Satirical Narrative in Early Irish Literature Ailís Ní Mhaoldomhnaigh Ph.D. Degree NUI Maynooth Supervisor: Professor Kim McCone, School of Celtic Studies. Head of School: Professor Ruairí Ó hUiginn. July 2007 Table of Contents I. Introduction 4 1.1. Áer and its literary development 4 2.1. External influences on early Irish literature 30 3.1. The modern interpretation of satire 37 II. Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó 46 1.1. Introduction 46 2.1. Textual analysis 49 3.1. Conclusion 91 III. Serglige Con Culainn 97 1.1. Introduction 97 2.1. Textual analysis 101 3.1. Conclusion 173 IV. H Version of Aislinge Meic Con Glinne 177 1.1. Introduction 177 2.1. Textual analysis 182 3.1. Conclusion 243 V. General Conclusion 250 Bibliography 253 2 When critics formerly considered satire in early Irish literature their main focus was áer. Satire in the more modern sense has received comparatively little attention. This thesis attempts to redress that balance by analysing a number of specific texts for satirical content as it is conventionally understood. By way of introduction áer itself will be examined with a view to ascertaining the origins of satire and how it developed as a literary art from magical curse to its more sophisticated form. The relevance of possible external influences will also be considered. Initially the Mellgleó n-Iliach episode from TBC I will be discussed in the light of alterations made to it by the author of Recension II and the way in which these underline its original satirical slant. Attention will then focus on three whole texts, namely Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó, Serglige Con Culainn and the H Version of Aislinge Meic Con Glinne. Each of these will be analysed in detail, paying particular attention to satirical aspects. It will be argued that all three may be regarded as satires first and foremost, due allowance being made for appreciable differences in background and emphasis. On this basis it will be suggested that satirical narrative, whether as individual episodes or whole texts, formed a significant element of early Irish literature from at least the tenth century onwards and that further research along these lines may well pay dividends. 3 I. Introduction. 1. Áer and its literary development. I.1.1. Áer is traditionally translated as ‘satire’ and has been the focus of a certain amount of attention in medieval Irish studies in recent times. DIL (10) defines áer as ‘(a) cutting, incising; (b) act of satirising, lampooning, defaming’. It also refers to the word rind/rindad ‘cut, cutting’ for comparison, and this Dillon (1953a, 82, note on l.10) translates as ‘point’ which in turn equates with the modern Irish word rinn, meaning ‘point, tip’, i.e. rinn sleá, rinn claímh ‘point of spear, point of sword’ (Ó Dónaill, 1977, 1001). Thus áer has affinities with rind(ad). Binchy (1941, 69) describes áer as a ‘formidable weapon with which members of the poetic orders (grád fhiled) enforced claims either on their own behalf or on behalf of other persons who employed them…To satirize a person without lawful ground is a delict which entitles the victim to recover the full amount of his honour-price as a penalty’. According to the first century AD Greek author Strabo (IV.4.4), the pagan Gauls had three classes of men who were honoured for their divinatory powers i.e. bardoi, vātes and druides. These would correspond formally to Old Irish bard, fáith and druí respectively (McCone, 1990, 165). Diodorus Siculus (V.31) also writing about the Gauls, states: ‘they frequently speak exaggeratedly in order to increase themselves and reduce the others…there are also among them lyric poets, whom they call bardoi. These, singing instruments similar to lyres, praise (hymnousi) some and defame (blasphēmousi) others’ (trans. McCone). These two activities obviously correspond to the two basic functions of medieval Irish poets namely praise (molad) and defamatory satire (áer), which, like their Irish counterparts was probably used by these poets to advance their own or their employers’ claims. The basic function of the Gaulish bards seems to have been thus close to that of the Irish bards. ‘Bretha Nemed déidenach lists no less than sixteen grades of bard: eight sóerbaird ‘noble bards’ and eight dóerbaird ‘base bards’. However, another law-text Bretha im Fhuillema Gell, uses a simpler sevenfold classification of bards, which extends from the tigernbard (‘lord-bard’ i.e. a lord who is a bard) down to the drisiuc’ (Kelly, 1988, 47). CIH 587.18 (Míadshlechta) states: ‘Bard d(an)o: cin dliged fogluime is indtleacht fadeisin ‘A bard, 4 then: without the prerogative of learning, but intellect alone’ (trans. Breatnach, 