rune-names: the irish connexion

1 Even someone as cautious as Page has said that rune-names “presumably go back to a com-mon Germanic past” (1987: 14).

83

Rune-names: the Irish connexion

Alan Griffiths

Introduction

Runologists are justifiably sceptical when it comes to comparing anythingogamic with anything runic. Moltke was also justifiably sceptical when he saidof attempts to explain rune-names that “We may safely relegate them to theworld of fantasy” (1985: 37).

While acknowledging such scepticism, this paper nonetheless dares not onlyto venture into the world of rune-names, but also to compare them with ogam-names. In so doing it risks confrontation with the long-nurtured view crystal-lized in Polomé’s contention concerning the rune-names recorded in manu-scripts that “It is fairly undeniable that the names they transmit to us appear toderive from a common source, which has enabled Wolfgang Krause to recon-struct a plausible early Germanic list...” (1991: 422). In the paper from whichthis sentence is taken Polomé reviews what might be called the pagan-cult thesisof rune-names, which he summarizes in the commonly accepted hypothesis thatthe names “are imbedded in the German concepts about the world of the gods,nature and man” (1991: 434). He also reiterates the idea, based on classicalreferences to the Germans’ use of notae, that runes were employed for divi-nation and “in this context, they were ideographic, i.e. we deal with the so-calledBegriffsrunen...” (1991: 435).1 But then he reminds us, albeit in a valedictoryfootnote: “It should be remembered that these names of runes do not occur inany document of pagan origin, nor in any source (either alphabetic listings[runica manuscripta] or runic poems) prior to the Carolingian Renaissance”(1991: 435, fn. 4).

84 Alan Griffiths

While it is difficult to prove a direct link between runes and references todivinatory notae, there is no denying that runes were used for divination, but inthis respect there is no difference between runes and any other forms of notation.All Mediterranean alphabets also had on occasion divinatory and magicapplications. As for Begriffsrunen the employment of runes to representconcepts expressed by their names is clear from the manuscript tradition, butevidence of such use outside manuscripts is insubstantial and could be attributedto the incidental use of single runes as abbreviations or even magical notaerather than as part of a recognised system of ideographs (see Appendix 1).

In this paper a number of examples will be given to indicate that there is noneed to hypothesize a common early Germanic set of rune-names. Space doesnot allow a comprehensive treatment but the ideas presented here will have toserve as a precursor to a wider study in which it is hoped to demonstrate thatvirtually all rune-names can be explained in terms of letter-names found asglosses to the Mediterranean alphabets listed in Irish manuscripts going back toat least the seventh century. The same, moreover, can be shown to apply toogam-names and on this basis it would appear that neither rune-names norogam-names, as systematic sets of names, predate the advent of a manuscripttradition brought by Christian missionaries, first to Ireland and thence toNorthumbria and the rest of Anglo-Saxon England. Here the Old English RunePoem was composed, possibly with Irish mediation during the period of markedIrish influence in Northumbria in the 7th century, and it is the Anglo-Saxontradition that is then reflected in the Abecedarium Nordmannicum (9th century)and the Old Norse and Old Icelandic Rune Poems (13th and 15th? centuries,respectively).

The necessity to limit the number of examples accentuates a major problemin that, with so many variables, there is considerable scope for coincidence. Itwill not be possible even to begin to convince sceptics until an overarchingexplanation is provided for the whole of the runic and ogam systems. Until then,however, at least it can be demonstrated that runologists could learn much totheir advantage by reading the Old Irish manuscripts on ogam and earlymedieval perceptions of grammar.

85Rune-names: the Irish connexion

Sources

Ogam inscriptions first appear on stones in south-western Ireland in the 5th,possibly end of the 4th century AD (McManus 1991: 93). Figure 1 gives theogam signary with sound values. As with rune-names, however, the firstprobable record of ogam-names is quite late, appearing in texts on which thewell-known Auraicept na nÉces (The Students’ Primer) was based in theseventh century. (The edition quoted here, cited as Aur. and referenced by lineNo., is that of Calder 1917; but see also Ahlqvist 1982.) The Auraicept by nomeans contains everything. Damian McManus has done yeoman’s work incollating and translating all the known material on ogam nomenclature (1988,1991). Table 1 lists the source material on ogam-names.

The Irish manuscripts are similar to the runica manuscripta, best known fromthe work of Derolez (1954). A typical example is fol. 71 r and v of Egerton 88,now in the British Library. On the recto is a list of Hebrew letters and nameswith Latin and Irish translations, beside a Greek alphabet as used for numerals,accompanied by the names of the letters and their numeral equivalents. On the

Fig. 1. The ogam signary (forfeda with diphthong values).

2 Texts/translation are from: OE poem Halsall 1981; ON poem Dickins 1915; OIce. Page1998; ogam kennings and glosses McManus 1988.

86 Alan Griffiths

verso is a Latin alphabet glossed with Latin names and Irish translations which,as Calder noted in his edition of the Auraicept, coincide with the names givenby Virgilius Maro Grammaticus (V.M.G.). V.M.G.’s, actual dates and identityare disputed but he was probably active in the early seventh century and seemsto have had Irish connexions (Herren 1980: 243-250; Law 1995: passim).

