Hi Aelfarh,
I won't go through this on every aspect but suffice to say that many of the translations offered by the author of the article Mr Michael Ragan are not correct and are rather strange and result from misinterpretation of words in Old Irish, misunderstanding of the changes in Middle Irish that are borne out on Old Irish words and this followed by "reinterpretation" of those misunderstandings, not interpretation of the actual text. That is not to say he is right in some places and indeed he's a good writer and has beautifully presented the website, but all in all, the "interpretations" therein are far wide of the mark.
Take Macalister's translation as the correct one -he's the trained scholar in Old & Middle Irish (the necessary language forms for translating Irish texts). Mr Ragan is not quite so equipped, no disrespect to his poetical interpretations and his writing, but really when interpreting a text, one has to read
what is actually there in the text, translate it as literally as possible from the vernacular language and if the meaning is not entirely clear, first look at context, second cross-reference to other sources where the word is used (Dictionaries of Old Irish give citations of occurrence in other texts) and then and only then, make additional "interpretations" or possibilities of translations thereafter.
But any translation has to be based on the actual language first and foremost, not on flights of fancy or spurious theory from mistranslated words.I won't go through the every word in every line detail because it takes a long time for me to do so and really I think you can see the trend in the article's "translation" or "reinterpretation" of the text from the pieces I highlight below to demonstrate pitfalls in seeing a word and assuming it to be something other than it is, then interpreting based on that misunderstanding.
Take
line 1: A Failias tucadh in Lia Fail fil i Temrig, no geissidh fo cach rig no gebidh Erinn. Translation literally: "From Falias was brought the Lia Fáil which is in Tara, it would shriek under every king who would take Ireland"(ie. it would declare the rightful ruler when he stood on it or his chariot passed by it)
MR's translation in the article (section on Lia Fáil) goes into all sort of ponderings but he misses the fact that the translation is very clear, even in a middle Irish rendering.
Now a concept begins to emerge. Still, we cannot be sure of its purpose, so lets dig a little deeper. In the line "No geissidh fo cach rig no gebidh Erinn," MacAlister faced the old problem of a programmed mindset. Rightfully, he recognizes the utterance of the stone when associated with a potential rig (ruler). However, a couple of considerations were overlooked. First, let us look at the root word to geisidh. The root geis (variously geas) means a solemn injunction, a spell, and a prohibition, which can lead to misfortune and death. Geissidh means the expression of the geis. The translation of geissidh to shriek is therefor incomplete
.
It's not a case of Macalister's "programmed mindset" but rather the case that he chose the right verb and MR chose the wrong one!
No geissidh is derived from the verb
[b]géisid [/b]"to cry out" "to shriek" "to groan" "to bellow" .
No is a meaningless "conjunct particle" that is joined with the conjunct form of simple verbs such as Géisid in certain tenses, where no other conjunct particle (such as the negative Ní) exists.
MR I think is confusing
géisid with the subjunctive form of the verb
Guidid meaning "to pray" "to beseech" "to make a request" (subjunctive 3rd singular: no gessed) and in the case of the
Geis (spiritual tabu, prohibition) a "request" (or several of) is placed upon the king (or a champion or whomever) in the form of a prohibition from doing something and non-compliance with the geis (ie. breaking it) has consequences of supernatural cause. Particularly in respect of Kingship where sovereignty is conferred upon a king as something of a covenant with the Otherworld. It is bestowed and can be removed again, if the king is unjust, makes bad judgements, breaks his geisi. The concept known as Fír Flathemon (King's justice) is central to sacred kingship in Ireland. It is more correct in the context of to shriek, cry out, because that is what the Fál does. It is a stone that declares kingship.
For the curious, lets take a quick look at rig. In Old Irish, the word was ri and of neuter gender. Under the patriarchal influence of first the Catholic Church and later the Norman invaders, it came to be considered masculine.In general usage, the word lost further of its definition when early Abbots were given the title "Ri." Thus you find a number of early clerics referred to as Bishop Kings, such as Cormac in the 10th century. However, under the proper and original context, a "Ri" (Righ) was the elected ruler of Clan or Tribe, male or female.
