> Given the likely taboos, "devil" applied to a human being could have
> been used in colloquial speech (even in monasteries) for a very long
> time before it would ever appear in writing. So, given the respective
> attitudes of the annalists and of the writer of BaBr, might we
> actually consider this type of usage more likely in BaBr?
Possibly. Actually I do think that Liz's suggestion is quite good,
but without a parallel from some other text it must remain an
unverifiable hypothesis - which nevertheless may be adopted for our
> "Genti", from the perspective of Irish churchmen, could of course be
> taken to be following a devil. The leader of a band of heathens...
> colloquially called a devil... and this writer's willingness to
> surprise (push the satchel?)...
Well, possible, too.