AURAICEPT
NA N-ÉCES
THE SCHOLARS’ PRIMER
BEING THE TEXTS OF THE OGHAM TRACT FROM THE
BOOK OF BALLYMOTE AND THE YELLOW BOOK OF
LECAN, AND THE TEXT OF THE TREFHOCUL
FROM THE BOOK OF LEINSTER
EDITED FROM
EIGHT MANUSCRIPTS, WITH INTRODUCTION,
TRANSLATION
OF THE BALLYMOTE TEXT, NOTES, AND INDICES
BY
GEORGE CALDER, B.D.
Lecturer
in Celtic, University of Glasgow
EDINBURGH: JOHN GRANT
31 GEORGE IV. BRIDGE
1917
[The preface and the Middle Irish text
have been omitted, except the poems.
The references giving the place of the text in
the manuscripts have been kept. BB = Book of Ballymote 14th century, Royal
Irish Academy; E. = MS. I., Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh.]
[Note that Calder’s work comprises six parts.
his introduction of
which I’ll translate the German and part of the Latin citations.
the edition in Middle
Irish (sometimes in Old Irish) and the English translation of the text of the
Auraicept as found in the manuscrits B and E of the Book of Ballymote. This
contains four versions of the Auraicept : the « Poets’ Primer »,
the « book of Ferchertne », the « book of Amairgein
Glungeal », et the « book of Fenius ». These four versions end
with a kind of poetical summary: the Trefocul.
the edition in Irish
of the text of the Auraicept as found in the Yellow Book of Lecan and the
Egerton manuscript.
the edition in Irish
of the Trefhocul as found in the manuscritps LL et HM
the edition du ‘De
Duilib Feda’ as found in BB et LL
the edition and the
English translation of ‘Ogam’ as found in BB.]
AURAICEPT
NA N-ÉCES
MSS. TRANSCRIBED OR
COLLATED
FIRST
FAMILY (Short Text)
BB., B. Book of Ballymote (308 β 44-333)
14th century, R.I.A. [Royal Irish
Academy]
E. MS. I., Advocates Library,
Edinburgh.
L. Book of Lecan, R.I.A.
M., HM. Book of Hy Maine (Trefhocul, with examples),
R.I.A.
B, E, L contain the
mnemonic poem but not the Trefhocul.
SECOND
FAMILY (Long Text)
.
YBL. Yellow Book of Lecan (219 α 23-241
β 13). T.C.D. [Trinity College
Dublin]
Eg. Egerton, 88 (63 1 β 26-761 α
41), British Museum.
YBL, Eg. do not contain
the mnemonic poem or the Trefhocul.
T. H.4.22 (pp. 159-207) T.C.D. This MS. is
intermediate between the first and the second family. It does not contain
either the Trefhocul or the mnemonic poem, but it has a poem of about 200
verses on early Bible history.
LL. xii. century, T.C.D. The Trefhocul with
examples.
Ed. MS. vii. ii β 1-39, Advocates
Library, the beginning of a glossary of the Auraicept which closely resembles
the Lecan glossary.
AUTHORITIES REFERRED
TO OR QUOTED
[Not transcribed here]
[Calder’s] INTRODUCTION
THE Handbook of the Learned, here edited
for the first time, is a work that opens up many questions.
Éces is often equivalent to fili. Filidecht covered the whole field
of poetry, romance, history, biography, geography, grammar, antiquities, and
law. The poet-jurist, who, seated, gave judgments in verse, is probably
referred to at lines 407,8. The Auraicept treats chiefly of the Ogham alphabet
and grammar, but if the Trefhocul be included, it treats also of poetry in the
strict sense.
[The references to
lines of the Auraicept as given by Calder, as the one above: ‘407, 8’ or the
following ones in between ( ) as: (2193), refer to lines numbers. You will have
to consult the original publication to find back these lines, see
http://www.archive.org/details/auraicept00calduoft.
Notice that I did not include in this version the Latin and German
translations I did for the French version. See the commented version.]