The Latin alphabet in Egerton 88 is followed by a description of ogam andits letter-names, each with a two-word kenning accompanied by a comment. Inthe Egerton manuscript all the names are tree or plant names, but this alfabetvégétal, as it has come to be known, has been shown to be a later fiction(McManus 1988: 129–130). Originally there was a mixture of plant names withnames like “weaver’s beam”, “sulphur” and “fear”. The original names or theirkennings were not always understood by later glossators and in some cases theystill are not understood today.

For the rune-names it is convenient to take the list attached to the OE RunePoem in British Library, Cotton MS. Otho B 10, bearing in mind all the caveatson provenance and authenticity, as well as the possibility that the actual nameswere not originally integrated in the poem but were inserted later (see, forinstance, Page 1973; Halsall 1981: 21–7). Halsall (1981: 32) dates the poem tothe 10th century. One advantage of using the names attached to the OE poem isthat the text of the poem can be seen as a set of glosses on the names.2

Choice of examples

Three examples will be dealt with here: h, x and d. Only one of these runes, h,is dealt with in all three rune poems, OE and Scandinavian, but the sameprinciples apply to the vast majority of runes, in whichever poem they aretreated. The reason for choosing these examples is that each helps to throw aparticular light on the possible origin of the OE rune-names and poem.Individually they present specific problems and points of interest:

87Rune-names: The Irish connexion

h: ητα, the Greek equivalent of Latin H in the alphabet sequence, functioned asa vowel and was specifically said by Greek grammarians not to be a conso-nant; but the signs for aspiration were derived from the ητα sign;

• in Latin H seems to have corresponded with the Greek spiritus asper and itwas doubted whether it was properly a letter; in fact its pronunciation beforevowels became so weak that it was regularly omitted in writing; Latingrammarians treated it in the same way as Greek grammarians treated theaspirate;

• H is not attested in epigraphic ogam; as in the case of Latin, Irish gram-marians treated it as an aspirate rather than a consonant, and yet it is placedamong the consonants in the ogam series;

• runic h is treated as a consonant.

x: OE runic x appears in the fuþorc in the position taken by z in the olderGermanic fuþark, the z having become redundant in OE;

• having disappeared from the Latin alphabet, Z had been re-introduced tospell Greek words but continued to be considered a foreign import;

• older runic z does not appear in initial positions;• OE runic x was a “foreign” character and likewise did not appear in initial

positions;• the apparent ogam equivalent is straif, commonly transliterated as Z or ST,

but the sign is not attested in epigraphic inscriptions; its original sound valueis therefore uncertain and has largely been deduced from the name: straif, i.e.[st] or [ts].

d: there is no dispute about the OE rune-name for d, dæg, or its meaning;• names for d in the alphabets, fuþorc and ogam provide a good example of

“cross-fertilization”.

A summary of equivalent names for h, x and d in a selection of inventiories ofrune, ogam and alphabet names is given in Table 2. The interpretations given byJerome and Ambrose are included, since these form the basis for numerousalphabet glosses throughout the medieval period.

3 Aspiration of the name úath to húath is probably not etymologically justified but was addedby scribes to legitimize the name’s application to the letter H. It is reminiscent of theaspiration of initial ypsilon in Greek.

4 Initial /h/ in Old Irish arose from Indo-European *p- or *i-, and in other positionsfrom *s. In manuscripts the letter H was also used to separate two adjacent vowelsin order to indicate that they were not diphthongs, and in non-initial positions Hcame to be used as a mark of lenition, but this convention was not introduced untilsome time in the ninth century.

5 h non est litera sed nota aspirationis .i. nocho n[fh]uil h co mbad litir acht ata conidh noit

tinfidh. Tinfedh .i. tiniudh feadh.i. nemnigudh fe-adha do radh friu sin uili [h non est literased nota aspirationis, i.e. h is not a letter but a sign of aspiration. Tinfedh, i.e. disappearance(melting away) of signs, i.e. disintegration of a sign on transfer to any of them.] (TranslationCalder 1917: 56).

88 Alan Griffiths

Hægl

To understand the stanzas dealing with the h rune it is necessary to examine insome detail the way the ogam character, H, and its name, úath,3 were dealt within the manuscripts, since both úath and runic hægl involve a convoluted andprobably related series of riddles.

The OE stanza reads:

Hægl byþ hwítust corna hwryft hit of heofnes lyfte,wealcaþ hit windes scúra worþeþ hit tó wætere syððanHail is the whitest of grains; it whirls down from heaven’s height (air),and gusts of wind toss it about; then it is transformed to water.

The text of the Irish kennings and glosses on úath is given in Table 3.Although úath is the name given to the ogam character transcribed in the

manuscripts as H, the sign does not in fact occur in any epigraphic inscription;so there is doubt about its precise sound value.4 The special nature of H withinthe ogam system is noted in the Auraicept, where it is said not to be a letter buta sign of tinfedh, which is a term for both lenition and aspiration.5

The word used for aspiration here, tinfedh, has nothing to do with melting butis the verbal noun of do-infet, “to blow, breathe”. The Irish text, however,

6 H enim aspirationis magis est nota...H literam non esse ostendimus, sed notamspirationis. Priscian (Keil 1857–80: 2.7.27–9.23); H autem littera pro solaaspiratione adiecta postea est, non littera, quae proinde aspirationis nota dicitur,quia vocem elevat. Aspiratio enim est sonus uberius elatus, cuius contraria estprosodia, sonus aequaliter flexus (Isidore Etym. I, 4, 11). On the early acquaintanceof the Irish with Isidore, see Herren 1980: 243–250.

