|
|
Post by Rex Monoculus Midiensis on Sept 24, 2019 7:24:11 GMT -5
Yes indeed the language of the original entry, a mixture of Old Irish and Latin, is 'Isin bliadain sin tucad in camall, quod est animal mírae magnitudinis, o ríg Alban do Muircertach U Briain,' and so 'camall' is a clear borrowing from the Latin. It is also elsewhere attested in Old Irish for which a perusal of eDil produces some references (http://edil.qub.ac.uk/search?q=camall). I hadn't seen anyone argue that it was an elephant - would be interested in their point of view if you remember anyone in particular VR?
Magnus Barelegs came to Ireland, actually, as you may know. He came twice, in 1098, and 1102, and though initially a rival of Ua Briain he obviously came to terms with him because his son was married to Ua Briain's daughter. Magnus then targeted the Ulaid, perhaps thinking the kingdoms of the north were easier prey than Munster, but he was killed on expedition there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rex Monoculus Midiensis on Sept 24, 2019 7:29:06 GMT -5
Annals of Ulster 1102.7:
'Magnus, king of Lochlann, came with a great fleet to Man, and a year's peace was made by them and the men of Ireland.'
Annals of Ulster 1103.6:
'Magnus, king of Lochlann, was killed on a raid in Ulaid.'
Annals of Tigernach 1103.5:
'Maghnus, king of Norway and the Isles, a man who attempted to beleaguer Ireland, was killed in Ulster.'
Annals of the Four Masters 1103.11:
'Maghnus, King of Lochlann and the Islands, and a man who had contemplated the invasion of all Ireland, was slain by the Ulidians, with a slaughter of his people about him, on a predatory excursion.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 8:41:51 GMT -5
Yes indeed the language of the original entry, a mixture of Old Irish and Latin, is 'Isin bliadain sin tucad in camall, quod est animal mírae magnitudinis, o ríg Alban do Muircertach U Briain,' and so 'camall' is a clear borrowing from the Latin. It is also elsewhere attested in Old Irish for which a perusal of eDil produces some references (http://edil.qub.ac.uk/search?q=camall). I hadn't seen anyone argue that it was an elephant - would be interested in their point of view if you remember anyone in particular VR?
Magnus Barelegs came to Ireland, actually, as you may know. He came twice, in 1098, and 1102, and though initially a rival of Ua Briain he obviously came to terms with him because his son was married to Ua Briain's daughter. Magnus then targeted the Ulaid, perhaps thinking the kingdoms of the north were easier prey than Munster, but he was killed on expedition there.
Thanks for that concise translation General. I can't remember the historians who stated that it was an elephant, but I do recall reading that at some point in the past. I think I know how they came to this erroneous judgement. I found this in the text of a historical podcast : “In this year, the elephant (which is a beast of marvellous bigness) was given by the king of Scotland to Muirchertach Ua-Briain.” (Annals of Inisfallen, 1105) From this I would conclude they probably lifted this mistaken quote from a previous historical text which suggests to me that other historians may have done the same. This, unfortunately, happens quite often when historian fail to check the validity of their source material for themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 9:07:49 GMT -5
Annals of Ulster 1102.7:
'Magnus, king of Lochlann, came with a great fleet to Man, and a year's peace was made by them and the men of Ireland.'
Annals of Ulster 1103.6:
'Magnus, king of Lochlann, was killed on a raid in Ulaid.'
Annals of Tigernach 1103.5:
'Maghnus, king of Norway and the Isles, a man who attempted to beleaguer Ireland, was killed in Ulster.'
Annals of the Four Masters 1103.11:
'Maghnus, King of Lochlann and the Islands, and a man who had contemplated the invasion of all Ireland, was slain by the Ulidians, with a slaughter of his people about him, on a predatory excursion.'
From what I have read it appears to me that Muirchertach Ua Briain was nobody's fool. It seems that the marriage alliance was a political stroke of genius on the King of Munster's part. Both he and Magnus Barelegs had ambitions to control Ireland and the alliance allowed the King of Norway to make war on the Ulidians keeping Ua Briain onside, or so he thought. By getting himself killed he had probably weakened the Munster king's enemies without him having to lift a finger. By 1111 Muirchertach was so strong that he was able to install his son as King of the Isles. |
|
|
|
Post by Rex Monoculus Midiensis on Sept 25, 2019 5:42:17 GMT -5
Yes indeed the language of the original entry, a mixture of Old Irish and Latin, is 'Isin bliadain sin tucad in camall, quod est animal mírae magnitudinis, o ríg Alban do Muircertach U Briain,' and so 'camall' is a clear borrowing from the Latin. It is also elsewhere attested in Old Irish for which a perusal of eDil produces some references (http://edil.qub.ac.uk/search?q=camall). I hadn't seen anyone argue that it was an elephant - would be interested in their point of view if you remember anyone in particular VR?