The poets, filid, were a guild, making their own special laws, and exercising
discipline upon their own members (2193). They claimed and used the right to
quarter themselves and their retinue upon society (2221), and they exacted a
fixed sum for their poetic compositions. In general this was cheerfully paid;
the means for enforcing unwilling payment was satire. The exercise of this potent
weapon was moderated by rule (1935), certain forms of satire, such as tamall n-aire (1932), being forbidden in
the Trefhocul; and though the poets have been abolished by law for over a
century, even at this day in certain districts the phrase, dheanamh aoir air,
to satirise one, is not without its terrors.
The poets were a secret society with
a language peculiar and intelligible to themselves only. According to their
literary tradition Fenius, at their request, devised this language for them
(195), and its obscurity was essential (21). The people often rose up against
the poets and attempted to repudiate their claims. One such rising was that at
Drumketta, A.D. 590 (1472). About that time they numbered 15,000. Owing to the
advocacy of St Columba, himself a fili,
they were suffered to continue, but under restrictions.
The filid were a strictly professional class, undergoing a rigorous
training to fit them for their position. The bards, on the other hand, were
unprofessional, and more or less untrained, but they practised a large number
of metres in which the filid also
were required to become proficient.
The following tables (cf. the later scheme in Joyce’s, Social Hist., i. 430), will show what
place the Auraicept occupied in their studies.
The Fili, his Rank, Name, and Compositions, with the Rewards therefor,
and his Retinue (2219-2254).
[A = At Feasts; O = On Circuit; F = For
Ordinary Needs; P = At Poetic Feasts or Contests]
|
Rank |
Name |
Metre |
Reward |
Retinue
|
||||
|
I. II. III. IV V. VI. VII. |
ollam anrad clí cano doss macfuirmid foclóc |
anamain nath anair emain láid setrad dían |
a chariot( = one bondmaid) five cows four cows one horse ( = two cows) one milch cow one cow-in-calf one three-year-old heifer |
|
The Yearly
Studies of the Fili.
Each year
included the studies of all preceding years.
[Note that Calder
introduced in his text some of the middle Irish coinventions: -i- = i.e. ;
7 = and]
|
1 |
foclóc |
1. oghum, besides regular oghum; the Auraicept with its prologue and with its flexions; 1. drécht; vi. dían. Ir. T. iii. 32. |
|
2 |
macfuirmid |
1. oghum, besides usual oghum; vi. detailed lessons of filidecht; xxx. drécht; x. setrada, senamain, and snaithe senamna. Ir. T. iii. 34, 9. |
|
3 |
doss |
oghum, besides ebadach nIlmain;
vi. other detailed lessons of filidecht;
xl. drécht; xvi. laid. Ir.
T. iii. 34, 12. |
|
4 |
cano |
1. drécht; 1. bretha nemid; xx. emain. Ir. T. iii. 36, 18. |
|
5 |
clí |
1x. drécht; xxx. anair; xxx. iarmberla. Ir. T. iii. 37, 21 |
|
6 |
anrad |
Ixx. drécht; Ixxx. nath mór; Ixxx. nath becc 7 berla na. filed. Ir. T. iii. 38, 25. |
|
7 |
ollam |
brosnacha suad, i.e. the bard
metres which the poet ought to know, for that is the poet’s lesson of the
seventh year; e.g. I. divisions of brosnacha, i.e. dechnad mór, and two species of dechnad
mór are there reckoned, viz. sned and trebrad. Ir. T. iii. 39, 32. |
|
8 |
. . . |
fiscomarca filed -i- dúidli berla 7 clethchor choem 7 reicne
roscadach 7 láide -i- tenmláida 7 immas forosnai 7 dichetal
do chennaib na titaithe 7 dinshenchus,
and all the principal tales of Ireland in order to relate them to kings,
lords, and gentlemen. For the fili
is not yet perfect. Ir. T. iii. 49, 91. |
|
9, 10 |
. . . |
xl. sennath -i-; xv. luasca 7 vii. ena; eochraid of Ix.
words with metres and xiv. srotha
and vi. dúili feda. Ir.
T. iii. 54, 99. |
|
11 |
. . . |
1.anamain mór; 1. anamain becc. Ir. T.
iii. 59,113. |
|
12 |
. . . |
cxx. rochetal; iiii.cerda, i.e. cerd of Ladchend mic Bairchida (Ælt., pp. 17, 27), 7 cerd hi Chota, 7 cerd hui Bicni, 7 cerd
Béci. Ir. T. iii. 60, 121. |
A brief study of the Auraicept is
sufficient to convince one that the leading extraneous source is the Latin
Grammarians. Some of them are cited by name, Priscian (A.D. 450), Donatus (A.D.
