, 1997) pp. 99-130 Mac Eoin, Gearóid, “Orality and literacy in some Middle-Irish king-tales” in: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der Frühen Irischen Literatur, Stephen Tranter (ed.), Hildegard Tristram (ed), (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989) pp. 149-183 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Change and innovation in eleventh-century prose narrative in Irish” in Re(Oralisierung) Hildegard L.C. (ed.) (Tübingen: Narr, 1996) pp. 443-496 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Cath Ruis na Ríg and twelfth century literary and oral tradition” in Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 44, (1991) pp. 128-153 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Forbairt na stíle I litríocht phrós na Gaeilge Moiche” in Léachtaí Cholm Cille 26 (Maigh Nuad: An Sagart 1996) pp. 7-49 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “Middle Irish archaisms in Early Modern Irish prose” in Studia Hibernica 38, (2012) pp. 57-116 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “On the date of the Middle Irish recension II Táin bó Cúailnge” in Quiggin memorial lectures, 11 (Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 2010) pp. 1-33 Mac Gearailt, Uáitéar, “The language of some late Middle Irish texts in the Book of Leinster” in Studia Hibernica 26 (Maynooth: Coláiste Phádraig, 1991-92) pp. 167-216 McCone, Kim, “An tSean-Ghaeilge agus a réamhstair” in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláiste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed, pp. 61-221 III McCone, Kim, A First Old Irish Grammar and Reader: Including an introduction to Middle Irish (Maynooth: Department of Old and Middle Irish, 2005) McCone, Kim, The Early Irish Verb (Maynooth, An Sagart, Co. Kildare: 1987) McManus, Damian, “An Nua-Ghaeilge chlasaiceach” in Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, Kim McCone, et al. (eds) (Maigh Nuad: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge, Coláirste Phádraig, 1996) 2nd ed pp. 335-44 McManus, Damian, “The hunt in Medieval Ireland, with special reference to the evidence of Classical Irish poetry” in Ériu 68, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2018) pp. 145-192 Mulligan, Amy C, A Landscape of Words, Ireland, Britain and the Poetics of Space, 700-1250, (Manchester University Press, 2019) Murphy, Gerard, Dunaire Finn, The Book of the Lays of Fionn vol. III, (Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland, 1953) Murphy, Gerard, Early Irish Metrics (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1961) Murray, Kevin, “Interpreting the evidence: problems with dating the early fíanaigecht corpus” in The Gaelic Finn Tradition, Geraldine Parsons (ed.), Sharon Arbuthnot(ed.), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2012) pp. 31-49 Murray, Kevin, “The reworking of Old Irish narrative texts in the Middle Irish Period: contexts and motivations” in Authorities and Adaptations: The Reworking and Transmission of Textual Sources in Medieval Ireland Elizabeth Boyle (ed.), Deborah Hayden (ed.), (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014) pp. 291-306 Na Bráithre Críostamhla, Graiméar na Gaedhilge leis na Bráithreachaibh Críostamhla (Dublin: M.H. Gill & son, ltd., 1910) Nagy, Joseph F., “Arthur and the Irish” in A companion to Arthurian Literature, Helen Fulton (ed.), (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture 58, Malder, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.) pp. 117-127 Ní Dhomhnaill, Cáit, Duanaireacht Rialacha meadarachta fhilíocht na mbard, (Baile Átha Cliath: 1975) IV Ní Mhaonaigh, Máire, “Poetic authority in Middle Irish narrative: a case study” in Authorities and Adaptations: The Reworking and Transmission of Textual Sources in Medieval Ireland Elizabeth Boyle (ed.), Deborah Hayden (ed.), (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014) pp. 263-9 Nuner, Robert D. “The verbal system of the Agallamh na senórach” in Zeitschrift für Celstische Philologie, Julius Pokorny (ed.), Band 27, (Tübingen: 1958-59) pp. 230-310 Ó Cathasaigh, Tomás, “The oldest story of the Laigin: reflections on Orgain Denna Rig” in Éigse 33, (2002) pp. 1-18 Ó Coileáin, Seán, “The setting of Géisid cúan” in In Dialogue with the Agallamh Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Kevin Murray, Aidan Doyle, (ed.s), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 234-248 O’Connor, Ralph, The Destruction of Da Derga’s Hostel: Kingship and Narrative Artistry in a Mediaeval Irish Saga 1st edn. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013) Ó Cuív, Brian, “Observations on the Book of Lismore” in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature 83c, (1983) pp. 269-290 Ó Cuív, Brian, “Some developments in Irish metrics” in Éigse 12, Brian Ó Cuív (ed.) (1967- 68) pp. 273-290 Ó Cuív, Brian, “The concepts of ‘correct’ and ‘faulty’ in Medieval Irish bardic tradition” in Indogermanica et Caucasica Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1994), pp. 395-406 Ó Cuív, Brian, “The linguistic training of the mediaeval Irish poet” in Celtica 10 (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1973) pp. 114-140 O’Donovan, John, A Grammar of the Irish Language, Published for the Use of the Senior Classes in the College of St. Columba, (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1845) Ó Macháin, Pádraig, “Aonghus Ó Callanáin, Lebhar Leasa Móir agus an Agallamh bheag” in In Dialogue with the Agallamh Essays in Honour of Seán Ó Coileáin, Kevin Murray, Aidan Doyle, (ed.s), (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2014) pp. 144-163 V Parsons, Geraldine, “Acallam na senórach as prosimetrum” in Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 24-25 (2009) pp. 86-100 Quiggin, Edmund C., “The s-preterite in Middle Irish” in Ériu vol. 4, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1904) pp. 191-207 Scannell, Kevin, et al. (dir.) Tenaglann available at: https://www.teanglann.ie Schlüter, Dagmar, “Boring and elusive? The dindshenchas as a medieval Irish genre” in The Journal of Literary Onomastics 6:1 (2017) pp. 22-31 (here at pg. 30) Sidwell, Keith, “Editing renaissance Latin literature” in, Cambridge Companion to Neo-Latin Literature V Moul (eds.) (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015) Stifter, David, “An early Irish poetic formula” in Fír Fesso, A festschrift for Neil McLeod, Sydney Series in Celtic Studies 17, Ahlqvist et al. (ed.s) (Sydney: University of Sydney, 2018) pp. 223-233 Stifter, David, “Metrical systems of Celtic traditions” in Grammarians, Skalds and Rune Carvers I, North-Western European Language Evolution Robert Nedoma (ed.), Michael Schulte (ed.) (University Press of Southern Denmark, 2016) pp. 38-94 Stifter, David, Sengoidelc Old Irish for Beginners, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2006) Stitching A.G. (dir) van Hamel voor Kestische Studies (A.G. van Hamel Foundation for Celtic Studies), available at: https://www.vanhamel.nl/codecs/Home Strachan, John, “Contributions to the history of Middle Irish declension” in Transactions of the Philological Society 25 (1903-6. 