Magnus Barelegs came to Ireland, actually, as you may know. He came twice, in 1098, and 1102, and though initially a rival of Ua Briain he obviously came to terms with him because his son was married to Ua Briain's daughter. Magnus then targeted the Ulaid, perhaps thinking the kingdoms of the north were easier prey than Munster, but he was killed on expedition there.
Thanks for that concise translation General. I can't remember the historians who stated that it was an elephant, but I do recall reading that at some point in the past. I think I know how they came to this erroneous judgement. I found this in the text of a historical podcast : “In this year, the elephant (which is a beast of marvellous bigness) was given by the king of Scotland to Muirchertach Ua-Briain.” (Annals of Inisfallen, 1105) From this I would conclude they probably lifted this mistaken quote from a previous historical text which suggests to me that other historians may have done the same. This, unfortunately, happens quite often when historian fail to check the validity of their source material for themselves.
That's a great bit of detective work VR! If you are correct (and it seems very likely) it is poor work on behalf of those historians. I wonder how many 'historical facts' are actually misreadings and mistakes of modern historians. Perhaps not all that many, but still more than we might think acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2019 5:04:09 GMT -5
I suppose the problem is that historians working from original texts often have to translate documents written in Latin, Greek, Old Irish and so on and even a mistranslation of a single word can change the whole meaning of the source. I don't know how often it happens, but I think it is always worth bearing in mind.
I noticed while looking through the Annals of Tigernach that there are no entries for the period 766-974 which would have included the period of the first Viking raid on Iona and the relocation of the Monks to Kells in 806. Is there any known reason for the gap General?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rex Monoculus Midiensis on Oct 1, 2019 18:25:28 GMT -5
I suppose the problem is that historians working from original texts often have to translate documents written in Latin, Greek, Old Irish and so on and even a mistranslation of a single word can change the whole meaning of the source. I don't know how often it happens, but I think it is always worth bearing in mind. I noticed while looking through the Annals of Tigernach that there are no entries for the period 766-974 which would have included the period of the first Viking raid on Iona and the relocation of the Monks to Kells in 806. Is there any known reason for the gap General? Apologies for the slow reply VR, busy these last few days! There are lacunae for most of the extant collections of Irish annals. I think the problem is that most survive in only a single manuscript and so any fault in that manuscript means a gap in the record. I cannot speak to the particular gap you highlight, but I know that a mid-twelfth century gap in almost all collections is thought to be the result of an early modern scholar taking the leaves that interested him from each of the manuscripts and in the process damaging our understanding of that period of history quite seriously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 8:36:02 GMT -5
No problem General,putting food on the table comes before internet activity. I wouldn't be surprised if the mid-twelfth century gap is down to a light fingered Scottish scribe as we know they tampered with the Annals in order to promote a Scottish political agenda. Then again the early modern scholar theory is just as likely. Damned annoying though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rex Monoculus Midiensis on Oct 2, 2019 17:14:49 GMT -5
Annals of Ulster 1176.9:
'The castle of Slane, wherein was Ricard Fleming with his host, wherefrom the Airgialla and Ui-Briuin and Fir-Midhe were being pillaged, was destroyed by Mael-Sechlainn, son of Mac Lochlainn, king of Cenel-Eogain and by the Cenel-Eogain themselves and by the Airgialla; where were killed one hundred or more of the Foreigners, besides women and children and the horses of the castle that were killed, so that no person escaped alive out of the castle. And three castles in Meath were razed on the morrow for fear of the Cenel-Eogain, namely, the castle of Cenannus and the castle of Calatruim and the castle of Daire of [St.] Patrick.'
Compare with an Anglo-Norman source, The Song of Dermot and the Earl:
[ll. 3175] Richard the Fleming was his name—
Twenty fiefs he gave him of a truth,
If the geste does not deceive you.
A fortress this man erected
In order to harass his enemies,
[3180] Knights and a goodly force he kept there
Archers, serjeants, likewise.
In order to destroy his enemies;
Often he brought them from bad to worse.
But afterwards there came against him O'Carroll,
[3185] Who was king of Uriel,
And the rebel MacDunlevy
Of the region of Ulster;
O'Rourke was there, also,
And the king Melaghlin.
3190] Full twenty thousand at this time
Of the Irish came upon them.
Very fiercely they attacked them,
And the barons defended themselves
So long as they could have
[3195] Defence in the fortress;
But the Irish from all sides
Hurled their javelins and their darts.
The fortress indeed they destroyed
And slew the garrison within;
[3200] But many were previously slain
Of the Irish of the northern districts.
|
|