1987, 98). Thus ‘the essential difference between the fili and the bard is the latter’s lack of professional training’ (Kelly, 1988, 47). I.1.2. Archilochus, a Greek poet of the seventh century BC, is credited with being the earliest satirist on record (Elliott, 1960, 7). His satire took the form of invective and was renowned for its particularly bitter and venomous nature. He wrote in the iambic meter which derived from the Greek word iambos ‘to assail’, and therefore satire was associated with it. The names of Archilochus and Lycambes are forever linked owing to a violent iambic which the former composed against the latter and his household, because Lycambes reneged on a promise made to betroth his daughter to him. As a result of the invective both Lycambes and his daughter are said to have hanged themselves (Elliott, 1960, 7). We understand, therefore, that satires such as this were believed to contain a demonic power which had the capacity to cause the death of the victim. Whether this story is true or not does not matter, for tradition accepted it and that is what makes it significant; the ‘word could kill; and in popular belief it did kill’ (Elliott, 1960, 15). This brief look at Archilochus and the Gauls is by way of drawing attention to the basic power of satire and how it was perceived amongst early peoples, including the pagan Celts. Thus the concept of satire as a demonic power was a feature common to the Greek world and to that of the Celts of Gaul and Ireland. I.1.3. Ó Fiannachta (1974, 67) questions the attention given to the Dánta Grádha in Irish tradition ‘amhail is go mba iad bun agus barr ár litríochta iad; níl iontu ach bláth teagmhaiseach ar imeall an chosáin i ngairdín clasiceach na Gaeilge…Bhíodar imeallach’ (‘as if they were the beginning and end of our literature; they are but a mere incidental flower on the border of the path in the classical garden of Irish…they were peripheral’). In an effort to help redress this imbalance he devotes a chapter of his book to satire and its different manifestations in Irish literature, stating: ‘is cuid thábhachtach leanúnach dár dtraidisiún liteartha í…ó Dhallán a fuair bás de bharr éagóra a aoire go dtí Máirtín Ó Cadhain a bhíonn de shíor ag suirí go míchompordach léi, agus go Myles na gCopaleen a choimeád an Irish Times beo léi’ (1974, 67; ‘it is an important continuous part of our literary tradition….from Dallán who died owing to the injustice of his satire, to Máirtín Ó Cadhain who is continuously wooing it uncomfortably, to Myles na gCopaleen who kept 5 the Irish Times going with it’). In his chapter on ‘Satire in early Irish’ (1962, 105), Mercier likewise prefaces his discussion of this area of early Irish literature by referring to its ‘great antiquity and unbroken continuity’. However, there is a world of difference between the aír of the early poets and the type of satire demonstrated by writers such as Flann O’Brien, even though works like At Swim-Two-Birds plundered the early literature for some of its syntactical composition and subject matter. For example, O’Brien’s (1939, 16-18) parodistic description of Finn Mac Cool which he introduces as a ‘quasi- humorous incursion into ancient mythology’ includes the following: ‘the chest to him was wider than the poles of a good chariot…the arms to him were like the necks of beasts, ball-swollen with their bunched-up brawnstrings and blood-veins, the better for harping and hunting and contending with the bards…Three fifties of fosterlings could engage with handball against the wideness of his backside, which was wide enough to halt the march of warriors through a mountain pass…where is the living human that could beat Finn at the magic of thumb-suck…that could carry an armed host from Almha to Slieve Luachra in the craw of his gut-hung knickers?’ I.1.4. Let us now proceed to examine different types of áer. The Book of Ballymote contains a treatise entitled Cis lir fodla aíre? ‘How many types of satire are there? which Meroney (1950, 199-212) has edited. In answer to the above question the treatise continues Ní hansa. A trí .i. aisnés ocus ail ocus aircetal ‘Not difficult, three i.e. declaration, insult, incantation’. Meroney (1950, 206, note on §2) points out that aisnéis aíre is to be understood here, ‘as further on aircetal is referred to as aircetal aíre’. Each type is illustrated with an example, aisnéis being described thus: aisnéis immorro, indisiu tria h-áinsimh cen cuidb[i]us, amal adubhairth in cáinti i tich alaile degdhuine, nirbo lór lais a cuit. ‘In scerdfidhear salann duit ar do chuitidh?’ ar in timtiridh. ‘Nító’ ar sei- suim, ‘ar nímtá ní ara scertar, acht maine scertar ar mo theangaidh a rec[c] nucu n- écean.