1906): pp. 202-246 Strachan, John, “The infixed pronoun in Middle Irish” in Ériu 1, (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1904) pp. 153-179 Thainisch, Eystein, “What the Butlers saw: Acallam na senórach and its marginalia in the Book of the White Earl” in Aiste 4, (2014) pp. 35-57 Theuerkauf, Marie-Luise, “The death of Boand and the recensions of Dindshenchas Érenn” in Ériu vol. 67 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2017) pp. 49-97 VI Thurneysen, Rudolf, A Grammar of Old Irish, D.A. Binchy (trans.), Osborn Bergin (trans.), (Louth: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dundalgan Press Ltd, 2010, 7th edition,) Toner, Gregory (dir.) electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language. Available at: http://dil.ie VII Appendix 2 (Scéal Artúir Transcription and Translation) Transcribed from Book of Lismore. Derbyshire, Chatsworth Private Collection. Accessed through Irish Script on Screen: https://www.isos.dias.ie Folio 202r column 1 line 13 from the bottom. The manuscript has no spacing and limited to no punctuation. I have added spaces and simple punctuation (commas and full stops) as well as filled in ligatures and abbreviations for ease of reading. In all cases where ambiguity exists in the manuscript, I have deferred to Stokes’ rendering of the text in my own transcriptions. Poems have also been formatted into stanzas, the line numbers given are my own, starting at the first line of the text, line 170 in Stokes, as line one. The full transcription corresponds with lines 170-260 in Stokes, Whitley (ed.) and (tr.) Acallamh na senórach, in Windish, E and Stokes, W, (eds.) Irishce Texte mit Wörterbuch, vol. 4:1, (Leipzig: Verlag con S. Hirzel, 1900) 1)Oclach do búi ac finn .i. artúir mac benne brit 7 hedh a lín trí naenbair 7 do ronad sealg 2) benne hedair le finn 7 ba tuillmech toirtech in tshellgsoin 7 do scáilset dá conuibh 7 do 3) shuidh finn i carn in fhéinnedha idir bein edair 7 muir, 7 ba maith lais a menma ac éisdecht 4) re raibceidaig na ndam ndíscir nduisnach ic á luathmharbadh do chonúibh na féinne. Is 5) ann sin do rala dhartúir mac benne brit beth ic coimhet in mara idir an fiadach 7 muir cu 6) nach shnáimhdís in [damrad]379 uatha 7 mar do bhí artúir amuich i cind in chuain at connaic 7) trí coin do conuib finn .i. bran 7 sceolaing 7 adhnuall 7 as í comairli arar cinn benne .i. é 8) féin 7 a trí nónbair d’imtheacht thar muir 7 na coin sin do bhreith leis ina tír féin 7 do 9) chríchnaiged in comairle sin. Dóigh ámh do chuatar som tar muincin mara 7 na trí coinsin 10) leo 7 ro gabsat cuan 7 calad ac innber mara gaimiach i crich breatan 7 tiagait a tir 7 lótar 11) rompa co sliab lodáin meic lir 7 do rónad sealg in tshléibi sin. Dála na féinne iarr sin 12) tairnic leo a bhfhiadach 7 a bhfhianchoscar do dhénam 7 ro ghabsat longport ag beinn 13) edair meic etghaeith in féinnetha 7 ro háirimhit coin tighi finn annsin amail ba gnáth aca 14) 7 ba himdha a coinsiumh, amail adbert an file VIII 379 This word has been added by Stokes 15) airim craeibi ar conuibh finn 16) cona chuanart blaith bhithbhinn 17) .ccc. (trí cét) gadhar comhull nglé 18) ocus .cc. (dá cét) gaidrine 19)Ba mór do dhainib icá ra bhutar sin ar padraig as fír ámh duitsi sin ar cáilte ór ba hé so 20) in lín no bhidh i tigh finn: 21) trí coegaid ro bui i tigh finn 22) do tháisechtaib fiain fírgrinn 23) is .ccc. (trí cét) gilla ngradha 24) .cc. (dá cét) dalta dingbhala 25) Ar náirimh na gcon fríth móiresbaidh forro .i. bran 7 sceolaing 7 adnuall 7 ro hindised 26) dfhind sirter ar sé trí catha na féinne 7 gia ro siredh ní fríth na coin. Is ann sin tucad 27) loingshithal bánóir cum find 7 ro nigh a gnúis rígda 7 tuc a ordain fo a dét fis 7 do 28) faillsiged fírinne dhó 7 adubairt ruc in righ bretan bhar coin uaibh 7 toghuidh nónbar 29) do dhul dá niarraidh 7 ro togad amlaid 7 ba hiat so a nanmanna .i. diarmaid mac duinn 30) mac meic donnachada meic dhubháin, do ernaibh muman aneas 7 goll mac morna in 31) mac righ goll ar pádraig no in mac oglach mac righ ar caílte 7 atbert: 32) mac taidg meic mórna don muig 33) mac faeláin meic fheradaigh 34) mac fiach meic airt don mhuigh 35) mac muiredhaig, meic eoghain 36) 7 caol cródha cétghuinech ua nemhnain co náich co neimh ro bhiú ac finn 7 ba hí 37) so neimh ro bhai fáir or nir dhibric a lám urchar nimroill riam 7 nír fuiligh a lám ar duine IX 38) riamh nach bhud marbh ria gcinn nomaide go ossín mac finn in té nár ér duine riamh acht 39) gu mbeth cenn re caithimh neich aigi 7 cosa re himthecht is mór in teisd sin a cailti ar 40) padraig as fír cidh sin ar cáilte 7 adubairt 41) nír ér oisín duine riamh 42) im ór ná im aircet ná im biagh 43) ní mó do chuinnigh ní ar nech 44) gémad innrigh a oinech 45) ocus oscar mac oisín .i. in mac rígh ba ferr lúth 7 lámach ro bái a néirin 7 ferdhomain 46) mac buidhbh deirg meic in dhaghda ocus raighne roisclethan mac finn, caince 47) corcairdherg mac finn 7 glás mac eincherda bera 7 mac lugach 7 misi féin ar cáilte 7 ba 48) hí ar cáilte (cét)fuid dhín féin a naemh padraig co nach raibhi ó theprofane co gardha 49) na nisperda a niarthar in domain. .cccc. (ceithre cét) laech nach dingebhmais a láthair 50) chatha 7 chomlain. Or ní raibhi guala gan gelscait ná cenn gan cathbarr ná desdorn gan 51) dá manáis móir lebra co buaidhmenaibh romhain fón réimsin cu rancamar sliabh lodáin 52) meic lir 7 nír chain dúinn ann cu cualamar dluthchomhrad na bhfheine ag dénam shealga 53) ar in muigh. Dala artúir meic benne brit do eisidh ina dhuma shealga ann sin cona mhuintir 54) ind saighter linne iat co hathlaimh 7 ro mharbhsam muintir artúir uili iadhus oscar a dá 55) láimh um artúr 7 ainices hé tucsm ar t. (trí) coin lind ocus indechuin ro dhec goll mac morna 56) secha con faca in tech bo coidech dubhghorm co srian ro cumdach oir fria ocus indecsain 57) ro dhec dá laimh cli con faca in nech ndonn nóghabhala 7 sriar línaidi laingeal dairget 58) aithlegtha fria co mbeilgibh óir fris 7 gabus in t-each sin 7 cuiris hí i láim oisín 7 cuiris 59) oisín i láim diarmada í dhuibhni 7 tancamar romuinn i ar mbuaidh coscair 7 commaidme 60) 7 cinn na t. (trí) naonbarsin linn 7 ar coin 7 ar neich 7 artúir fein a laim co hair i mbúi finn 61) co senmagh nelta nedair 7 tancammar isin pubail i raibhe in righ fheinnid 7 atbert caílte 62) do ratsamar artúir linn 63) co dherna a cura re finn X 64) cur ba oglach dfhinn iar soin 65) cuisin laithi luid decoibh 66) Ocus tucsam in dana ech sin dfhinn .i. in feir ech 7 in baineach 7 is da síl sin do bí echradh 67) na fenne uili ór nírchleches eich co sin ocus ruc in baineach ocht tairberta 7 ocht serraig 68) gacha tairberta 7 tucadh do dronguibh 7 do dhegdanaib na fenne na serraigh sin 7 do 69) rónta carpuit acu iar sin. Translation of the Episode.380 ‘There was in the Fían, at that time, a warrior named Artúir. He was the son of Benne Brit “of the Britons” and had a retinue of twenty-seven. Finn had arranged a hunt on the Hill of Étair [the Hill of Howth] and it was most successful. The hounds were set loose and Finn himself sat at the Cairn of the Fían-Warrior, between Howth and the sea, and revelled in the sounds of the frenzied deer swiftly brought down by the hounds of the Fían. Artúir, son of Benne of the Britons, was stationed on the coast, between the hunt and the sea, so that the deer might not escape by swimming away, and, while he was out by the edge of the water, he sow three of Finn’s hounds, Bran, Sceolaing, and Adnúall. Artúir, son of Benne, decided then upon a plan. He, with his twenty-seven companions, would cross over the sea and take the hounds with them to their own land. They carried this out and, together with the three hounds, crossed the expanse of the sea. They took land at the Estuary of the Sandy Shoal, in the territory of the Britons, and went ashore. They then went off to the Mountain of Lodán, son of Lir and hunted there. The Fían, in the meantime, having ceased their hunting, made camp at the Hill of Étar, son of Étgáeth the Warrior, and began their customary tally of the hounds of Finn’s household, so that not a hound would be left behind in a thicket or on a mountain, or in any wood or hollow of the five great provinces of Ireland. Great was the number of the hounds, as the poet, Fergus Fínbél ‘Wine-Mouth’, said: ‘Finn’s hounds, as many as the branches of a tree, A pack of three hundred, with two hundred young.’ ‘Great was the number who owned them,’ said Patrick. ‘You are right about that,’ said Caílte, ‘for this was their number in the house of Finn: ‘In Finn’s house, thrice fifty chiefs of handsome bands, Two hundred forsterlings, three thundred servants. ‘When they counted the hounds they discovered a great loss, that of Bran, Sceolaing, and Adnúall, and this was reported to Finn and he ordered the three companies of the Fían to search XI 380 Dooley and Roe, 1999, Tales, 8-11 for them. Though a search was made, the hounds were not found. A narrow basin of bright gold was then brought to Finn. He washed his royal face and put his thumb under his Tooth of Wisdom so that the truth of the matter appeared to him. “It was Artúir, son of the King of the Britons,” he said, “who took your hounds from you. Take nine men and go after them.” Nine were chosen, and these were their names: Díarmait, son of Donn, son of Donnchad, son of Dubán, of the Érainn from Munster in the south; and Goll, son of Morna.’ ‘Was Goll the son of a king,’ asked Patrick, ‘or the son of a warrior?’ ‘The son of a king,’ answered Caílte, and recited the following lines: ‘The son of Tadg, son of Morna from the plain, son of Fáelán, son of Feradach, Son of Fiacha, son of Art from the plain, son of Muiredach, son of Eógan.381 ‘A warrior skilled at magic was also in household of Finn, Cáel Cródae Cétguinech “the Brave and Quick-Wounding”, the descendant of Nemnán. The strength of his magic was such that he never missed a cast, and any man that his hand bloodied died within nine days, if not at once, and no man he killed ever escaped from the house of Hell. ‘O Cáel, do not cast your spear, its shaft against me in the trees. Each is powerless before it, his posterity tastes no food. ‘My tooth of Wisdom spoke to me, the first day you came. He whose blood you shed, comes not again from Hell. 382‘Likewise Finn’s own son, Oisín, who never refused hospitality to anyone with a mouth for eating or legs for travelling.’ ‘This is great praise, Caílte,’ said Patrick. ‘It is true all the same,’ said Caílte, and recited the following lines: ‘Oisín never refused any man gold, silver or food, And never asked a favour of those as great as kings. ‘There also was Oisín’s son, Oscar, the king’s son who was the greatest man in Ireland in agility and weapon-handling, and Ferdoman, son of Bodb Derg “the Red” son of the Dagda, Finn’s other sons, Raigne Rosclethan “the Wide-Eyed” and Caince Corcairderg “the Purple-Red”, Glas, son of Aencherd Bérra, Mac Lugach and I,’ said Caílte. ‘We were, Patrick, in our own estimation, such that, from Ceylon in the east to the Gardens of the Hesperides in the western XII 381 The following paragraph up to and including the next poems are not contained in the book of Lismore 382 The manuscript continues here. part of the world, one could not find four hundred warriors that we would not trounce in battle or in combat. A white shield on each shoulder, a helmet on each head, and two thrusting spears, with thongs of sturdy rope on their shafts, in each right hand. ‘We continued on our journey until we came to the Mountain of Lodán, son of Lir, and before long heard voices close by of men hunting on the plain. Artúir, son of Benne of the Britons, was sitting there on his hunting mound with his retinue. We attacked them at once and killed all of his men, but Oscar with his two hands seized Artúir and spared him. We also recovered our three hounds. Then Goll, son of Morna, looked around him and saw a dappled stallion, lustrous black, with a gold- ornamented bridle. To his left he saw a spirited, chestnut mare with a bridle of bright silver, textured and refined, and a bit made of gold. Goll captured both horses and entrusted them to Oisín, who gave them in turn to Díarmait, the descendant of Duibne. After celebrating our victory and triumph we returned with our hounds and horses, the heads of twenty-seven retainers, and with Artúir himself as a captive to the Hill of Howth. From there we went to meet Finn at the Old Plain of the Flocks of Étar [Clontarf] and entered the chieftain’s tent.’ Caílte recited the following lines to Patrick: ‘We brought Artúir here to make his peace with Finn. He remained Finn’s warrior till the day he died. XIII Appendix 3 (Analysis of the Language of Scéal Artúir) What follows shall be a record of notable features of the scribe of the relevant episode in the Book of Lismore. This shall consist of a verbal analysis, an analysis of lenition, nasalisation and finally a collection of notable forms attested in the prose which are of relevance to the poetry embedded in the text. Each example shall be given with a line number corresponding to my transcription of the episode for reference. Verbs: The following list does not include the copula verb nor does it include present and future tense verbs, as these are uncommon and thus statistically irrelevant, with no present tense verb- forms being found in the poem and only one attestation of the present copula form is. Neither shall the verbal form raibh be included, as it can be viewed as being a calcified verb form including the augment which is not productive in the language. For the same reason, the verb adubairt and variations will also not be included. Every verb shall be listed with their corresponding line number in appendix 1. Group 1 do búi (1), do ronad (1), do scailsed (2), do shuidh (3), do rala (5), nach shnáimdís (6), do bhí (6) at connaic (6), do bhreith (8), do chirchnaiged (9), do chuatar (9), ro gabsat (10), do ronad (11), tairnic (12), do dhénam (12), ro ghabsat (12), ro hairimit (13), ru bhutar (19), no bhidh (20) Group 2 ro hindised (25), ro siredh (26), tucad (26), ro nigh (27), do faillsiged (27), tuc (27), ruc(28), ro togad (29), ro bhiú (36), ro bhai (37), nír dhibric (37), nír fuiligh (37), nach bhudh (38). Nár ér (38) Group 3 ro bai (45), ro mhain (51), nír chian (52), do eisidh (53), ro mharbhsam (54), iadhus (54), ainices (55), ro dhec (55), ro dhech (55), tucsam (55), do bí (66), con faca (56), ro cumdach (56), con faca (57), ro dhech (57), gabus (58) cuiris (58), cuiris (58), tancammar (59), tancammar (61), tucsam (66), do bí (66), nír chleches (67), ruc (67), do rónta (65), tucadh (68) Together this collection contains 65 preterite verb-forms of which 33% (22) are preterites with the augment, 24% (16) are preterites with do and the remaining 43% (13) are other preterite formations, including irregular verbs. Of the two larger groups, we can see that, when representing regular verbs, the scribe uses ro in 57% of cases. Thus, it can be said that the prose scribe had a slight, although not great, preference for using the augment in preterite forms. A note shall be made here of the distribution of such forms however, the