7 It should also be noted, of course, that the name of the Hebrew letter (c)het wasinterpreted as pavor [fear, anxiety] (= chath) by Ambrose (Expositio in PsalmumCXVIII, P.L. XV, 1283–1590) and subsequently in various medieval glossaries (seeThiel 1973: 84–101).

8 At first sight the reference to dogs might appear to reflect the Latin littera canina. But thiswas used to describe the rough growling sound of the letter R. The Irish thorn, scé, and the“assemby of packs of hounds” probably refer to the insertion of an aspirate H to separate twoadjacent vowels in order to indicate that they were not diphthongs (see Note 4). The sign forthe aspirate in Greek was created from H by cutting the letter in half: | . (Meroney 1949: 28suggests that there may have been an association between the Greek sign and the ogam sign


clearly links it to tinaid, “melts”, and fedh, “letter”, so that tinfedh is analysedas tiniudh feadh, “melting of letters”. The Irish view in fact reflects the viewsof both Priscian and Isidore, who in their turn both depend on Greek linguistics,where there was no separate character for a consonantal H.6

That the ogam glossators saw H in terms of aspiration can also be seen intheir choice of the name úath, “fear”, which can be explained as follows. AnEnglish synonym for “fear” is “horror”, from Latin horror, which meant, amongother things, “a bristling or shaking with cold or fear”. The adjective horridusbasically meant “bristling, shaggy” and figuratively came to refer to “rough inspeech or manner” as well as “causing terror”. The Greek for “shaggy, rough”was δασυς, which was also used to mean “aspirated”, as Isidore noted, while theLatin term for the rough breathing known as aspiration, asper, not only meant“uneven, rough” but was also used to describe ice, frozen rivers and harsh,severe weather (cf. Tacitus’ aspera caelo Germania (Germ. 2.1)). So we havethe equation asper, “rough (breathing), freezing (weather)”, horridus, “rough (inappearance and speech)”, horror, “a bristling with cold or fear, fear (itself)”,úath, “fear, (name of character indicating aspiration)”.7

The Irish kennings and glosses on úath in the A group which refer to dogsand thorns need not concern us here.8 It is those in the B and C groups that are

for H. But this is unlikely since the Greek sign resembles an ogam B, while ogam H is itsmirror reflection.) The Greek term for an accent or “tittle” like the spiritus asper was κgραια,literally “horn” (cf. Matth. 5:18 and Luke 16:17). The Hebrew term was qots, literally“thorn”. So a “thorn” could be said to stand at a meeting of vowels. The Irish for “meeting,tryst” was comdál, which is cited in the gloss con .i. coinne no comdail (H 3.18, 651a28).The prefixes con-, com-, co- (cf. L. co-) were seemingly confused with forms of cú, “dog”(n.pl coin, g.s & g.pl. con) . According to DIL the word used in the glosses for “assembly”,condál, is “apparently a modification or earlier form of comdál influenced by cú”, i.e. theword for “dog” (cf. also DIL’s remarks on congáir, “uproar”, and congal, “conflict”).

90 Alan Griffiths

of interest in relation to the hægl rune. The B kenning is bánad gnúise,“blanching of faces”. Besides “face”, however, the word gnúis was also used ofthe surface of the earth, the blanching of which could well allude to the wintryaspect of asper, a possibility which the glossator has apparently overlooked. TheC kenning says that the fear is worst at night, in which case it was probably dueto a fúath or úath, a horrible shape, spectre or ghost, possibly in allusion to aspiritus as an evil spirit.

Taken singly, none of the “aspects” of úath in this list would provide anincontrovertible link with the OE stanza on hail:

úath hægl

horror, asper wintry weatherwhite (sur)faces white (grains/surfaces)breath of aspiration wind, air“melting of signs” “it turneth to water”

Taken together, however, they show a remarkable metaphorical correspondencewith the OE stanza’s description of a hailstorm, particularly the ultimatemelting, which connects directly with the Irish perception of aspiration. Butwhat would seem to clinch the matter is an Irish synonym for úath, “fear”,namely gráin, which could possibly indicate that the composer of the OE stanzawas not only aware of the Irish description of the spiritus asper but was alsoguilty of deploying a standard metaphor for hail, hwitust corna, to effect a“horrible” pun: Old Irish gráin – Latin granum – Old English corn, “grain”. And

9 Cf. the Norse and Icelandic versions with the Seafarer’s corna caldast (l. 32, Exeter Book,Part II, No. IX, 1934).


if that were not enough, we also have in this instance the Old Norse andIcelandic stanzas.9

In the Icelandic stanza, snáka sótt (vermium pestis) is considered to be akenning for winter (Dickins 1915: 30):

Hagall er kaldacorn Hail : cold grainok knappa drífa and driving sleetok snáka sótt. and sickness of snakes.

The alternative readings of hnapdrifa in l. 2 and skýa skot, eða silfr in l. 3 (Page1998: 28) likewise add nothing to our understanding of the rune-name. But thegnomic line on Christ in the Norse stanza is more difficult:

Hagall er kaldastr korna; Hail is the coldest of grain;Kristr skóp hæimenn forna. Christ created the world of old.

