> Is the text really saying that a "demon" who will trivialize/discount
> the great and magnify the small is the same person as the abbot of two
> monasteries? I don't get it.
I admit, this sounds quite problematic, even more so as "demon" seems
to have exclusively negative connotations in Irish. It seems
inconceivable that "demon" is used in a kind of laudatory fashion.
> > Bid demon dogênai bec do môr, dogêna môr do biuc. Tuirigen dâ lethi
> > in sen."
> Could "demon/deman" possibly be a scribal error for "deimin" (certain,
> certainty)? That would allow us to read it as "It will be certain
> that he will make little of the great and will make great of the
> I know you hate to tamper that much with the spelling!
It's true, I don't like fiddling with the spelling too much. But it
could be that your suggestion is the right one. Having looked at
Meyer's edition again, I see that what he gives is "dem_on_", i.e.
"dem" is written in MS H, but "on" has been expanded by Meyer from an
abbreviation. The question is, what the reading of the MS actually
is. Is it "dem-"? Or is it some kind of abbreviation that
unequivocally suggests an "o"?
It seems - from Meyer's apparatus criticus - that the varia lectio
"deman" in E is fully spelt out. Again it would be most helpful to
have a look at the MSS.