groups mentioned above are all divided by a stanza of poetry; this grouping will allow us to more clearly see at what point in the text the scribe chooses to use verb forms. In group 1 we see that he uses do in 55% of cases, ro in 22% and other verb forms 22% of the time as well. One may say that this section strongly favours the use of the verbal particle do. Group 2 consists of 12 verbs, 33% of which are irregular and thus relatively insignificant. Ro is used 58% of times and do is only attested XIV once, 8%. From this, it can be said that the second grouping of verbs demonstrates a preference for the augment over do. Group 3 has a larger use of irregular forms, including s-preterites check that, making up 41% of the group. Do is used in 21 % of instances and ro maintains a slight majority of 42%. In light of this, one may conclude that, in the earlier part of the text, before the first poem (represented by group 1), do is the preferred form, whereas elsewhere the scribe prefers to use ro. Instances of lenition marked in the orthography: do shuidh (3), in fhéinnedha (3), do chonúibh (4), nach shnaibhdis(6), do bhí (6), in chuain (6), do bhreith (8), do chríchnaiged (9), do chuatar (9), do dhénam (12), ro ghabsat (12), do dhainib (19), ra bhutar (19), no bhidh (20), d’fhind (26), do dhul (29), meic Dhubháin (30), ro bhúi (36), ro bhai (37), nír’ dhibric (37), nach bhud (38), meic in Dhaghda (46), nach raibhi (48), a láthair chatha (50), chomlain (50), ní raibhi (50), ro mhain (51), nír chain (52), dluth chomhrad (52), ag dénam shealga (52), ina dhuma shealga (53), cona mhuintir (53), ro mharbhsam (54), ro dhec (53), ro dhec (55), in righ fheinnid (61), d’Fhinn (66), do dhegdanaib (68). This data set evidences three cases of lenition of XV 384Teanglann, gan, available at: https://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/gan. It is important to note that this dictionary entry holds true for the caighdeán and not dialectal variants, of which I have personally heard ganL being used with more frequency in Connamara and Munster dialects. One can thus assume that, in the twelfth century, gan lenited consistently in speech. Instances of lenition left unmarked in the orthography: a menma (3), trí coin (7), do conuib (7), trí coinsin (9), ro gabsat (10), a tir (10), in fínnetha (13), trí catha (26), a gnúis (27), a dét (27), ro togad (29), meic donnachada (30), ro bai (45), gan cathbarr (50), trí coin (55), ro cumdach (56), in baineach (66), do dronguibh (68). It can be seen from this list that the following letters are left unlenited in the following instances: is not attested with lenition. In addition to this, and is very inconsistent with marking lenition of Instances of nasalisation marked in the orthography: na ndam (4), ndiscir (4), nduisnach (4) a bhfhiadach (12), a bhfhianchoscar (12), ar n-airimh (25), na gcon (25), a n-anmanna (29), ria gcinn (38), gu mbeth (39), a néirin (45), a n-iarthar (49), na bhfheine (59), in n-ech (57), co mbeilgibh (58), ar n-each (60), ar mbuaidh (56), i mbúi (60). Nasalisation is thus shown on: Instances of nasalisation not marked in the orthography: i carn (3), na féinne (4), i cind (6), i crich (10), na féinne (11), a coinsiumh (14), i tigh (20), bhar coin (28), co gardha (48), nach digebhmais (49), cu cualamar (52), ar coin (67), na feinne (67), ocht tairberta (67), na fenne (68). One may therefore state that nasalization is not shown in the following instances: on c seven times, on f twice, on t once, on g once and on d once. Comparing the two data sets we can see that the scribe has the following orthographical tendencies: he nasalises: 385 Note that these are projected from Old and Modern Irish norms. in his orthography, and he prefixes n to vowels and marks nasalization of in all cases. The following can therefore be said: that the scribe shows a relatively strong tendency to mark nasalisation of 386 Na Bráithre Críostamhla, Graiméar na Gaedhilge leis na Bráithreachaibh Críostamhla (Dublin, M.H. Gill & son, ltd.: 1910), 29. One should note that, in discussing the dative singular, the only other formation of the dative comes from the Old Irish system, adding a u after the root, which appears to have been obsolete to this scribe. Instances of the airim ar náirimh (25) this is the only attestation in prose. Instances of the preposition co/go (also go/gu) Cu nach (5), co naich (36), co neimh (36), go ossín (38), gu mbeth (39), co nach raibhi (48), co gardha (48), co muaidhmenaibh (51), cu rancamar (51), co srian (56), co mbeilgibh (58), co h- air (60). Here we can see that the form is, in 83% of cases co (or cu) and that it governs the dative case and nasalises. Instances of gadhar This word is not attested in the prose episode Instances of cú/coin conuibh (2), trí coin (7), conuib (7), chonúibh (4), na coin (8), trí coin-sin (14), na gcon (25), na coin (26), bhar coin (28). This word is never attested in the familiar nominative form cú which means either that this was not a form in the scribe’s vocabulary or that it is simply not attested here in this case. In relation to the scribe’s treatment of numerals, which shall be dealt with presently, it would appear that the latter is the more likely case. Instances of numerals trí naenbair (1), trí coin (7), trí nonbair (8), na trí coin-sin (9), trí catha (26), .c. (cét) fuid (48), .cccc. (ceithre cét) laech (49), trí coin (55), dá láimh (57), ocht tairberta (67), ocht serraig (67). From this we can see that the scribe has two consistent features when using numerals, he never writes mutation and (excepting the instance of .cccc. on line 47) the scribe always follows the numeral with the nominative plural. Instances of the demonstrative pronoun soin/sin soin (2), sin (8), sin (8), annsin (13), sin (19), sin (26), sin (53), sin (58), sin (66), sin (67). It can thus be said that the scribe, almost as a rule, chooses to write the demonstrative pronoun as sin (rather the than the form soin, a variation of sain) Instances of compound words Luathmharbadh (4), a bhfhainchoscar (12), cétguinech (36), corcairdherg (47), desdorn (50), dubghorm (56), righfheinnid (61) Of the seven instances of compound words in the text, two do not have lenition shown; one would expect compound the second element of compound words to be lenited at any attested stage of the language; discussing the instances where they are not, XVIII lenited in very few circumstances (33% of cases in initial mutation) and also that Usage of meic meic donnachada (30), meic dhubháin (30), meic in dhaghda (46), meic lir (52), meic benne (53) There is little to discuss here, as meic has already been discussed as a word triggering lenition, nevertheless it is important to highlight the instances of its usage in the prose. Instances of riamh riam (37), riamh (38), riamh (38) It is of import that this word only occurs three times in the whole text and that these occurrences are grouped incredibly close to one another, this will be discussed in more detail at a relevant point. Usage of the preposition ar arar cinn (7), ar duine (37), ar in muigh (53) In this we have two instances in which the preposition ar is followed by a nominative form and only one instance in which it is followed by a dative, this form shall further be discussed in the analysis of the poetry. Instances of the gen. of Fian féinne (4), fhéinnedha (3), féinne (11), bhfeine (52), fenne (67), fenne (68) XIX Appendix 