350), Pompeius, and Consentius.
If it be urged that the quotations
from these authors are a late addition to the Auraicept by way of learned
illustration, it is answered that in any case the general setting of the matter
follows closely the didactic style of the grammarians, as the following
examples, occurring passim, will
show:
Quæstio est, Gr. Lat. v. 537, 16, 29; 541, 20,
32.
cest, Aur. 9, 57.
|
Quaesitum
est, v. 228, 18 Qaeritur,
v. 165, 27; 210, 38 De qua
quaeritur, Origg, xvi. 10, 2 |
conagar,
Aur. 1019, 1375 |
ut sciam,
v. 195, 19.
ut scias,
v. 121, 15, 18; 173, 18: co fesear, Aur. 1577.
ut sciamus,
v. 10, 16.
sciendum
est, v. 180, 32: is soigti Aur. 3508, is fisid 3523
scire
debemus, v. 277, 30.
scire
debes, v. 142, 15.
The matter
itself of the Auraicept is largely identical with that treated of by the Latin
Grammarians in their early chapters - the alphabet, classification of letters,
sounds and syllables, consonant and vowel changes, gender and declension of
nouns, comparison of adjectives, prepositions governing dative and accusative
cases, the accent, artificial and natural, genus and species, and a few other
incidental points. The omissions are almost equally significant. There is no
classification of declensions, no declension of adjectives which are tacitly
included with the substantives, no treatment of pronouns except as tokens of
gender (aurlonn, 585), or as emphasised by fein = met (726), and the whole
accidence of the verb is wanting. The similarity between Latin and Gaelic
failed at this point. The paradigm of the verb is tentative and native (304,
653). An endeavour is made to show that, while there is a correspondence in
meaning between the two languages, Gaelic is the more comprehensive (1081).
The language is Middle Irish, but the
basis, which has been much worked over, all belongs to the Old Irish period.
The composition consists of Text and
Commentary, the latter forming the great bulk of the work. The text is the
oldest portion; the commentary, in parts as old as the text, was in a process
of continuous growth. The text, written in a large hand in most MSS., is
printed in leaded type. BB, here followed, curtails the text. The Book of Lecan
and T. make a much larger delineation of text. The question as to what is text
and what is commentary will require further study for a satisfactory solution,
but it may be here remarked that much of the primary material is embodied in
the tract in the ordinary hand of the commentary so as to be indistinguishable
from the commentary at sight, and that the commentary itself occasionally
points to the text by the use of such expressions as Cid am tuc-somh (97), Cid ara
n-ebairt (378, 484, 512, 385), intan
roraidh (421), ata acht lem
(2973), amal asbert i curp in libuir
(173, 241) where corp in libuir
always means the text of the book under comment.
Another but a rather uncertain
criterion is this. A passage which does not occur by way of commentary on any
previous quotation, but which is itself made the subject of commentary, is in a
sense primary material, though not necessarily so old as the principal text on
which the commentary is written.
The use of conagar is generally to introduce commentary even though the
passage so introduced is itself subjected to comment. In a word, there is a primary
commentary used to explain the original text, and a secondary commentary
developing the content of the primary commentary (e.g., 1072 on 1068, 1637 on 1515). The etymological glosswork
belongs to this last stage, and is incorporated without any regard to the
context.
The language even of the commentary
is based on Old Irish usage. It explicitly recognises three genders in
substantives and pronouns. In it airdíbdad
(1264) means the silencing of the consonants, f and s. In later usage
this term becomes airdibad, urdubad (uirdhiughadh, O’Molloy, Gr. 61), and denotes eclipsis, obnubilatio. The tract before us takes
no account of eclipsis. At the time the tract was written the combinations mb, nd, had evidently not yet become assimilated (but cf. Nembroth, Nemruad). For, if such
assimilations had taken place, an account would have been given of the
phenomenon under such questions as " What two consonants have the force of
one consonant ? " (1375).
