The Art of Preserving the Dindshenchas
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Art of Preserving the Dindshenchas Investigating Scribal Alterations in ‘Loch Garman,’ ‘Lia Nothain,’ and ‘Berba’ Ellen-Marie Sørhus Pedersen 603170 Master’s Thesis in Viking and Medieval Studies: VMS 4190 60 credits University of Oslo Department of LinguistiCs and SCandinavian Studies (ILN) Spring 2021 6 Summary While the Dindshenchas has appeared sporadically within academia, it was not until the turn of this century that the corpus started to earn consistent interest. However, due to its size and continued presence in manuscripts, ranging from the Book of Leinster and Book of Ballymote to newer manuscripts, there are a large number of aspects in need of further investigation. This thesis will address the scribal alterations in Dindshenchas entries across multiple manuscripts, as well as to what extent this has affected the placelore material. Even though it would have been beneficial to analyse a significant amount of the Dindshenchas corpus, this project focuses on three specific Dindshenchas entries in the hopes of developing arguments and conclusions that can connect to the entire corpus. Furthermore, this thesis attempts to advocate for a closer look on the scribal alterations to the Dindshenchas, and questions why such alterations were committed in the first place. Through this analysis, it is evident that accessing the original placelore is impossible due to these alterations being introduced gradually over time. However, it is important keep in mind that the main purpose of the Dindshenchas might not have been to provide plausible and accurate entries of Irish placelore. Instead, it could have been an attempt to provide a collection of the Irish placelore, without paying attention to truthfulness, believability, or accurateness. Finally, this thesis has been written to provide a glimpse into these three Dindshenchas entries, their scribes and their preservation methods through a selection of extant manuscripts containing this complex and extraordinary Irish tradition. 7 Foreword Even though I started studying the Dindshenchas already in the fall of 2019, the process of researching and writing this thesis began in February of 2020. Due to this, the entire thesis has been formed in Norway during Covid-19. It has truly been a pandemic project and provided a way of staying busy by diving into Irish placelore. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisors, Kristen Mills and Jan Erik Rekdal, for their patience, guidance, and support in the writing of this thesis. An extra thank-you to Jan Erik Rekdal who oversaw a self-study seminar on the Dindshenchas that secured my interest in the corpus. I would also like to thank Dr. Chantal Kobel for answering questions when I was attempting to make sense of Irish paleography and Dr. Sarah Kuenzler, who read an excerpt of this thesis and was an immense help in navigating memory theory. My sincere thanks to Robert Erickson, Victor Frans, Asa-Jane Stuart-Campbell, and Bjorn Olaf Vatzlavik for their support and reading through drafts or excerpts of this thesis. Furthermore, my deepest thanks to Georgia Mae Bell and Ragnhild Kristin Roberg for all the emotional support as well as keeping me sane through thesis writing in a pandemic. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Marte-Marie S. and Sigmund D. Pedersen, and my brother, Jon-Magnus S. Pedersen, who has always been there for me. Without the support of my friends and family, I would not have been able to finish this thesis. 8 Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2 The Purpose of this Thesis and Research Question………………………. 3 Chapter One: Thesis Background 2.1 Methods for Analysing the Dindshenchas………………………… 4 2.2 Selected Theories Relevant to this Analysis………………………. 5 3.1.1 Earlier Research into the Dindshenchas Corpus………………….. 16 3.1.2 First Group: Stokes, Gwynn, and Thurneysen…………………….. 17 3.1.3 Second Group: Bowen, Ó Concheanainn, and Ó Cuív……………. 22 3.1.4 The Third Group: Modern Scholars from 2000……………………. 25 4.1 On the Analysis of the Three Dindshenchas Entries………………. 30 4.2 Order of Recensions and the Scholarly Dating of Relevant Manuscripts 31 Chapter Two: Analysis of ‘Loch Garman’ 5.1 Summary of ‘Loch Garman’…………………………………..…… 33 5.2 On Linguistic Markers Found in Dindshenchas Entries……………. 34 5.3 Linguistic Markers in ‘Loch Garman’……………………………… 35 5.4 On the Developmental Aspects of the Irish Language……………… 36 5.5 Changes in the Language of ‘Loch Garman’……………………….. 39 5.6 Historical Background on Prose and Poetry in Irish Literature…….. 42 5.7 Differentiating the Prose and Poetry in ‘Loch Garman’……………. 44 5.8 Textual Inconsistencies in the Metrical Stanzas of ‘Loch Garman’… 46 5.9 Textual Inconsistencies in the Prose Versions of ‘Loch Garman’….. 57 5.10 Concluding Remarks on the Analysis of ‘Loch Garman’………….. 61 Chapter Three: Analysis of ‘Lia Nothain’ 6.1 Summary of ‘Lia Nothain’…………………………………..……… 63 6.2 Linguistic Markers in ‘Lia Nothain’………………………………… 63 6.3 Changes in the Language of ‘Lia Nothain’…………………………. 