I suggest that it can be explained in alphabetical terms besides being a religiousstatement. The Irish alphabet lists gloss Hebrew chet as vita, the actual Hebrewword for this being chai. In the Latin list the association with vita/chai hasapparently been transferred to the letter X, which has the form of a Greek chi.It is easy to see the linkage between Hebrew chet/chai, Greek chi and theformally similar Latin X:

Virgilius Maro Grammaticus : X (‘ix’) = longa vitaGreek: Χ (‘chi’ ) ; Hebrew : ‘chet’ = chai = vita.

The De inventione literarum text still clearly links Latin X and Greek chi (cf.Derolez 1954: 351). Thus the Norse line could be seen as referring to HebrewH/chet/chai and thence to the chi as the initial letter of Christus, as explained by

10 Ceterum proprie vocata [est] Nicostrate... X littera usque ad Augusti tempus nondum apud

Latinos erat, [et digne hoc tempere, quo Christi nomen innotuit, quod per eam, quae crucissignum figurat, scriptitatur,] sed pro ea C et S scribebant, unde et duplex vocatur, quia proC et S ponitur, unde et ex eisdem litteris compositum nomen habet (Etym. I, iii, 4–7; also10–11, and iv, 1; 14–15).

11 Et postmodum Graecas litteras III adiecerunt Latini propter necessitatem, quia nonnulla

verba necesse habuerunt sicut in Graecis habentur loquelis, ut est Christus (xps), ymnus aczelus et reliqua (Group A text, see Derolez 1954: 351). (See Sims-Williams 1992: 64,66–68, for a discussion of the link that was perceived between Latin X and western Greekchi = Attic xi from Isidore on.)

12 Tenuissima here may be intended to refer to literae tenues (cf. the specific use of Greekψσιλος to describe the mute consonants π τ κ as opposed to φ θ χ).

13 17. crystals of ice he scatters like breadcrumbs; he sends the cold, and the water standsfrozen; 18. he utters his word, and the ice is melted; he blows his wind, and the waters flow(transl. New English Bible). In the Vespasian Psalter (Kuhn 1965) this reads:

mittit christallum suum sic ut frusta panis ante faciem frigoris ejus quis subsistitsendeð his swe swe stycce hlafes biforan osiene celes his hwelc wiðstondeðmittit verbum suum et liquefaciet ea flavit spiritus ejus et fluent aquae.sendeð word his 7 gemælteð ða bleow gast his 7 fleowun weter.

92 Alan Griffiths

Isidore10 and the de inventione texts.11 In other words the Norse line could per-haps refer to Christ as the anima mundi, the animating breath giving life, chai,to the world. A similar connexion between the letter H, the spiritus, and thegiving of life is made by Ausonius (Evelyn White 1951: 303–7), when he says:Spiritus hic, flatu tenuissima vivificans, H. [This is the spiritus which bybreathing gives life to tenuissima (the minutest of things), H],12 where spirituswould appear to refer not only to breath but also the “breath of life”. In thePsalms (e.g. Ps. 147: 17–18) there is in fact specific imagery linking the breathof the anima mundi to a hailstorm, which may be the Christian allusion behindthe OE stanza in that the physical melting refers to conversion by the SpiritusSanctus.13 In Ps.148:8 we have an even closer link between hail and the spiritand word of God. The Vulgate Latin reads: Ignis grando nix glacies spiritusprocellarum qui faciunt verbum eius, which in an OE version (Paris Psalter)reads: fyr frost, hægel and gefeallen snaw, is and yste, ealra gastas þe his wordwilleð wycean georne. But of course if the ON poem predates Christianization,then any Christian allusion in the “hail” stanza will have been a later innovation;and this in turn calls into question the integrity of other lines in the poem as

14 A possible Christian allusion involving the same sign shape is found in ogam ebad. This isthe first of the additional signs, forfeda, added to the end of the signary, and is the only oneof them to be found in epigraphic inscriptions. It appears originally to have had a soundvalue equivalent to Greek Χ but came to be used to stand for [e:] as represented in Greek byH. In this respect it parallels the apparent ambivalence of the runic “yew” rune. The nameebad appears in earlier spellings as eua, euad. Euad may reflect the influence of edad, whileeua may have been influenced by Eua, Eba, “Eve” (Sims-Williams 1992: 55). Chavah, theHebrew for Eve, means “life”, thus providing a bridge to the Hebrew chai = vita as a glosson chet. The name ebad is glossed in the Auraicept as é, “salmon” on a par with edad, whichis glossed similarly. It may be pure coincidence that the shape of the ebad sign resemblesthe Viking Age h rune, i.e. a superimposed Greek ΙΧ as the initials of Christ and the first twoletters of the Greek word for a “fish”, ΙΧΘΥΣ, which was an important Christian symbol.But the same sign shape is found as the penultimate rune, ior or iar, described in the OERune Poem. The OE sign and name are supposedly derived from the ger rune, but the runestanza clearly says that iar is a “river-fish”, eafix(a).


reflecting a supposed Germanic original. It is conceivable that the Viking-Ageshape of the hail rune might have been seen by someone familiar with Christiansymbolism as resembling the initials of Jesus Christ in Greek: ΙΧ. But neitherthis nor any allusion to Christ as the anima mundi will have been part of a pre-Christian poem.14

Eolhx

In Cotton MS. Otho B 10 the name eolhx is written, apparently as a gloss, besidethe rune, while the stanza relating to the rune begins with the word seccard:

(eolhx) seccard hæfþ oftust on fenne (eolhx) sedge usually dwells in a marsh,

wexeð on wature; wundaþ grimme, growing in the water; it gives grievouswounds,

blóde bréneð beorna gehwylcne staining with blood every manðe him ænigne onfeng gedéð. who lays a hand on it.