As regards ng initial, the evidence is not so clear. The nasal infection may
have produced (ng + g) and not ng simply (255). On the other hand the
combination is an Ogham letter (442) but even vowels of diphthongs were
pronounced separately (1430) and is, considered along with the example, uingi (4926), curiously suggestive of:
NT. N
Latinum adiuncto Gamma Græco significat
semiunciam.
Origg. xvi. 27, 4.
The scheme of declension, also,
distinguishes clearly between dative and accusative after prepositions (1651,
1770), a distinction not uniformly or often observed in Middle Irish, though a
much later tract draws a distinction between acc. after a preposition importing
motion, siubhal, and dat. after a
preposition importing rest, comhnaidhe
(Ériu, viii. 17, 72, 73). This last, however, may be merely a grammatical
recrudescence, or an imitation of Latin.
A few sporadic examples of Old Irish
are here added:
1. THE ARTICLE.
n.p.m. in
muite 447, in tæbomna tuissecha 918 in tri focail 2018, but ainm n, has art
n.p.m. ind anmanda 4828.
n.p.f. inna
iiii. aipgitri-sea 1132.
For art. developed from projected
n., v. condelc,
etargoire n-inchoisc
647, in incoisc 641.
2. NOUN STEMS.
A. o-stems:
n.p.n. araile crand 1149.
B.
io-stems:
n.s.n. a mberla sain 1044.
ds. oc nach ailiu 1044; a.s. fria
araill 3106, ar araill 5613; gan araill 3105.
n.s. 7 araill 3410; ’nas i n-aill
1272.
quam
i n-aill 4593, 4579 no da fhir-inaill 338.
C. n-stem:
gach reim n-olc 2177.
3.
NUMERALS: teora, ceitheora 4708, 3747, cf.
872.
4. THE
VERB: ailsius 5319, adrodamas 135; copula verb, arnid 693, nadat 4588.
As to the native elements, we are
told that Cenn Faelad in English Kinealy wrote the Prologue (80). As this
preface is not likely to have been omitted by the compilers of the extant
tract, one concludes that this must be the actual introduction (1-62). This
view is confirmed by the displacement in version ii. of the section (63-78)
which is the work of a commentator of Cenn Faelad; also by the particle tra in the first sentence quoted from
Cenn Faelad, which follows the introduction in both versions.
There are four authors of the
Auraicept proper, Cenn Faelad, Ferchertne, Amergen, and Fenius.
[1] The excerpts from the Book of
Cenn Faelad deal with:
The origin
of Gaelic (100).
Divisions
of the Latin alphabet (312), and of the Irish alphabet (392).
Latin and
Irish treatment of semivowels contrasted (445)-
Genders in
Irish (520).
Degrees of
comparison in Latin, and qualitative and quantitative distinctions in Irish
(639).
[2] The excerpts from the Book of
Ferchertne deal with:
The seven elements of speech in
Irish (739), and
The formation and powers of Ogham
letters (943).
[3] There is a long excerpt from the
Book of Amergen dealing with: the origin of Goedelg (1034). This passage is of
earlier date and language than the general run of the tract. In substance it is
an alternative prologue.
[4] The excerpts from the Book of
Fenius (1102) deal with:
The
alphabets of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (1129), hence probably the ascription to
Fenius who was learned in those languages (160), and contemporary with the
Exodus (i 104).
Verse feet
or syllabic content of Irish words (1213).
Consonant
changes (1264).
The five
kinds of Irish (1302).
The
twenty-five inflections (1515).
What is alt? (1577).
The end of the text of the Auraicept
is noted (1636).
Besides those four ancient books
cited, the Book of Cenn Faelad, the Book of Ferchertne (735), the Book of
Amergen (1028), the Book of Fenius, Iair mac Nema, and Gaedel mac Ethiuir
(1102), two others are mentioned, the Dúile Feda (5416), of which the Ogham
tract is perhaps an expansion, and the Cín
Ollaman (1204, 4385) possibly an early form of the tract on Metrics. The
quotations from the first four books are set forth as usual in large hand; but
possibly other passages from them are embodied in the commentary in the normal
hand. For wherever a passage in the commentary is afterwards explained in
detail with the usual artificial etymologies, this is an indication that the
passage probably belonged originally to the ancient text.