4 (The Battle with the Troops of Lochlann Transcription and Translation) Transcribed from MS Laud Misc. 610. Oxford: Bodleian Library. Accessed through Digital Bodleian: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk Folio 142 V, column one line 26. As with the Book of Lismore, this manuscript has no spacing and limited to no punctuation. I have added spaces and simple punctuation (commas and full stops) as well as filled in ligatures and abbreviations for ease of reading. In all cases where ambiguity exists in the manuscript, I have deferred to Stokes’ rendering once more. The line numbers given are my own, starting at the first line of the text, line 6923 in Stokes, as line one. The poems in this episode have a relatively consistent display in which the last part of the third line of the poem are written first, then the final line and then the first two lines. I have rendered the poems as they are shown in the manuscript and also added Stokes’ version for a clearer comparison. This transcription corresponds to lines 6923-7004 in Stokes, Whitley (ed.) and (tr.) Acallamh na senórach, in Windish, E and Stokes, W, (eds.) Irishce Texte mit Wörterbuch, vol. 4:1, (Leipzig: Verlag con S. Hirzel, 1900) 1) co cenn trachta/ is é lín tainic ille 2) míle long co hesmaire 3) tangadar// 4) seirrgind ocus sithbarcca Stokes rearranges is é lín tainic ille míle long co hesmaire tangadar co cenn trachta seirrgind ocus sithbarcca XX 5) Maith manum a rígfheindig a chailte ar siat, cid is choír dúind do dénam comha tshíd as 6) choír duib diarraid orro ar cáilte nóco ndernat Túath Dé Danann387 tinol 7 toichestal 7 do 7) rónad mar sin ocus ro thinoladar Túath Dé Danann co rabadar da cath déc ar faichthe in 8) tshida ar arnamairech 7 doriachtatar techtur ón loingis da nindsaghi 7 adubradar tabrad 9) Túath Dé Danann bruigde duind ar siat re feraib eiren. Ocus ciduis do gentar sút, a cháilti 10) ar lucht in tshida 7 ar maithi Túathe Dé Danann. Dénam in da chath déc so atámait co 11) cenn na trága da fechain ar cáilte. 7 tangadar rompo mar sin in da cath déc sin 7 adubairt 12) cáilte in fuil carpat cuchtglinde ac nech accaibh ar cáilte. atá accumsa ar midhir 13) mongbuide mac in daghda. 7 tucat chucu hé 7 do chuaid cáilte issin carpat 7 14) dicad in tshleg dó .i. ben bodba 7 do chóirgetar na hallmuraig ámdabhach do sciathaib 15) ina timchell 7 is ann sin tucsam a glun clé rissin carpat 7 tuc a chorrmér gaiscid i suainem 16) na sleighe 7 do rat urchor do rí lochlann, co tarrla in tshleg co dírech chuce cor daerbriss 17) a druim ar dó ann 7 ro thoit in rí ar lár a tshluaig 7 ro scarasadar anum re corp dó mar sin 18) 7 adubairt cáilte: 19) -dur // cáilte cona neim 20) in garb ro marbad ar tus 21) a mesc a tsh[l]uaig na remtus 22) ro marb// chur aindisc rop engbaid Stokes rearranges in Garb ro marbad ar tus a mesc a tshluáig ‘na remtus ro marb Cáilte cona neim d’urchuir aindisc rop engbaid 23) Ocus ro thócbadar a muinter léo hé ina luing arsin 7 adubradar in sluag as mor in gnim 24) do rind in duine ar siat .i. in nech as ferr do boí ar in domun do marbad daenurchor XXI 387 This name is consistently written with the abbreviation T.D.D in the manuscript 25) conid traig in gairb ainm ne trága da éis. 26) Is ann sin adubairt in bangaiscidach rissin sluag eirgid si in bur longaib ar si 7 biatsa re 27) haghaid Túathe Dé Danann ocus is ann sin ro fhiarfaig cas corach mac caincinde do 28) Thúath Dé Danann in fuil sciath catat comdaingen acaib damsa ar se atá accumsa ar 29) se donn mac midhir. Tabair damsa am laim he ar cas corach 7 tuc in sciath dó-sum 7 30) ro gabusardar hé 7 tuc in claidim ina laim leis 7 tainic reime mara raibi in bangaiscedach 31) ac foraire 7 ac forcoimet a loingsi. Maith a manum a maccáim cas ar sí crét tú 32) féin do comrac riutsa thanac ar se. Gusaníu riam ar in bangaiscedach nir comrac 33) duine no deissi missi ar sí 7 ba minici lem mecla ar cath croda cudruma 7 tusa a 34) maccáim, is becht nach fuarais inadh issin doman in trathtangais do comrac riumsa 7 is 35) ann sin ro chomraicetar co fuilech fo bhartach fírgnimach indus co tuc cechtar díb .xxx. 36) crecht nághmar ninothrais ara cheile 7 táinic maccaem ina timchell co tric 7 co tidisnach 37) ic á hairlech 7 tarraid béim bhegail tar bile in sceith furri, cor ben a cenn di 7 tuc leis 38) hé dindsaighi Túathe Dé Danann 7 adubairt Cáilte 39) //hí ar in traíg// is cubar ina comdail ocus adubradar 40) ro marb cas corach na céd 41) in ningin - ní himarbrég - 42) //ro fhagaib// Stokes rearranges Ro marb Cas Corach na cét In ningin - ní himarbrég - Ro fhagaib hí ar in trig Is cubur ina comdáil 43)Adubradar sluag loghland is mor in gnim do rinde in maccem ar siat .i. trén ro boí acain XXII 44) ro dingbad can cach éicen dind do marbad inar fiadnaissi 7 is ann sin ro rígsat in loingis 45) eolus derbrathair in rig 7 tucsatar ardigi dó 7 tangatar a tír do fhogra catha ar Túath Dé 46) Danann. Do bérum in cath ar si Túath Dé Danann, uair is ussa sa chach lind cath do 47) thabairt dóib. 7 is ann sin atracht fer maisi mac eogabail mochtrath do ló resíu do éirig 48) nech don tshluag 7 ro gab in fhagha fogablach ina láim 7 is uime adertha fagha fogablach 49) ris .i. [cóic]gabla no bith ar cach táeb de 7 corrana ar cach taeb díb sin co tescfad cach 50) corran díb finda a naghaid in thsrotha. 7 ar in maccáem ca delb duine eolus a mo déé 51) óclach is cruthaige 7 is fherr delb dferaib in domain ar in fer ro bói ina fharraidh na h 52) eirig a nimcian uaim etir ar in macem acht bí a monad eolais dam. 7 is ann sin ro 53) gabsadar eolus a chatherred comlaind 7 comraic 7 comlaind uime 7 ro gab a armgaiscced 54) ina laim 7 tainic ar sceimelbord na luinge amach. Ac siut a mhaccaem .C. ar se in fer gá ro 55) bais diarraid orum do munad duit 7 in mind óir fá cenn 7 in sciath croderg fair 7 in tétach 56) engach uaine uaime. Ocus is ann sin tucsom a chos ré tacca na talman 7 tuc a mér a 57) súainim ind fhagha 7 tuc urchur dó co tarla a mbili in sceith co ráinic trít 7 cor dearbris 58) a druim ar dó ann 7 cor chuir a chraide ina dublia fhola tar a bél amach 7 cor gab 59) rind ind fhagha bord na luinge trithi 7 adubairt cailte 60) /-aib hé ar in tuind 61) ro thoit lé mac na maissi 62) eolus ba lánchaem taissi 63) cor fhac/i llepaid induair édruim// Stokes rearranges ro thoit lé mac na maissi Eolus ba lánchaem taissi cor’fhacaib hé ar in tuind i l-lepaid induair édruim XXIII 64) is é sin scél na traga 388 65) cipé no beth gá rada 66) erbaid in tshuaig táinic thuaid 67) a lochlaind co méit moruill Translation of the Episode389 ‘This is the number that came here, a thousand vessels in all, Countless foreign long-ships lie close by the shore.’ ‘Well, Caílte, dear Fían-chieftain,’ they said, ‘what is there for us to do?’ ‘You should ask them for terms of peace,’ said Caílte, ‘until the Túatha Dé Danann gather together and assemble.’ This was done. The Túatha Dé Danann gathered together and formed twelve battalions on the green of the Síd in the morning. Messengers came to them from the fleet and said to the men of Ireland, ‘Let the Túatha Dé Danann give hostages to us.’ ‘How may we do that, Caílte?’ said the people of the Síd and the nobles of the Túatha Dé Danann. ‘Let us move our twelve battalions to the end of the shore and observe them,’ said Caílte. The twelve battalions went off and Caílte asked, ‘Does one of you have a solid chariot?’ ‘I have,’ said Midir Mongbuide, son of the Dagda. The chariot was brought to them and Caílte went off in it, bearing the spear ‘Fatal Woman’ that had been given to him. The foreigners had formed a wall of shields about them. Caílte put his left knee against the chariot and his forefinger of valour in the loop of the spear, and made a cast at the King of Lochlann. The spear went through the upper part of his garment and the bosom of his tunic. It shattered his shield from rim to body, and broke his back in two. The King fell in the midst of his troops and his soul thus separated from his body. Caílte recited these lines: ‘Garb was struck down quickly, there in the midst of the van. Caílte killed him with venom, with a sure and cruel cast.’ His people carried him off to his ship and the men of his army said, ‘Great was the deed that this man did, killing the best man in the world with a single cast.’ For this reason is the shore called the Shore of Garb. The warrior woman said to the men, ‘Board your ships, and I myself shall fight against the Túatha Dé Danann.’ Cas Corach, son of Caincinde, asked the Túatha Dé Danann, ‘Do you have a strong and firm shield for me?’ ‘I have,’ said Donn, son of Midir. ‘Put it in my hand,’ said Cas. The shield was brought to him. He took it and placed a sword in his hand, and went off to the place where Bé Dreccain was keeping watch and guard for her fleet. XXIV 388 this final poem is not marked as a poem in the manuscript, nor has it undergone any changes to word order and it appears that the scribe mistook it for prose and treated it accordingly. 389 Dooley, A and Roe, H 194-196 ‘Well, my dear boy,’ she said, ‘why have you come?’ ‘I have come to do battle with you,’ he said. ‘Never before today,’ said the warrior woman, ‘has a man or two done battle with me. More often it was a fierce, great battalion in terror of me. You, little boy, have certainly not found a place of safety if you come to do battle with me.’ They then fought bravely with bloody valour. Each had given the other thirty terrible wounds, from the feet to the hair of the head, when the boy came in close to her swiftly and suddenly, and cut her down. With a vicious blow over the rim of her shield he struck her head off her neck. He brought it with him to the Túatha Dé Danann and Caílte recited these lines: ‘Cas Corach of the Hundreds slew the warrior maid. He left her lying on the shore, facing the foaming sea.’ The host of Lochlann said to themselves, ‘Great is the deed that this boy has done, slaying before our very eyes our champion, the one who had protected us from every danger.’ The men of the fleet then made Éolus, the brother of the king, their lord and gave him the high-kingship. They then went back on land to challenge the Túatha Dé Danann to battle. ‘We shall wage the battle,’ said the Túatha Dé Danann, ‘for it becomes easier and easier for us to fight them.’ Fer Maisse, son of Eogabál rose at an early hour of the day, before anyone of the host, and took the pronged javelin in his hand. It was called ‘pronged’ because there were five prongs on it with thirty barbs on each one that would cut hairs against the stream. ‘My gods,’ said the boy, ‘what sort of man is Éolus?’ ‘The fairest and handsomest warrior of the men of the world,’ said a man who was nearby. ‘Stay close to my side,’ said the boy, ‘and instruct me.’ Éolus put on his armour of combat and battle, took his weapons in his hand, and came on land beside his ship. ‘There, boy,’ said the man, ‘is the one you asked me to point out to you. Look at the diadem of gold on his head, and his blood-red shield, and the patterned green clothing he is wearing, covered with heathen images. Fer Maisse set his foot against a ridge of earth, put his finger in the loop of the javelin, and cast it at him. The javelin struck the boss of the shield and went through it, breaking his back in two. It brought his heart out through his mouth in a black flow of blood, and the point of the javelin went through the side of the ship. Caílte recited this verse: ‘Fair the corpse of Éolus, killed by the beautiful boy, Who left him floating on the wave, on a cold and buoyant bed. ‘That is the story of the shore, though it be I who tell. The loss of the northern host, lamenting from Lochlann.’ XXV Appendix 5 (Analysis of the language of ‘the Battle with the Troops of Lochlann’) In a similar manner to the previous episode, the following shall be a list of notable features in the relevant episode in MS Laud 610 consisting of a verbal analysis, analysis of initial mutation and of notable forms in the prose which are likely to be useful to compare with the prose. Minimal comparison shall be made to the forms found in the Book of Lismore as this will largely prove irrelevant. Verbs: It can be noted by reading the transcription of the manuscript that the scribe of this episode is far less anachronistic than the scribe of Lismore in his use of the particles do and ro. He does not simply use both forms as a preterite marker and has a tendency to mark relative forms using the particle do, subsidiary clauses are introduced with the preposition co/cor’ and ro appears to be the standard preterite marker for simple verbs. In addition to this, the scribe of Laud has a far more common use of preterite formations of the verbs do icc, ad ré and do rala. It should not be said that this scribe, however, had a firmer grasp of the language, which can be demonstrated by his occasional confusion of particle use, particularly with the substantive verb, and also a relatively anachronistic usage of passive verbs. a system will be employed in listing these verbs in which, after the line number, an r shall be used, indicating relative usage and p shall be used to indicate passive (and occasionally reflexive) use of verbs as opposed to anachronistic use of the passive formation. A list of preterite formations used by the scribe shall follow, as with appendix 2 copula forms and other calcified verb forms such as adbert will not be included in the analysis: Group 1 do rónad (7,R), ro thinoladar (7), co rabadar (7), do riachtatar (8), do gentar (9,R), tangadar (11), tucad (13), do chuaid (13), dicad (14), do chóirgetar (14), tucsam (15), tuc (15), do rat (16) tarrla (16), cor’ daerbriss (16), ro thoit (17), ro scarsadar (17), ro thócbadar (23) Group 2 do rind (24,R) do boí (24,R), do marbad (24,R), ro fhiarfaig (27), tucad (27), tuc (29), ro gabusardar (30,P), tuc (30), tainic (30), do comrac (32), nir’ comrac (32), ro chomraicetar (35,P), tuc (35), táinic (36), tarraid (37), tuc (37) Group 3 do rinde (43,R), ro boí (43), ro dingbad (44), do marbad (44,R), ro rígsat (44), tucsatar (45), tangatar (45), do fhogra (45), do bérum (46), do thabairt (47), atracht (47), do éirig (47,R), ro gab (48), no bith (49,R), ro bói (51,R), ro gabsadar (53), ro gab (53), tainic (54), ro bais (55), do munad (55,R), tucsom (56), tuc (56), tuc (57), tarla (57) co ráinic (57), cor’ dearbris (57), cor’chuir (58), cor’ gab (58) A breakdown of the overall forms shows that the scribe uses 18 forms with the particle do, henceforth a, 22 with the augment ro, henceforth b, and 26 forms without either of these particles, henceforth c. These c verbs shall be dealt with separately. A further analysis of a and b shows that the scribe uses forms of group b 55% of the time. A further analysis shows that, when expressing a relative construction, 84% of cases use the particle do (group a) and 16 %. XXVI Two cases use the augment ro. Of these