The above translation (taken from Halsall 1981: 89) follows the conclusionaccepted by most editors ever since Grimm that seccard should be regarded as

94 Alan Griffiths

a combination of two words, secc (i.e. secg), meaning something like “sedge”,and eard, “land, country, dwelling”. Such a division would comply with thealliterative pattern of the first two half-lines. On this basis eolhx has been asso-ciated with secg and regarded as a compound eolhxsecg, the meaning of whichhas been taken to be something like “elk-sedge”.

The form eolhx is also found in Cotton MS. Galba A 2, but forms found inother manuscripts (see Derolez 1954) are: ílcs and l&x (or ?í&x, Vienna MS.795), ílíx (Brussels MS. 9311–9319), elux (St Gall MS. 270), ílx (St John’sCollege 17), iolx (assigned to k in Cotton MS. Domitian A 9). The combinationeolhxsecg has been compared with words glossing papiluus, namely ilugsegg,*illugseg (Epinal-Erfurt, 781), papilivus : *wiolucscel (Corpus 1487) andeolxsecg (Wright-Wülker, Voc. 286.36). Papiluus is generally presumed to bepapyrus, as paperum-papirum : eorisc (Epinal-Erfurt 795) and papirum : eorisc(Corpus, 1503).

The sound value of the rune is given as equivalent to Latin X, but apart fromthe manuscript record the only known inscriptional record of the rune with thisvalue is in the rendering of reX on the socalled Interlace dies for coins of kingBeonna in the mid-eighth century (Blackburn 1991: 158–159; Page 1985). Onthe late seventh-century coffin of St. Cuthbert it also represents a Latin X but aspart of the well-known interpretation of the Greek abbreviation of Christ’s nameas Latin XPS and hence runic Xps.

The name eolhx is not only one of those where the acrophonic principle hasbeen abandoned, but its antecedents are still open to debate: among thecandidates have been *algiz, “protection, defence”; “elk sedge”, i.e. a favouritefood or abode of elks; and helix, a twisted plant like ivy (Elliott 1980: 51–53).None of these unequivocally fits the sense of the Old English stanza. But theremay be an alphabetical solution – and it is one that supports the rathercontroversial suggestion (Griffiths 1999: 178, 185–186, 196) that fuþark Z aswell as ogam straif were originally equivalent to the sibilant that followed P inthe Hebrew and in certain Greek alphabets, namely sade or san. Hebrew sadein the Irish alphabet lists (Table 3) is translated as iustitia, “justice”. From thealphabet Psalm 119 (Vulgate 118, vv. 137–144) it is clear that the Hebrewwords referred to here are tzaddi, tsedeq, “righteousness, justice”.


From antiquity on, a notable emblem of justice has been the sword, and thisis precisely what we have in the Rune Poem. Old English secg reflects Latin gla-diolus and gladius. The masculine or neuter noun secg, “sedge”, glosses gladi-olum in the sense of “gladdon”, “lilly” or “iris” (Epinal-Erfurt 463, Corpus 977),while the feminine noun means “sword”, like Latin gladius – the sedge andgladiolus obviously being seen as a plant with cutting edges. The Greek wordsare ξιφος, ξιφιον, ξιφιας, with similar meanings and all beginning with the let-ter xi. But now we have three problems:

1) the sword is transformed into an aquatic plant; 2) we have an ex or xi in place of an earlier z; and3) the precise meaning of eolhx remains elusive.

The transformation of a sword into an aquatic plant is quite straightforward inthe context of poetic riddles. The rune stanza itself divides into two, reflectingthe polysemy of the Latin, Greek and Old English words: the first part dealingwith a water plant with sword-like leaves and the second with the resolution ofthe riddle, a sword.

The meaning of eolhx, however, remains problematic. An apparently simplesolution would be to see the l in eol(h)x as a scribal error for r as in papiluus :ilugsegg (Epinal 781), papilivus : *wiolucscel (Corpus 1487) compared withpaperum : eorisc (Epinal 795), papirum : eorisc (Corpus 1503). The x wouldthen be a representation of sc as in eafix(a) (i.e. eafisc) in line 87 of the RunePoem. It is noteworthy, however, that none of the recorded versions of the namehints at an r. This might suggest that an original eorisc has been deliberatelymisspelt in order to coincide with another word.

An intended connexion with “elks” would seem to be supported by the De

inventione names for the rune (Derolez 1954: 361): helahc, helach, halach,helac, heluch, xelach. These, as Derolez indicated (1954: 370), could be atranslation of OE elh, eolh into OHG elaho, with the later addition of an initialH. But that does not explain what an elk might have to do with an aquatic plant.Nor does it account for the final x of the OE name, which would appear to be the

15 Other letters described by their shape in Ausonius’ poem (Evelyn White 1951: 303–7) are:Υ (“stretches forth arms alternative”), Π (“hostile yoke”), Τ (“like a mast carrying a yard atits top”), G (a C “with a twist back”), san (an iota “flanked by a pair of handles”), Φ(“Palamedes crane”, i.e. asleep with its head under its wing) and Ψ (“like a three-prongedfork”).

96 Alan Griffiths

only connexion between the name and the presumed sound value equivalent toa Latin X rather than a Greek Χ (= [x]).