While the ascription of the Book of
Cenn Faelad is probably genuine, the same cannot be said of the Books of
Ferchertne, Amergen, and Fenius. The quotations may be from writings
approximately of the time of Cenn Faelad, but of unknown authorship. A
commentator (1019-1027) takes the view that the work of these authors were
successive steps leading up to the grand consummation, the Tréfhocul. By the
statement also of a commentator that "what is first according to book
order was invented last, to wit, the Book of Cenn Faelad" (66) may be
meant that this author co-ordinated all the ancient material, and presented it
as it now stands. This view is upheld by another commentator who says that
Ferchertne composed the Auraicept but Cenn Faelad rewrote it, or copied it,
along with the greater part of Scripture (2638).
There seems no reason to question
the ascription of the "Book of Cenn Faelad" to the author of that
name. He is a well authenticated person. He died A.D. 679. His pedigree is
found in the genealogy of the Cenél
nEogain. His poems, dealing to a large extent with the wars of his
kinsfolk, the Northern Ui Néill, are quoted largely in the annals. The curious
tradition about his "brain of forgetfulness " (77) had no doubt a
foundation in fact. Possibly he got a good education in youth, but developed a
" brain of forgetfulness " by turning from learning to soldiering. He
certainly fought in the battle of Moira A.D. 637, where he was wounded.
Returning again to civil life and his early pursuits, "poetry, words, and
reading" (78), he laid the foundation of that reputation which as
"Cenn Faelad, the Learned" he still enjoys (O’C. Lect.}. His period as an author therefore extends over the
forty-two years between the battle of Moira and his death, and quotations from
him must take rank among the oldest dated specimens of the language. But he
refers to still older Irish writers, augdair
na nGaideal (79), who wrote on the subject of Irish grammar, or of Irish
origins. He may refer to such works as the Irish Chronicon Eusebii (Ériu, vii. 62) which came down to A.D.
609, and of which the lost portion at the beginning may well have contained the
story of Fenius. Writing in 603, S. Columbanus refers to antiqui philosophi Hiberniæ as experts in chronography. Thus that
earlier than the seventh century a state of learning existed which was held in
esteem by the writers of that century is proved, though the direct products of
that earlier learning are no longer extant. If we assume Cenn Faelad to be
really the author, and therefore that the Auraicept was begun about the middle
of the seventh century, how did it happen that while the other Western nations
were sunk in ignorance, the Irish enjoyed the light of learning? Zimmer (SPA.,
Dec. 1910, p. 1049) quoting the passage in Aur. 1859-1876 puts the question
with great force:
"Das
sind die ‘Elemente der Kasus- und Numeruslehre’, wie man sie als Teil des über
viele Jahre sich erstreckenden Studiums der irischen fili (Grammatiker,
Metriker, Antiquare und professionsmässiger Dichter) in den nationalen Schulen
Irlands traktierte, als Klemens der Ire an der Hofschule Karls des Grossen
jungen Franken das abc beibrachte, als Dicuil in St Denis, Dungal in Pavia,
Sedulius in Lüttich und Metz, Moengal in St Gallen, Johannes Scottus an der
Hofschule Karls des Kahlen tätig waren; durch diesen Unterricht ist Cormac mac
Cuilennain gegangen (gest. 908), der nebenbei ganz auständige Kenntnis im
Latein, Griechisch, Hebräisch, Altnordisch, Angelsächsisch und Kymrisch
besass."
The high tide of learning at a very
early period in ancient Ireland was beyond a doubt caused by the influx of
learned men from the Continent. In his researches Zimmer came upon this
passage:
Huni, qui
ex nephario concubitu progeniti sunt, scilicet demonum, postquam præheunte
caterva viam invenerunt per Meotides paludes, invaserunt Cothos quos nimium
terruerunt ex improviso monstro quod in illis erat. Et ab his depopulatio
totius imperii exordium sumpsit, quæ ab Unis et Guandelis, Gotis et Alanis
peracta est, sub quorum vastatione omnes sapientes cismarini fugam ceperunt, et
in transmarinis, videlicet in Hibernia, et quocunque se receperunt maximum
profectum sapientiæ incolis illarum regionum adhibuerunt.
