Unlike the first charm, the other two didn't reveal much new.
As for spell 2, the first word is somewhat disputed ever since Dennis
came up with his suggestion to read it as "mo". Previously it had
been read as "mc" = "macc". Unfortunately, the second letter is a bit
vague in its appearance. It is certainly not closed, like other "o"s,
but on the other hand it is not open wide enough like normal "c"s
would be. There was an odd effect during the examination under the
two lights. Under the UV light, the letter looked more open, like a
"c", whereas under the clear white light it looked much more closed,
like an "o". In the end, the letter as it stands, does not conform to
either of the ordinary shapes of the two letters and a decision
cannot be taken on its reading alone. I think, there are two good
arguments to take it as an "o" after all: if it were short for
"macc", an abbreviation stroke would be required over the "c", which
there isn't. Secondly, even though all other "o"s in the second spell
are of the closed type, in the first spell on this page (which could
conceivably be by the same scribe, though using a different ink)
there are a number of quite open "o"s, even more open than the letter
under discussion in spell 2. That means that such a variant of "o"
was possible and shouldn't surprise us at all.
Ultimately, I think we should read "mo saele" and do without the
ominous "son of spittle" which has been haunting Irish studies for so
Apart from that, there is nothing remarkable in the 2nd charm.
In spell 3, basically all received readings could be supported. Some
of the letters did come out more clearly under UV light. In line 3,
what has been read "naro" (and which makes sense as such), I wondered
whether it could be read as "uaro", but this is much inferior in
The one critical passage in spell 3 was at the end of line 2, what
has been read as "i-anáis" previously, but where really only "i-aná["
is visible, the rest being covered by a blotch. Unfortunately, I
couldn't make much progress there. Neither UV nor white light
revealed anything specific. It is quite possible that the first
letter under the bloth is an "i", there is certainly the lower part
of a minim to be seen. However, I am very doubtful about the last
character - if indeed it is one. Zimmer and Stokes and Strachan
claimed to have seen an "s", but there is only a very tiny lower part
of something curving to the left to be seen. This does not look like
a part of any known variant of "s", nor of any letter known to me.
Like the alleged fada over the immediately preceding "a", it might
only be part of the stain. If, then, there is no letter there at all,
the word would read "inanai", and we would have a parallel with
3pl poss. pronoun of "inai" which stands at the end of the next line.