Rune-names: the Irish connexion Alan Griffiths Introduction Runologists are justifiably sceptical when it comes to comparing anything ogamic with anything runic. Moltke was also justifiably sceptical when he said of attempts to explain rune-names that “We may safely relegate them to the world of fantasy” (1985: 37). While acknowledging such scepticism, this paper nonetheless dares not only to venture into the world of rune-names, but also to compare them with ogam- names. In so doing it risks confrontation with the long-nurtured view crystal- lized in Polomé’s contention concerning the rune-names recorded in manu- scripts that “It is fairly undeniable that the names they transmit to us appear to derive from a common source, which has enabled Wolfgang Krause to recon- struct a plausible early Germanic list...” (1991: 422). In the paper from which this sentence is taken Polomé reviews what might be called the pagan-cult thesis of rune-names, which he summarizes in the commonly accepted hypothesis that the names “are imbedded in the German concepts about the world of the gods, nature and man” (1991: 434). He also reiterates the idea, based on classical references to the Germans’ use of notae, that runes were employed for divi- nation and “in this context, they were ideographic, i.e. we deal with the so-called Begriffsrunen...” (1991: 435).1 But then he reminds us, albeit in a valedictory footnote: “It should be remembered that these names of runes do not occur in any document of pagan origin, nor in any source (either alphabetic listings [runica manuscripta] or runic poems) prior to the Carolingian Renaissance” (1991: 435, fn. 4). 1 Even someone as cautious as Page has said that rune-names “presumably go back to a com- mon Germanic past” (1987: 14). 83 While it is difficult to prove a direct link between runes and references to divinatory notae, there is no denying that runes were used for divination, but in this respect there is no difference between runes and any other forms of notation. All Mediterranean alphabets also had on occasion divinatory and magic applications. As for Begriffsrunen the employment of runes to represent concepts expressed by their names is clear from the manuscript tradition, but evidence of such use outside manuscripts is insubstantial and could be attributed to the incidental use of single runes as abbreviations or even magical notae rather than as part of a recognised system of ideographs (see Appendix 1). In this paper a number of examples will be given to indicate that there is no need to hypothesize a common early Germanic set of rune-names. Space does not allow a comprehensive treatment but the ideas presented here will have to serve as a precursor to a wider study in which it is hoped to demonstrate that virtually all rune-names can be explained in terms of letter-names found as glosses to the Mediterranean alphabets listed in Irish manuscripts going back to at least the seventh century. The same, moreover, can be shown to apply to ogam-names and on this basis it would appear that neither rune-names nor ogam-names, as systematic sets of names, predate the advent of a manuscript tradition brought by Christian missionaries, first to Ireland and thence to Northumbria and the rest of Anglo-Saxon England. Here the Old English Rune Poem was composed, possibly with Irish mediation during the period of marked Irish influence in Northumbria in the 7th century, and it is the Anglo-Saxon tradition that is then reflected in the Abecedarium Nordmannicum (9th century) and the Old Norse and Old Icelandic Rune Poems (13th and 15th? centuries, respectively). The necessity to limit the number of examples accentuates a major problem in that, with so many variables, there is considerable scope for coincidence. It will not be possible even to begin to convince sceptics until an overarching explanation is provided for the whole of the runic and ogam systems. Until then, however, at least it can be demonstrated that runologists could learn much to their advantage by reading the Old Irish manuscripts on ogam and early medieval perceptions of grammar. 