The first part of this statement
relating to the Huns is taken from Jordanis, who wrote about A.D. 550, and
fixes approximately the date of the depopulation of the empire and the rush of
learned men into Ireland. We may assume that the migration had already
continued for a time before this account was written. The intercourse between
Ireland and the continent was certainly kept up.
Three centuries later we have this
testimony respecting the
Natio Scottorum quibus consuetudo
peregrinandi jam pæne in naturam conversa est.
Quid Hiberniam memorem, contempto
pelagi dis- crimine, pæne totam cum grege philosophorum ad littora nostra
migrantem ! (SPA., 1910, p. 1080).
Zimmer with great learning, breadth
of view, and mastery of detail builds upon these facts a history at once
picturesque and surprising.
Stated briefly his hypotheses amount
to this. The exodus from Gaul to Ireland (A.D. 419-507) was caused by the
Homoousian persecution. Aquitania and the modern Baskish territory suffered
like other parts, and Ireland was then the only haven of orthodoxy. Among the
refugees from that region was the fatuus
homunculus who was so called by his fellow-countryman the deacon Ennodius
(A.D. 473-521) but who called himself Virgilius
Maro, Grammaticus. He found an asylum with a native prince as was the
fashion for learned men in those days, settled, and taught grammar, nay more,
gained for himself fame, recognition, and a place among the native poets, being
in fact none other than Ferchertne fili.
The Auraicept bears abundant
evidence of the influence of two Latin authors, Isidore and Maro. The latter
Zimmer laboured to identify with Ferchertne
fili. It can be shown that the Auraicept lends no support to this proposed
identification. This Ferchertne fili
(CZ. iii. 13) is .described in the tract as a contemporary of Conchobar mac Nessa
(736), who, whatever reckoning be adopted, lived somewhere about the second
century (cf. A.u. 484). According to
this chronology, therefore, the identification of Ferchertne fili and Maro would place the latter at least a couple
of centuries before his known floruit.
Again the matter treated of by Ferchertne
fili the seven elements of speech in Irish, and the formation and powers of
Ogham letters does not correspond to anything in Maro’s pages. If it be proved
also that, while Isidore’s influence is felt chiefly in the earlier part of the
Auraicept, Maro’s influence is confined entirely to the later, Zimmer’s main
contention that Maro was Ferchertne fili
cannot succeed. Several centuries lay between the inception of the Auraicept
and its close. Maro’s tract had a profound influence on the Auraicept, but none
on its early stages. According to internal evidence Cenn Faelad wrote the part
ascribed to him about the middle or second half of the seventh century. That is
the superior limit. The inferior limit lies in the eleventh century, or perhaps
the tenth, and is determined generally by two facts (i) that the Auraicept is
found in two families of MSS., the variations in which postulate many
generations of scribes, and (2) the immense development which has taken place
in the tract itself as it has advanced from crude statements to a prosody which
is exceedingly complicated and difficult. But the argument does not rest
entirely on general considerations.
The second text (3382) quotes native
grammarians by name, Ua Bruic, Ua Coindi, Ua Coirill and Ua Finn
(3391). They are named by their surnames (each being the acknow ledged head of
his family), a usage that is not found earlier than the tenth century, one of
the earliest instances being that of Ua
Ruairc, A.u. 953. Ua Coirill
mentioned above may have been the professor of law and history, who died A.U.
1083. Hence the Auraicept was not completed before the middle of the tenth
century, perhaps not till towards the end of the eleventh, when Maro’s
influence is still in evidence.
Let us now look at some excerpts
from the works of
the two
Latin authors, Isidore and Maro.
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE, who died A.D. 636.
His Etymologiæ or Origines in
twenty books contain a vast amount of information of such a sort that one finds
it impossible to resist the conclusion that the compilers of the Auraicept had
this document before them. At least that Cenn Faelad and Isidore drew matter
from a common source is a certainty, for the facts (or alleged facts) and the
phraseology are the same.