Ríg - is the dative case of rí, (king) and follows the preposition "fo" (under") which takes both accusative and dative cases of noun. Both are ríg but the dative is more likely it refers to something that is physically positioned under the feet/chariot of the rightful would-be king, rather than something that is "going under" (ie. motion implied) which would give the accusative case of the noun ríg.
Rí is a
masculine guttural stem noun,
not neuterIn terms of application - Rí is coupled with another word to define the type of King - rí túaithe (king of a túath - small kingdom), rí túath (king of several small kingdoms], rí cóicid (King of a province}, Rí ruirech (king of great kings), Ardrí (High King), Rí Érenn (King of Ireland) [some of these titles are equivalent]. Bishop Kings or Abbots of a monastery could indeed have a Rí title, likewise the ruler of a given group in a metaphoric sense. eg. rí lóech nErend (King of the warriors of Ireland) is a metaphoric phrase for Cú Chulainn (Reference from Lebor na hUidre 8393 - "The book of the Dun Cow")
There is very little attestation of female rulers in Irish law or in the Annals, unlike the myth. It's a strange disparity as to why so many "strong women" rulers should feature in mythology (eg. Queen Medb, Scáthach, Aoife, the isle of women, etc) yet there's little mention in historical documentation of female rulers, military leaders etc. I cite here from Fergus Kelly 'A Guide to Early Irish law' the terms ben sues strutha coctha for cula "the woman who turns back the streams of war" and rechtaid géill "The hostage ruler". Here it's not entirely clear what is meant but possibly referring to women with miltiary positions/rulers of a group. But one would not apply the term Rí (a masculine nominative) to a female. If referencing a female ruler it would most likely have the pre-fix Ban/Ben infront of it (woman) giving "queen", just as Bandia means "Goddess" and Dia means "God".
Line 2A Goirias tucad in tlegh bi ic Lug ni geibtha cath frisin ti a mbid laimThis particular sentence is extremely interesting because of its form. Middle Irish is used except for the word "tlegh,' which means spear or javelin. In Middle Irish the same word developed into Sleag (Spear),
MR misses the point in speaking about swords (ooh terrible pun I know!).
In tlegh is simply the Middle Irish scribe's writing of the Old Irish words
int sleg (int sleagh). The s of sleg is lenited (sh) and because lenition of an S makes the sound change to /h/ which 'disappears' after the -t of the article
int, the scribe wrote it phonetically as "in tlegh" and joined the t of the definite article int (the) to the word sleg (omitting the s because the sound is nullified). There is no "development" of tlegh into sleagh. It's just a phoentically written version in the Middle Irish text whereas MR has written the modern Irish
sleagh showing the lenitied g (gh) and the glide vowel 'a' in the word, both of which are understood in sleg as Old Irish grammar reveals.
Let's next address the word bi. "Bi means simply birdlime or pitch. MacAlister chose to ignore this word which probably did not make sense to him. But it's inclusion is quite appropriate. A spear was composed of two or more elements. You have a spearhead and a spear-shaft. The latter could be composed of two or more pieces. To hold the pieces together, the ancients used pitch or birdlime to glue it all together. The problem of keeping head and shaft together was serious enough that by the 15th century bc, small loops were molded onto the shaft end of the spearhead to enable tying the pieces together with thongs. How were the thongs fastened to the shaft? By wrapping and gluing - using pitch or birdlime, of course. Additionally, smooth wood did not provide a very secure grip for a sweaty hand and grips were fashioned from both metal and leather, and wrapped tightly around a pitch or birdlime treated area. Thus we see that the matter of "bi" is central to our consideration.
Next we find "ic," which translates to "cure" or "prepare." Again, a word not understood by the translator is ignored.
