>From: Alexis <[log in to unmask]>
>This could be a part of the explanation. I see there a kind of parallel
>with the two glosses at the end of a version of the Táin Bó Cuailnge : the
>Irish one asks for a good conservation of the story, whereas the latin one
>qualifies it as being a tale for fools.
Were these really glosses? I think fo a glass as a comment that elucidates
the text. The OI comment, here, was added to the end as a sort of colophon,
and the Latin comment was added after that. But perhaps I'm being overly
>Then it would be like a metaphor of the opposition : conservation versus
>emandation... Then, was it that Latin was used to show a Christian
>perspective, and Irish an other (?) perspective ? I am not sure.
I don't think it necessarily had that connotation. When the main text was in
Latin (as the majority of the earliest texts were), the use of magus was
sometimes glossed ".i. dru/i" by later hands. When the main text was in OI,
a gloss ".i. magus" was sometimes added. This practice of glossing terms
wasn't confined to texts mentioning druids or magi--it was pretty common
practice to note the Latin or OI equivalents on MSS. And it's a good thing
for us, because it helps us avoid at least a bit of guesswork. ;)
Also, BTW, you might check the 9th c. Latin Tripartite Life of Patrick.
Lonigan (p. 8), citing Chadwick's _The Celts_ says that the term druidae is
used there. And as an example of Irish glosses on Latin Lonigan cites Thes.
Pal. I, p. 695: on 2 Timothy 3:8 reference to Iannes and Mambres has ".i. da
druith aegeptaedi"--Lonigan says that these two characters, connected
traditonally with the Egyptian priests who oppose Moses in Exodus, are
identified in some texts (viz. Isidore of Seville) as "magi." My sense is
that identifying non-Christian priests and magicians as "magi" was pretty
widespread in medieval times, and the Irish were just carrying on
established practice by using the term to refer to their native
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com