If we keep in mind that Isidore died
the year before the battle of Moira, and that after that event Cenn Faelad
began and pursued his studies with such success that he was popularly supposed
to forget nothing (so one may interpret the words), and if we remember further
that there was a constant coming and going of learned men, and a steady
exchange of books between the continent and Ireland, there is no inherent
improbability in the supposition that Cenn Faelad assimilated some of his material
from the Origines published perhaps
some twenty years before. True, the name of Isidore does not occur in the
Auraicept, but no more does that of Eusebius from whom he probably made
extracts, nor that of Luccreth Mocu
Chiara (Ælteste irische Dichtung,
p. 51), from whose poem the passage about the seventy-two races (Aur. 215-227)
was certainly taken.
There being no difficulty as to date
or the omission of a name, full weight may be allowed to any other considerations
tending to connect the two authors. The following quotations from many books of
the Origines show how much the Auraicept was indebted to that source both in
general structure and in detail.
Some references demonstrate that the
Irish and Ireland were not unfamiliar to Isidore, at least as an author:
Horrent et
male tecti cum latratoribus linguis Scotti. Origg. xix. 23, 6.
Scotia idem
et Hibernia proximae Brittianiae insula, spatio terrarum angustior, sed situ
fecundior. Haec ab Africo in Boream porrigitur. Cujus partes priores Hiberiam
et Cantabricum Oceanum intendunt, unde et Hibernia dicta: Scotia autem, quod ab
Scotorum gentibus colitur, appellata. Origg. xiv. 6, 6.
Time, place, person, and cause of
writing (Aur. 63, 735, 1029), define the general plan and treatment of a
subject, and are usually found in the introduction to any serious work in
Irish.
Iam vero in
elocutionibus illud uti oportebit, ut res, locus, tempus, persona audientis
efflagitat
Origg. ii.
1 6, i.
The cradle
of letters was in Achaia, or by projection
of d from art., Dacia, or by early French
pronunciation, Asia.
Ubi fuit
Athenae civitas. Origg. xiv. 4, 10.
Apud
Eotenam (uel Athena) civitatem. Aur. 214.
Fuit autem
Isis regina Aegyptiorum, Inachis regis filia, quae de Graecia veniens Aegyptios
litteras docuit.
Origg.
viii. 1 1, 84.
These sentences show that, unless
the Biblical Accad was introduced from some other source, Achaia (251) was
probably the original reading; but the possibility that Achaia lay in Maeotidis Peludibus (CZ. x. 126) must
not be overlooked.
Namque
omnium ferocissumi ad hoc tempus Achaei atque Tauri sunt, quod, quantum
conjicio, locorum. egestate rapto vivere coacti. Glossae Juvenalis
(Sall. Fragmenta).
Authority, written authority, ugdaracht (131), perhaps includes the
following authors of whom, however, only two, Moses and Hieronymus (q.v.), are
mentioned by name:
Moyses,
Dares Phrygius, Herodotus, Pherecydes.
Vnde
Sallustius ex historia, Livius, Eusebius et Hieronymus ex annalibus et historia
constant.
Origg. i.
42; 44, 4.
What are the
names of the seventy-two races from which
the many
languages were learnt? (215, 263):
Gentes
autem a quibus divisa est terra, quindecim sunt de Japhet, triginta et una de
Cham, viginti et septem de Sem, quae fiunt septuaginta tres, vel
potius, ut
ratio declarat, septuaginta duae; totidemque linguae, quae per terras esse
coeperunt quaeque crescendo provincias et insulas impleverunt.
Origg. ix.
2, 2.
In definition a bias existed towards
the heptad or the octave, Aur. 639, 739.
De septem
liberalibus disciplinis. Grammatica dialectica, etc., Aur. 51. Origg. i. 2, I.
Occasionally individual words are
closely defined:
Materia
inde dicitur omne lignum quod ex ea aliquid efficiatur. Origg. xix. 19, 4. Fid,
Aur. 943, cf. later the use of adbar.
The importance of Hebrew is insisted
on:
Ilia lingua
quae ante diluvium omnium una fuit, quae Hebraea nuncupatur. Origg. xii. i, 2.
The Hebrew language was in the world
first and it will remain after doomsday (190).
Item
quaeritur qua lingua in futurum homines loquantur. Origg. ix. i, 13.
The following passage explains why Gaelic was deemed a worldly speech (46), not being one of the three sacred