two instances, it is of note that they are uses of the substantive verb and it can therefore be said that, outside of the verb ‘to be’, the scribe consistently uses the particle do as a relative marker, meaning he expresses the relative of verbs other than the substantive verb with the particle do 100% of the time. In addition, it can be seen that with other particles, such as ní or co he consistently uses the augment to mark the preterite. One is left, then, with the scribe’s ‘anachronistic’ usage of these preverbia and it can be seen that ro is used in 90% of its cases to simply mark the preterite whilst do overall is used in 37% of instances to mark a preterite and the majority of the overall usage of the particle is to mark a relative clause (63% of cases). From this breakdown, it can be said that the scribe displays a strong tendency to use the augment to mark preterite formations and the preverbal particle do to introduce a relative clause. Turning to the verbs in group c, we see multiple preterite variations of a small number of verbs; these shall be listed here with a grouping by the original verb-type, comments are made where necessary: Do.icc (to come/arrive)- tainic (30) thanac (32) táinic (36), tainic (30), co ráinic (57) tangadar (11) tangatar (45) (the form do ráinic appears to either be evidence of the scribe affixing an augment r’ to the verb-stem táinic. Tangadar is a Middle Irish form of the verb. It is clear from this that the form tainic is preferred over the Middle Irish tangadar in 71% of cases. Do beir: tucad (13), tuc-sam (15) tuc (15), tuc (29), tuc (30), tuc (37), tucsatar (45), tuc-som (56), tuc (56), tuc (57). It is clear from this data that the form tuc is the preferred preterite form of do.beir, being used in 80% of cases. It should be noted that in one of the two instances we have tucsatar used as a 3.pl. form thus it can be said that the prose scribe has a strong propensity for forming the preterite of do.beir as tuc. Ad.beir: adubradar (8), (23), (43). This form is the evidenced form of the verb in all situations except for the formulaic amail asbert/adbert. Only in the third case, (line 40), is the verb used in a passive/reflexive sense. Do.airret: tarraid (37). Do.rala: co tarrla (16), (52). Do.gaib: dicad (14). At.reig: at racht (47) At.tá: no bith (49) Instances of Lenition marked in the orthography: a chailte (5) is choir (5) as choir (6) ro thinoladar (7) a cháilti (9) da chath (10) do chuaid (13) do chóirgetar (14) a chorrmér (15) ro thoit (17) ro thócbadar (23) ro fhiarfaig (27) thanac (32) ro chomraicetar (35) fo bhartach (35) ara cheile (36) bhegail (37) do fhogra (42) do thabairt (47) in fhagha (48) in thsrotha (50) is fherr (51) ina fharraidh (51) a chatherred (53) a mhaccaem (54) a chos (56) ind fhagha (57) cor’ chuir (58) a chraide (58) fhola (58) ind fhagha (59) XXVII From this data set, it can be gathered that the scribe marks lenition in the following grammatical settings: after the vocative particle; after the preposition as; after the augment ro and the preterite particle do; after the numeral da; after the third singular masculine possessive pronoun a, after the nominative feminine article; after the preposition form sa; and after the comparative use of is. From these rules, we can extrapolate to instances in which the scribe does not show lenition. Lenition not shown: do dénam (5) da cath (7) do gentar (9) da cath (11) a glun (15) cor daerbriss (16) a druim (17) a muinter (23) do marbad (24) ro gabusardar (30) a maccaim (31) do comrac (32) nir comrac (32) a maccáim (34) do comrac (34) ro boí (43) ro dingbad (44) do marbad (44) do bérum (46) ro gab (48) no bith (49) d’feraib (51) ro bói (51) ro gabsadar (53) ro gab (53) ro bais (55) do munad (55) a mér (56) cor’ dearbris (57) a druim (58) ina dublia (58) a bél (58) cor cab (58) It can then be seen that lenition of , which has no attestations in lenition in the prose, would also be commonly shown with orthographical lenition. Nasalisation is far less frequently attested in the prose of this episode, however the following instances are of note. Nasalisation shown: co ndernat (6) da nindsaghi (8) crecht nághmar (36) ninothrais (36) a naghaid (50) a nimcian (52) a mbili (57) The scribe can be seen to nasalise after co, after the third person plural possessive pronoun a, after the genitive masculine plural and finally after the preposition a/i. There are no further attestations of plural possessive a, nor the preposition a/i nor indeed adjectives following a genitive noun. The following attestations are however extant in the text. Nasalisation not shown: Co cenn (11) co tarrla (16) co dírech (16) co fuilech (35) co tuc (35) co tric (36) co tidisnach (36) co tescfad (49) The scribe can thus be seen to mark nasalisation before vowels in all instances, to mark nasalisation before XXVIII Irish system of mutation. The rest of this analysis shall focus on listing instances of certain nouns, verbs, prepositions and other orthographical features which may prove significant in comparison with the poems in the episode. Once again, comments shall be given when necessary. Prepositions Co- co nderna (6) co rabadar (7) co cenn (11) co tarrla (16) co dírech (16) cor daerbriss (16) co fuilech (35) co tuc (35) co tric (36) co tidisnach (36) cor ben (37) co tescfad (49) co tarla (57) co ráinic (57) cor’ dearbris (57) cor’ chuir (58) cor’ gab (58) From this it can be seen that the preposition is almost exclusively used to mark subsidiary clauses and it is always spelt co rather than go or gu/cu. We can see three instances (of 17 attestations of the word) of it being used to form an adverb. It can be said that the prose scribe rarely uses co in the formation of adverbs from adjectives. ó/a – ón (8) this is the only attestation of the preposition ó which is combined with the article. i/a – issin (13) ina (15) i (15) in (24) ina (26) am’ (29) issin (34) inar (44) a (50) ina (51) a (52) It can be seen that, when not combined with an article or the third person singular possessive pronoun, the preposition a is used in 75 % of cases. Co/com – comdaingen (28) comlaind (53) comraic (53) comlain (53) Compound words rígfheindig (5) cuchtglinde (12) chorrmér (15) daerbris (16) bangaiscidach (26) bangaiscedach (28) bangaiscedach (30) trathtangais (34) derbrathair (45) mochtrath (47) armgaiscced (53) sceimelbord (54) We see that the scribe only lenites the second element of a compound word on one occasion (rígfheindig). Dative forms It can be seen that a dative is given after the prepositions re and do and the combination of ar + in and the preposition i. These rules have been extrapolated from the observation of unambiguous dative plural forms. Due to this, the following forms are, theoretically, dative forms: Ar in domun (24) Re feraib (9) rissin carpat (15) re corp (17) ré tacca (56) Do sciathaib (14) do rí (16) d aenurchor (24) don tshluag (48) XXIX In bur longaib (26) issin carpat (13) ina timchell (15) i suainem (15) ina timchell (36) a súainim (57) Here is given the common Old Irish nominative forms for the relevant words next to their dative singular forms as comparison: domun/domun (o-m.) , carpat/carput (o-m.), corp/curp (o-m), taca, taca (o-m/n), rí/ríg airchor/airchur, slóg/sluag (o-m.), timchell (undeclinable) (o-n.m.), súainem/súainemain (n-m.) A number of these words have the same form in the dative and nominative, however, differing dative