On 4/4/05 10:40, "Micheál Ó Catháin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 4/4/05 03:13, "Micheál Ó Catháin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Célechair's obit in my old notes is 953, 27 years after the obit given by
>> Tom for Colmán in a previous message, Ý926.
>> A little coincidence in that I can match 27 years (§53) to a possible
>> identification of Célechair without having access to the annals, but a
>> non-coincidence if BaBr refers to the earlier Colmán as abbot of both houses
>> and of Célechair as abbot of only Cluain Ioraird.
>> Some further checking would need to be done in the annals to see that there
>> wasn't another intervening abbot in Cluain Ioraird, but....
> I didn't come across a death notice for any other abbot of CI between 926
> and 953 indicating that Céilechair is likely the man here.
The text below nearly crossed with Tom's message in reply to my last one on
this. After finding evidence against the identification of Céileachair for
§53, it includes one possible method of analysis whereby Céileachair might
still be the man for §53's 27 years. However, I am not at all sure if the
basis for it would be acceptable but some historians on the board may know.
So it is, just for the moment, a little cautionary consideration before
assuming too much about either this paragraph or §10.
Having now had the benefit of a hard copy of AU rather than scrolling
through the CELT edition on screen, I find two relevant death notices
relating to CI between 926 and 953. Ferdomhnach Mac Flannacáin, termed
"princeps", in 932 and Mael Mochta, termed "airchinnech", in 942.
The AU entry for Colmán in 926, terms him not only "princeps Cluana Iraird 7
Cluana M. Nois" but also "episcopus". The entry for Céilechair (954) terms
him "comarba Ciarain 7 Fhinnain".
I forget (apologies for 15-20 years in the dísert) if we can take "comarba
Fhinnain" to imply "bishop of Clonard" to the exclusion of other principes
and airchinnigh not so named. Anyone help on that point?
If so, there still exists circumstantial AU evidence for a 27 year term of
office in regard to Cluain Ioraird which could support the identification of
Céileachair with §53.
Otherwise we are back to assuming 27 years is age at time of death and there
are a number of candidates. Against that assumption is the absence in any
of the death notices of references to the person being young (Often
"immatura") at the time of death. Of course, "absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence" and absence of evidence of absence....
(We should also factor in that the Annals as we have them might not have
been the same as what was available to the author of BaBr.)