Print

Print


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 
long.
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 
interpretation.
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.

David