forms are given here: carpat/carpud corp/curp, rí/ríg súainem/súainemain. It can be seen that the scribe has in the first two instances made no attempt to formally distinguish dative from nominative in the singular (both a and u in unstressed position would be pronounced /ə/) and he uses the nominative of the word rí. In addition to this, he does not use the dative n-stem ending with súainem. Tacca is unattested on eDil, however, it likely is a form of túag and resembles an a-f. nominative plural form. It can be concluded from this evidence that the scribe was aware of dative forms but unfamiliar with their formation and usage in his prose. Tráig na trága (11) conid traig (25) ne trága (25) Long ón loingis (8) ina luing (23) in bur longaib (26) a loingsi gen. (31) in loingis (44) na luinge (54) gen. na luinge (59) gen. Lochlann rí loclann (gen) (16) loghland (43) Verbs The following are certain verb forms which may prove useful in comparison with verb forms in the poetry: do marbad (24) (44) ro thoit (17) thanac (32) Instances of the copula verb is choir (5) as choir (6) is ann sin (15) as mor (23) as ferr (24) in gairb (25) is ann sin (27) ba minici (33) is becht (34) is ann sin (35) is mor (43) is ann sin (44) uair is ussa (46) is ann sin (47) is uime (48) óclach is cruthaige (51) is fherr (51) is ann sin (52) is ann sin (56) XXX Appendix 6 (Poetic rules for Dán Díreach) What follows shall be a brief summary of rules governing syllabic metre. It makes little difference which of a number of handbooks one uses for this discussion as the rules for syllabic metre are not debated. Nevertheless, I shall follow the layout given in David Stifter’s ‘Sengoidelc’, as he is diligent in collecting terminology used by other scholars on the topic.390 This should set up a basic framework of the features of syllabic poetry upon which further discussion on sub-types, dán díreach, brúlingeacht and ógláchas, can be based. Syllabic count- “The number of syllables in a line is fixed for each type of metre” (pg. 301) many different syllabic counts are used in Irish poetry, although the most common metres have a syllabic count of seven (this is usually annotated using large numerals, e.g. 7 or 8, representing seven or eight syllables in a line respectively) Cadence- The number of syllables in the final word of a line, commonly annotated in superscript (x2) Rhyme- Rhyme is a complex issue in syllabic poetry we may divide into the following sub- categories: consonants- that letters in the following groups can all rhyme with each other; /b d g/ (voiced stops) /p t k/ (voiceless stops) /f Ɵ χ/ (voiceless spirants) /ß ð γ / (voiced spirants)391/l r n ηg m/ (liquids) and /s/. vowels- stressed vowels must rhyme in both length and quality392vowels in final position must also be identical. It is of note that in certain metres, stressed and unstressed syllables may rhyme, which is the primary rhyming type in rinn ardrinn metres. XXXI 390 Stifter, 2006, Sengoidelc pp. 301-306 391 One may note that, in the Middle Irish period, the differentiation between lenited liquids and unlenited liquids becomes convoluted, the sound /ð/ disappears giving a system of consonant rhyme between bh mh dh and gh /ß/ and /γ/ 392 Stifter refers to this as “color”- simple vowels a e i o u must be the same as well as diphthongs. Stanza- One may call this ‘class’, metre or rann which is the type of metre formed by the lines of differing syllables and cadences. As an example, a stanza consisting of 82738273 is called Dían midsheng whilst 82828282 is called Rannaigecht bec mór. Gerard Murphy gives a detailed list of different metres found in syllabic poetry in his book Early Irish Metrics and this shall constantly be referred to in the analysis. One may note that there existed more detail than that described here in terms of categorization, however this shall be discussed when relevant. Aiccill- This has no translation into English; it is a stylistic feature by which the final word in a line forms rhyme with a word in the middle of the next line; and “this feature is especially frequent in rannaigecht, where it regularly connects the end of line c with the interior of line d”.393 Internal rhyme – This is a situation in which two non-final words in two separate lines rhyme. One may also consider two non-final rhyming words in the same line to form internal rhyme. Consonance- May be termed half-rhyme or úaithne, terminology which I shall use in this thesis, which Stifter describes as “just rhyme with relaxed rules”.394The vowels of stressed syllables in this rhyme type must be of the same length (diphthongues correspond to long vowels) but do not need to be of the same ‘colour’, however, final vowels must still match in the same manner as with full rhyme. In a similar fashion, final consonants must form full rhyme, including a correspondence between palatal and non-palatal, however, non-final consonants must simply be from the same consonant group. Alliteration – Also called úaimm or conúaimm, alliteration shall be the terminology used and this functions in much the same manner as alliteration in English poetry; taking into account Irish consonant groupings, it is of note that all vowels alliterate with one another. These are the general rules for mediaeval Irish syllabic poetry from which we can see that the poetic craft was highly complicated and detailed. This once more reflects the training which a mediaeval Irish poet was expected to have undergone. XXXII 393 Stifter, 2006, Sengoidelc, 304 394 Stifter, 2006, Sengoidelc, 304 , as Ó Cuív notes: “It is obvious that when th came to be pronounced as a glottal fricative /h/ instead of a dental fricative /Ɵ/ the consonant group represented by chth changed considerably in form, that is from /xƟ/ to */xh/.”40 One may therefore expect that these sound changes will be reflected in the orthography of different scribes at different rates due to the archaizing tendencies of the scribes of this time and the lack of standardisation of the language until this point. and and /i:γǝs´/ . Whilst we see this attested in the prose on numerous occasions, it should be noted that the only instance of the article a (representing the gen. sg. m. article) is a tshluaig (17), which occurs directly before this verse. In every other occurrence of t-prefixation, the more common article in is used (in tshelg on line 16 for example). It is also of note that the genitive article being written a with t-prefixation is highly distinctive and one may therefore see this form as one which is uncommon for the prose scribe. Another feature of note is that this line renders the preposition i with the possessive pronoun as na. We can see no instance of this prepositional form in the prose, whereas the form ina is found four times. This implies that the prose scribe had a habit of using the spelling ina to express na found in this line. These discrepancies hint at a different underlying system which may imply a different origin for the medium. being used in spelling such as fiadnaissi (44). One may postulate, due to this, that the doubling of the letter had some significance in the scribe’s hand. It is however notable that we often get fluctuation between single and double in orthography and this observation can only be taken as an interesting detail which should be viewed together with other orthographical features which have been observed. , four of is consistent, lenition of ,