84 Alan Griffiths Fig. 1. The ogam signary (forfeda with diphthong values). Sources Ogam inscriptions first appear on stones in south-western Ireland in the 5th, possibly end of the 4th century AD (McManus 1991: 93). Figure 1 gives the ogam signary with sound values. As with rune-names, however, the first probable record of ogam-names is quite late, appearing in texts on which the well-known Auraicept na nÉces (The Students’ Primer) was based in the seventh century. (The edition quoted here, cited as Aur. and referenced by line No., is that of Calder 1917; but see also Ahlqvist 1982.) The Auraicept by no means contains everything. Damian McManus has done yeoman’s work in collating and translating all the known material on ogam nomenclature (1988, 1991). Table 1 lists the source material on ogam-names. The Irish manuscripts are similar to the runica manuscripta, best known from the work of Derolez (1954). A typical example is fol. 71 r and v of Egerton 88, now in the British Library. On the recto is a list of Hebrew letters and names with Latin and Irish translations, beside a Greek alphabet as used for numerals, accompanied by the names of the letters and their numeral equivalents. On the Rune-names: the Irish connexion 85 verso is a Latin alphabet glossed with Latin names and Irish translations which, as Calder noted in his edition of the Auraicept, coincide with the names given by Virgilius Maro Grammaticus (V.M.G.). V.M.G.’s, actual dates and identity are disputed but he was probably active in the early seventh century and seems to have had Irish connexions (Herren 1980: 243-250; Law 1995: passim). The Latin alphabet in Egerton 88 is followed by a description of ogam and its letter-names, each with a two-word kenning accompanied by a comment. In the Egerton manuscript all the names are tree or plant names, but this alfabet végétal, as it has come to be known, has been shown to be a later fiction (McManus 1988: 129–130). Originally there was a mixture of plant names with names like “weaver’s beam”, “sulphur” and “fear”. The original names or their kennings were not always understood by later glossators and in some cases they still are not understood today. For the rune-names it is convenient to take the list attached to the OE Rune Poem in British Library, Cotton MS. Otho B 10, bearing in mind all the caveats on provenance and authenticity, as well as the possibility that the actual names were not originally integrated in the poem but were inserted later (see, for instance, Page 1973; Halsall 1981: 21–7). Halsall (1981: 32) dates the poem to the 10th century. One advantage of using the names attached to the OE poem is that the text of the poem can be seen as a set of glosses on the names.2 Choice of examples Three examples will be dealt with here: h, x and d. Only one of these runes, h, is dealt with in all three rune poems, OE and Scandinavian, but the same principles apply to the vast majority of runes, in whichever poem they are treated. The reason for choosing these examples is that each helps to throw a particular light on the possible origin of the OE rune-names and poem. Individually they present specific problems and points of interest: 2 Texts/translation are from: OE poem Halsall 1981; ON poem Dickins 1915; OIce. Page 1998; ogam kennings and glosses McManus 1988. 86 Alan Griffiths h: ητα, the Greek equivalent of Latin H in the alphabet sequence, functioned as a vowel and was specifically said by Greek grammarians not to be a conso- nant; but the signs for aspiration were derived from the ητα sign; • in Latin H seems to have corresponded with the Greek spiritus asper and it was doubted whether it was properly a letter; in fact its pronunciation before vowels became so weak that it was regularly omitted in writing; Latin grammarians treated it in the same way as Greek grammarians treated the aspirate; • H is not attested in epigraphic ogam; as in the case of Latin, Irish gram- marians treated it as an aspirate rather than a consonant, and yet it is placed among the consonants in the ogam series; • runic h is treated as a consonant. x: OE runic x appears in the fuþorc in the position taken by z in the older Germanic fuþark, the z having become redundant in OE; • having disappeared from the Latin alphabet, Z had been re-introduced to spell Greek words but continued to be considered a foreign import; • older runic z does not appear in initial positions; • OE runic x was a “foreign” character and likewise did not appear in initial positions; • the apparent ogam equivalent is straif, commonly transliterated as Z or ST, but the sign is not attested in epigraphic inscriptions; its original sound value is therefore uncertain and has largely been deduced from the name: straif, i.e. [st] or [ts]. d: there is no dispute about the OE rune-name for d, dæg, or its meaning; • names for d in the alphabets, fuþorc and ogam provide a good example of “cross-fertilization”. A summary of equivalent names for h, x and d in a selection of inventiories of rune, ogam and alphabet names is given in Table 2. The interpretations given by Jerome and Ambrose are included, since these form the basis for numerous alphabet glosses throughout the medieval period.