Two explanations which do take account of the final x involve loan-words,which in turn might fit in with the perception that x was a foreign import into theOE repertory. The first explanation builds on an idea that has been offeredbefore by Redbond (1936: 55 ff.) and has tended to be rejected out of hand,namely that the name is based on Latin helix, “ivy”, or more precisely Greek©λιξ, “twisted”. “Twisted” could be seen as “meandering”, which is preciselyhow Ausonius describes the uncial form of the Greek letter ξ in his alphabetpoem (Evelyn White 1951: 303–307): Maeandrum flexusque vagos imitaturvagor ξ.15 This ties in with Elmar Seebold’s suggestion (1991: 535) that eolhxmay be linked to Notker of St. Gallen’s use of elux as a rendering of ©λιξ, ©λικη,for ursa, i.e. the constellation of the Great Bear that turns around the pole:

nec ursa quae flectit rapidos meatus summa vertice mundi

noh elux tiu dratero ferte umbewirbet pi demo himel gibele.

However, although this idea, including its Irish connexions, is attractive,particularly in view of Ausonius’s specific description of ξ as meandering, it isdifficult to see how twisting and turning relate to a sword-like sedge or thesword of justice. If, on the other hand, it relates to the shape of the letter it mightbe objected that it would be unlikely for a description of the shape of a “foreign”(Greek) letter to be applied to a “native” (runic) character. There may, however,be a precedent for this in the Irish alphabet lists. In Egerton 88 (Table 2) theHebrew letter named deleth is glossed with Latin tabularium, Irish clair (notforis as one might expect). Tabularium, “archives”, may well be intended toconnect L. tabula, “writing-tablet” to Greek δgλτος, which was derived from thetriangular D, delta shape of a certain type of Greek writing tablet. If so, then the

16 The notes in the Auraicept (Aur. 1370–74) remain somewhat confused: Emuncoll didiu is

ar x ata .i. for foimdin na focal nGrecda no laitinda do tabairt isinn Gaidelg, 7 is aire raitereamancoll ris, ar is coll indarna taebomna fil ind x, 7 is airi is coll adberar d’emnad and,7 ni sail; ar taisechu coll in x ina sail. Calder translates this as: “Emancoll, again, stands forx, that is, to allow of Greek or Latin words being introduced into Gaelic, and on that accountit is called Emancoll, twin c, for c is one of the two consonants that stand in x, and thereforec is said to be doubled there, and not s; for in x, c is earlier than s.”


gloss on the Hebrew letter-name would be related to the shape of the equivalentGreek letter. On the other hand, it is also possible that deleth was seen as equi-valent to Greek σανις, meaning in general “plank” but specifically applied toboth doors and tablets as well as other items made of planks.

The second possible explanation of the meaning of eolhx may similarly relateto the shape of the letter, as reflected in another ogam-name. Before the soundvalues of the five supplementary ogam characters, known as the forfeda (Fig. 1),settled down into a system of vowels, there was a stage when they were takento represent sounds needed in the spelling of “foreign”, i.e. Latin or Greek,words (Meroney 1949: 38–43; McManus 1991: 141–146; Sims-Williams 1992:passim). The last character in the series was supposedly named from its shape,emancholl, “double coll”, i.e. double C, which was taken to refer to the idea that the ogam character itself resembled two superimposed ogam C’s, orperhaps to the shape of a Latin miniscule X as two back-to-back C’s (Fig. 2a).

It is impossible to go into detail but, as is so often the case, there is some un-certainty about the sound value of emancholl. Glosses like ach in Codex Bernen-sis 207, together with glosses on the kennings and a marginalia gloss in the St.Gallen Priscian, indicate a value [x] like Greek chi, but there is a manuscripttradition that the sign was used or came to be used for Latin X, a traditionwhich, as we saw above in connexion with h, is reflected in the glossing of He-brew chet or chai as vita (Table 2) and Latin X (= Greek chi) as longa vita.16

The two important points to note here are:

e: Irish eman is semantically equivalent not to Latin helix, “ivy” or Greek ©λιξ,“twisted”, but to Greek ηλιξ. Eman means “a pair (or triplet) born at onebirth, a pair of persons or things connected with each other”. The adjective

17 Perhaps the name Alci, which Tacitus gave to the gods of the Nahanarvali (Germ. 43.3) isalso relevant here after all. However, rather than link it to Gothic alh (OE alh, OS alah),“temple”; or Lat. elks, “idol”; or OE ealgian, “to protect”; or to P.Germ. *alkis (Grk. αλκη,L. alces), “elk”, we might consider Grk. ηλιξ, Dor. αλιξ, which was regularly used in theplural, αλικgς, in keeping with the sense of “twins”. Tacitus is certainly at pains to emphasisthe fact that the gods were twins, equivalent to Castor and Pollux.

98 Alan Griffiths

ºλιξ means “of the same age, born at the same time”, i.e. aequalis or gemi-nus; the noun means “comrade, fellow”.17 So eolhx secg could mean some-thing like “twin S”, on a par with emancholl, “twin C”.

f: Emancholl was perceived as a duplex consonant, as were both Latin X andZ.

The simplex-duplex nature of the two Latin letters is alluded to in a Carolingeanpoem Versus cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto (Glorie 1968: 729–730):

X Forma mihi simplex, sed certe dupla potestas;

Aere me puro perscribit penna uolantis;Per me saepe patet numerus de lege sacratus.