66 6.4 Differentiating Prose and Poetry in ‘Lia Nothain’………………….. 69 6.5 Textual Inconsistencies in ‘Lia Nothain’…………………………… 71 6.6 Concluding Remarks on the Analysis of‘Lia Nothain’……………. 77 Chapter Four: Analysis of ‘Berba’ 7.1 Summary of ‘Berba’……………………………………………….. 79 7.2 Linguistic Markers of ‘Berba’……………………………………… 79 9 7.3 Changes in the Language of ‘Berba’……………………………….. 81 7.4 Differentiating the Prose and Poetry in ‘Berba’…………………….. 83 7.5. Textual Inconsistencies of ‘Berba’…………………………………. 85 7.6 Concluding Remarks on the Analysis of ‘Berba’………………….. 92 Chapter Five: Conclusions 8.1 Final Conclusions on ‘Loch Garman,’ ‘Lia Nothain,’ and ‘Berba’………… 93 8.2 Concluding Remarks on Scribal Alterations of Dindshenchas Entries…….. 95 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………… 97 Appendices 1.1 Transcriptions of ‘Loch Garman’…………………………………………… 104 1.2 Adv MS 72.1.16 (Ed)……………………………………………………. 104 1.3 MS D ii 1 (M)……………………………………………………………. 104 1.4 MS 23 P 12 (BB)………………………………………………………… 107 2.1 Transcriptions of ‘Lia Nothain’……………………………………………… 110 2.2 MS D ii 1 (M)……………………………………………………………. 110 2.3 MS 23 P 12 (BB)………………………………………………………… 111 3.1 Transcriptions of ‘Berba’……………………………………………………. 112 3.2 Adv MS 72.1.16 (Ed)……………………………………………………. 112 3.3 MS D ii 1 (M)……………………………………………………………. 112 3.4 MS 23 P 12 (BB)…………………………………………………………. 113 3.5 MS 1436 (E)……………………………………………………………… 113 4.1 Interrelationship of ‘Loch Garman’………………………………………….. 115 4.2 Metrical Stanzas…………………………………………………………. 115 4.3 Prose Recension and Prosimetrum Introduction………………………… 123 5.1 Interrelationship of ‘Lia Nothain’……………………………………………. 125 5.2 Metrical Stanzas………………………………………………………….. 125 5.3 Prose……………………………………………………………………… 127 5.4 Prosimetrum Introduction………………………………………………… 127 6.1 Interrelationship of ‘Berba’………………………………………………….. 128 6.2 Metrical Stanzas…………………………………………………………. 128 6.3 Prose……………………………………………………………………… 129 6.4 Prosimetrum Introduction………………………………………………… 130 10 To my grandpa, Magnus Sørhus. You never got to see me finish this thesis, but I hope you’re proud. 11 1.1 Introduction Across time, people have always been interested in places and the connection they have to a certain place and its history. In fact, the term “topophilia” was developed by geographer Yi-Fu Tuan as referring to the “affective bond between people and place.”1 This term may be used to describe the Irish, which is visible through their literature and culture as well as the love for their country. In the case of the Dindshenchas2 tradition, encompassing Ireland’s placelore, it provides a way of discovering the extant origin stories, even though the exact geographical location of the placelore entries has not survived into modern knowledge. Furthermore, it is evident that the “despite the almost complete loss of the monuments, the place-names meant that some of the stories endured.”3 It is these stories that are crucial in discovering more about Ireland and in preserving the background for the relationship between a people and their land. While there has been scholarly interest in the Dindshenchas in recent years such as Dagmar Schlüter, Morgan T. Davies, and Kevin Murray, there are still remaining aspects in need of further study due to its complexity. By investigating this corpus, it is possible to learn more about the placelore and understand why it has been preserved to the extent it has been. In addition, the alterations influencing the Dindshenchas entries have not been extensively covered in the academic discussion. A thesis covering this topic can therefore contribute to the Dindshenchas discussion and provide evidence that there is a need for examining individual entries which in turn can make connections towards the corpus as a whole. There have been doubts on the historical accurateness of the Dindshenchas corpus, and it has been difficult for scholars to discover the physical location for the entries in Ireland’s actual landscape and geography. However, it does not seem to be the purpose of the Dindshenchas tradition to create an exact map over Ireland, and instead focuses on gathering all of the Irish placelore. It ceases to be about the placelore being 100 % believable, and places preservation over historical accurateness perhaps due to certain mythological connections and the absurdity of some entries. It is evident in the Irish culture that there is a large emphasis on the mythological world, which makes sense since: “Countries have their factual and their mythical geographies. It is not always easy to tell them apart, nor even to say which is more important, because the way people act depends on their comprehension of reality, and that comprehension, since it can never be 1 Cresswell, Tim. Place: A Short Introduction. (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004): 20. 2 When referring to the entire tradition with all three recensions, I will refer to it as the Dindshenchas and not Dindshenchas Érenn. This is because this title was used for the prosimetrum recension, and at times to the prose recension, yet not always for the metrical recension manuscripts. 3 Muhr, Kay.