Therefore, a simple literal translation of the Gaelic phrase should read "From the place of incubation was brought the spear, birdlime prepare(d) bright. Alternatively, in more proper English form, "From the place of origin, (the people) brought the Bright Spear, birdlime prepared." Thus we have the statement that the Spear, properly prepared for its purpose, was brought from the place of origin of the Tuatha de Danann.
This is what happens when you get an Old Irish dictionary and look up some words, entirely confusing them with the Middle Irish forms of other words. It is the author of the article who misunderstands the words, not RAS Macalister.
Taking
ic first -
ic is the Middle Irish form of Old Irish "
oc" (literally "at"). It is also found as ac and ag (ag being the modern Irish form) and it can be used in the sense of "with" as in "in possession of". eg. Modern Irish "Tá madra agam" ~ "A dog is with me" meaning "I have a dog". When used with the substantive verb (tá/bí) it indicates often a temporal possession of something.
Bi in the above sentence is I think, most likely the Middle Irish writing of the Old Irish preterite (past tense) of the substantive verb, written in Old Irish as
boí or
baí ("was") -relative form
boíe "which was".
So the sentence reads "From Gorias was brought the spear that was with Lug" or "...which Lugh had" (ie. which was with Lugh)
It is not referring to birdlime (Guano!) as in MR's translation of "bí" nor to healing or cure as in MR's translation of "ic".
The second phrase, "ni geitha cath frisin ti a mbid laim," also requires deeper consideration. Literally it states that "no start battle (or temptation) against person from first throw." In proper English then, "It will not battle (or tempt) the person who first throws it." Notice that the operative word here is "throws." It is active. It is not simply being held in the hand it is being put to its use. Further it is "first" use. It is initiatory.
The sentence is:
ni geibtha cath frisin ti a mbid laimArgh. take it from me - macalister is right.
Ní geibthe is Middle Irish orthography for the passive imperfect indicative
ní gaibthe of the verb
Gaibidwhich has a variety of meanings depending on context [seize, catch, take, go, accept, etc.) here, "it would not be taken" "it used not go" "it would/used not be seized" etc. when this is coupled with "fris" it gives the meaning "It would not be taken against" "It would not go against". It being "Cath" (battle). the -in of frisin I would take to be the in of
int-í "the one", "the person", "him". "a mbid láim" - in whose hand it was ie. "who had it in hand"
Line 3: A Findias tucadh claidhim Nuadad: Translation literally "From Findias was brought the sword of Nuadu"
MR's translation/comment:
"Additionally, the word "Nuadad" does not refer to the God Nuada. Notice that our translator dropped a letter "d." While spelling variations do occur frequently, this is not one of them. Nuadad and Nuada are two different words with totally different meanings. Nuadad means the process of renewal. Therefor, the line is better translated as "From that bright place (origin of the people) came the Sword of RenewaI. "
This is where lack of grammatical understanding of a language can trip you up.
Núadad is the genitive case (Possessive case ) of the dental stem noun
Nuadu. When you translate from a genitive ie.
claidim Núadad ("The sword of Núadu/ Núadu's sword", you return personal and place names to the nominative, so Núadad reverts to Núadu (Núadad is also written Núadat -t in final position being a /d/ sound here). In the above quote the author does not quite display an understanding of the context or framing of language according to rules of grammar and syntax, unilke Macalister who did.
Line 4: A Muirias tucad coiri in Dagda: ni theigidh damh dimdhach uadTranslation: "From Murias was brought the cauldron of the Dagda, no company used go from it unsatisfied"
The second questionable assertion is the implied ownership by Dagda. Throughout European mythology (including the Irish), the cauldron, chalice and cup are feminine symbols. It represents the womb of the Great Mother. It is the place of creation. How then can it be possessed by the epitome of male-dom? The answer is that it cannot be possessed as in ownership. It can only be protected and held in safety by the masculine figure. Thus, Dagda, as the archetype, was not the owner, but rather the protector of the Sacred Cauldron.