Z Littera sum graeca, duplex, sed more liquentum; Deficio currens per carmina sicuti simplex;Saepe etiam sibilans inter dentes morientum.

Z was mostly analysed as a duplex of S and D (see Sidney Allen 1965: 45–6;1968: 53–6), as described by Sedulius Scottius (Löfstedt 1977: 18):

Duplex dicitur Z, quia pro duobus S et (S)D ponitur, quae ante eius assumptionem

scribantur, ut massa pro maza et Messentius uel Mesdentius pro Mezentius.


Fig. 2a. Emancholl as either

two ogam C’s or Latin C’s

back to back.

Fig. 2b. Z in the Codex

Bernensis 207 as two ogam

straif.

And so was ogam straif (Aur. 443–444):

In baile i mbia s ria d [is] straiph as scribtha and amal ata st an stial 7rl.Where s stands before d, it is straiph that is to be written there, such is st in stail,the belt, etc.

But Z in Vulgar Latin spellings could also be replaced by double S, cf. Isidore(Etym. I iv 15): “haec [Y et Z] apud Romanos usque ad Augusti tempus nonscribebantur, sed pro Z duas S ponebant” which was taken over by the Old Irishglossators of Priscian (Thes. Pal. ii 68):

da .s. darhési z. two S’s in place of Z.

In The Book of Ogams the ogam Z, straif, is described as saildrong isin caill(Aur. 5521), which Calder interprets in line with the alfabet végétal as “willow-thicket in the forest”. But sail can simply be the name of ogam S, while the basicmeaning of drong is “a group of individuals”. So saildrong could well mean “S

18 Sims-Williams (1992: 66–68) gives various instances of possible interchange between LatinX and SS, including the 5th c. Latin inscription CVNORIX for the Irish name *Kuneríss,perhaps based on an equation of *-ríss with rex (cited in McManus 1991: 77,114, 117), aswell as Latin c(h)araxo for Greek χαρασσω. Note also Meroney’s unsubstantiated suggestion(1949: 39) that the two C’s forming the X in Fig. 2a above may have been perceived as asigma preceded by an antisigma. The OE and OIr. names could be completely independentof each other, but given their application to one and the same character, <X>, it is at leastpossible that they have a common source. Whether the name in fact derives from ©λιξ,“twisted”, or ηλιξ, “companion”, both possibilities would imply that the name was coinedafter the replacement of z by x in the Old English fuþorc.

100 Alan Griffiths

cluster”, which may be what is reflected in the Bern codex, where two super-imposed straif signs clearly stand for Z in a syllabary based on Latin (Fig. 2b;Derolez 1951: 9; Sims-Williams 1993:139, 151–153; McManus 1991: 134 Pl.4).

Likewise X was reproduced in Latin spellings as a duplex of CS (or GS), cf.Isidore (Etym. I iii 4–7):

Ceterum proprie vocata [est] Nicostrate ... X littera usque ad Augusti tempus

nondum apud Latinos erat, ... sed pro ea C et S scribebant, unde et duplexvocatur, quia pro C et S ponitur, unde et ex eisdem litteris compositum nomenhabet.

or even as double S, as exemplified by: axis, assis; laxus, lassus; conflixisset,conflississet. So it would not be surprising if OE eolhx secg for Z-cum-X alsowas perceived as a duplex. In fact in the same hoard containing the dies bearingeolhx as X there was one die on which rex is spelled with a double ss (Black-burn 1991: 158–159).18

In describing secg as a sword or a sedge, ηλιξ could refer to the double-edgednature of both the gladius and the gladdon. A major attribute of Christ seated injudgment in the opening chapters of the Book of Revelation is a two-edgedsword: “he that hath the sharp sword with two edges” and “out of his mouthwent a sharp two-edged sword” (Rev. 1:16, 2:12). Bearing in mind the Latineqivalents of Irish eman, viz. geminus and aequalis, it is perhaps worth notingthat the Latin for “justice” in the Vespasian Psalter was aequitas, based on

19 Jerome (Epistula 30 ad Paulam) glosses deleth as tabularum and (De psalterio) pauper uel

tabulae uel ianua (see Table 2).


aequus, “equal”, OE rehtwisnis (Vesp. Ps. 118:142, 144; cf. also Greek δικαιος,“equal, even, lawful, just”, which Aristotle (Eth. N. 5.2.8) derived from διχα, “intwo, two ways”).

The problem remains of how to explain the De inventione forms. If weassume a spelling, *eolh (< *eol(i)x), from which the OHG (h)elach seems toderive via elaho, then the h may have arisen as a result of the x in an originalform like *eolx being misinterpreted as a chi, as on Cuthbert’s coffin, andtranscribed as h. Aspiration of the intial vowel may reflect the practiceexemplified in heta in the BB Greek alphabet list (cf. also the Hebrew names ofletters that became used as vowels in Greek: hee and hain, in the BB list). Theinitial x (in the Cotton MS Titus D 18 version of the name) could be either anattempt to re-establish the acrophonic principle according to which the name forx ought to begin with an x, or else it could be an example of x being used as anequivalent of chi.