This I think is ponderance based on popular modernistic ideas about "The Great Mother". I don't think that there's any real cause to speculate on the origin or possession of the cauldron. It is simply attributed to the Dagda here and he seems to have some 'agricultural' attributes in terms of being "earthy", fecund, producing, consuming and his appetite is made fun of in the texts, especially when the Formor fill a great cauldron for him of porridge and pieces of animal flesh and bid him eat it til he has finished it. The remainder of commentary in the article on this is related to the sea and images it invokes, nothing grammatical, so I won't comment there, except to say there's some rather unfair slighting of "modern scholars" in the inference of a limited point of view, when instead, they are the ones whose work can be most-relied upon to be true to the text at hand, rather than shall we say 'overly creative' and without solid base to work from in forming opinions as to what is meant in a text or myth or concept.
The idea in the line above being that the cauldron gives portion to those who seek it and no one ever goes away from it unsatisfied.
I think there's a hint elsewhere in a text, or perhaps I'm just recalling from elsewhere that portions were accorded in measure to the person's status ie. the great deserve more. That idea is certainly evident in the notion of the "Champion's portion" over which heroes would fight to be the most deserving of the best share as a recognition of their stature as the champion or chief amongst warriors - and also if I remember correctly, the seating plan of Tara details I believe, portions according to the measure of one's status. But here I am just pulling related ideas from other texts and contexts, not deriving this from anything inherent to the Irish text above itself.
In summary: Without understanding the basics of Old Irish language and the changes between Old and Middle Irish (eg. in terms of unclear vowel-sounds being written variously as a/o/u/e/i, destruction of distinct noun case endings, loss of neuter gender and reassignment to masc/fem, major grammatical changes in the verbal system, changes in use of forms of pronouns, prepositions, orthography, etc) one cannot really attempt to interpret an Old or Middle Irish text accurately. One can make a stab at parts of it by looking up terms in an Old Irish Dictionary (such as MR appears to have done) but without understanding the context of use of terminology coupled with the Old-Middle Irish changes both in grammar and orthography, one trips up at almost every turn (as MR has). Taking terms at face value based on similar looking words in an Old Irish dictionary does not equate with good scholarship or understanding how the dictionaries have to be used. It's not a case of "look up term - find meaning" - one has to contend with huge changes in language and orthography over various periods of time, so taking a text from a late medieval copied manuscript of an earlier text, one must be aware of:
- radical grammtical changes (especially in verbal system)
- scribal amendments (eg. substitution of a more modern word form for an earlier one. eg. ic for oc etc)
- copyist errors in transcription from original text to later copies
- Middle Irish corruptions of Old Irish words
- preserved archaisms
Hope this helps a bit. In general I would say, if you want translations of things, get a scholarly translation by a known scholar (eg. Macalister, Thurneysen, Binchy, Strachan, ORahilly, MacNeill, Dillon, Kuno Meyer, O Cuív, McCone, McManus, Carey, Breatnach, Nagy, etc.) or indeed get those by multiple scholars where versions exist) and look at them for consistency of translation. No single one is absolutely perfect nor will every line be exactly the same, because many words have multiple meanings and so subjective interpretation is always a factor in some lines, based on the natural bias introduced when one leans towards a particular word more than others. But it's of course the case that there will be a majority of "consistency" of derivations and translations from scholarly editions because the people who do them, have spent myriad years of their life gaining the skills in order to enable them to do such things. It's much harder to find really good translations of veracity outside that community because of the requirement for advanced training in languages up to 1300 years old.
In terms of online texts, I am not sure if there's an online translation available. There may be sections of. I found this one with the passage above cited (scroll down til you see the pages with green headings "Section VII - Tuatha De Dannan" p.106 has the piece)
http://home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myt ... tracts.htmIt contains extracts from :
Macalister, R.A.S. Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book Of The Taking Of Ireland, Part IV (1941).
Generally the CELT website is excellent for Irish and translated texts but I don't see LGE in there.
Here's the link anyway should something catch your eye
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.htmlsaludos,
Beith