Dæg

The OE rune-name can be explained in terms of “cross-fertilization” betweenalphabets, which is a concept that needs elucidation. The name of the Hebrewletter D has already provided a possible example of this phenomenon: the glosstabulae on the Hebrew letter deleth in Table 3 may be linked via Greek δgλτος,as a term for writing-tablet, to the letter δgλτα.19 Another example of the samephenomenon is provided by the Latin gloss of fortitudo beside the letter D in theLatin list associated with V.M.G.. The apparent nonsense name which V.M.G.gives for D in his list (not copied into the Egerton 88 version) was bora. In herdiscussion of V.M.G., Vivian Law (1995: 89–90) suggests that this name shouldperhaps belong to B while V.M.G.’s name for B, sade, should belong to D. Thisis because she needs to justify the theory that many of V.M.G.’s nonsensenames can only be explained if we assume that they each contain the letter they

20 This is not intended to ascribe to the idea that Indo-European words for “god” and “day” arein reality related etymologically. Diespiter, for example, needs to be referred to divus, notto dies.

102 Alan Griffiths

refer to, as B in bora and D in sade. In fact, however, the glosses beside B andD (iustitia and fortitudo, respectively) point to quite a different explanation. TheHebrew name for B was bayith, meaning “house”, which could be translatedinto Greek as διαιτα, with the Latin equivalent diaeta, zaeta or zeta. It ispossible that the Latin form zeta was associated with the Greek letter-name zetaand hence with Hebrew sade, or else it was realised that Greek διαιτα alsoreferred to the office of “arbiter”.

Similarly with bora and its gloss fortitudo: Law guesses that the nonsensename was probably related to Latin robur, “strength”, which leads to the glossof fortitudo. But robur was also the Latin name of the “oak”, which translatesinto the Irish name for ogam D, dair. In other words, not only do bora and thegloss fortitudo belong to the letter D rather than B, but this example would alsoappear to suggest a link between V.M.G.’s list and the Irish ogam list, whichwould fit in with other indications that V.M.G. had Irish connexions. Thequestion remains: how did the oak-tree come to give its name to ogam D andwhat is the connexion with OE dæg?

The stanza on the letter D in the Versus cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto (Glorie1968: 729–730) connects the Latin name of the letter, de, with the Latinpreposition de and with deus, “god”, and for good measure emphasises that theletter was used as an abbreviation for the “old” (pagan) gods:

D Ablati casus uox sum et pars septima linguae,

Omnipotentis habens nomen, cum ‘us’ bannita iuncta;Sum medium mille et ueterum mala nota deorum.

The Irish for “god” is día (voc. sg./nom. pl.: dé), while the homonymous díameant “day (gen. of time: dé) – a connexion which in medieval minds couldwell have been been bolstered by the pseudo-etymology that links Latin dies toDiespiter, as a name for Jupiter.20 V.M.G., in his Epitomae XIV (Tardi 1928:125), makes the connexion between “day” and “god” in his own characteristic

21 As to the relation between Hebrew deleth and ogam dair, spelt duir at Aur. 1178 and 4274,we might speculate that this was arrived at via the (quasi-)equations of deleth = OIr. dor(Apl. duru, L. fores) ~ dur (pl. duir, L. durus ~ fortis) ~ duir. Alternatively a Biblical glossin which Aramaic elah, “god”, and Hebrew elah, “oak”, both appeared in the sametransliteration could have led to the same result.The difference was a matter of diacriticalmarking. (The oak was also the Diespiter’s sacred tree.) Jerome (Epistula 25 ad Marcellam)interprets Hebrew El as fortis [strong]; this was then taken over by Isidore (Etym. 7. 1). (SeeThiel 1973: 69–77.)


fashion: Dies nominatur a quibusdam quia diis iocundus est; nos dicimus diesquia a tenebris dividat. It is also noteworthy that in later Irish lists such as theDuil Laidne we find the ogam-name dair, presumably indicating the ogam signfor D, standing for día, “god”.

Both the stanza on runic d in the Rune Poem and the Irish kennings for dair

lend some support to this suggestion of an association between Irish día and OEdæg. The Irish kennings and glosses on dair are given in Table 4; the OE runestanza on dæg reads:

(dæg) byþ Drihtnes sond, déore mannum, (day) is sent by the Lord, be-loved by mankind,

mære Metodes léoht, myrgþ and tóhiht the glorious light of the Crea-tor, a source of joy and hope

éadgum and earmum, eallum bríce. to the haves and the have-nots,of benefit to everyone.

The Rune Poem focusses on the drihten and metod, the dominus and creator,with their obvious echoes of the opening verses of Genesis, while the crafts-manship of the creator día, who divided night from day, is possibly what isrepresented in the Irish kennings: grés soir, “handiwork of a craftsman carpen-ter”, and slechtam soire, “most carved of craftsmanship” (see also V.M.G.’s“etymology” given above). In the Irish description ardam dosae, literally“noblest of tree”, the word dos is also used of a “protector, one who gives shel-ter, defence”, and could allude to a sentiment like “the Lord is my strength”.21

104 Alan Griffiths

Conclusion

It would be improper to draw hard-and-fast conclusions on such a controversialsubject from a limited number of examples. But the evidence given here mayserve to indicate how:

7. rune-names may be rooted in Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabet traditionsrather than pagan cult or magic,

8. the Irish manuscripts can be useful in throwing light on connexions betweenrune-names and alphabets, and

9. there may even have been Irish involvement in the coining of at least someof the rune-names.

A definitive conclusion must await a complete analysis of the remaining namesand their ogam counterparts.

Above all, however, it is to be hope that this paper has made the point thatrunologists can learn much from a study of the Irish manuscripts.


Appendix: Begriffsrunen imply early use of rune-names?

In relation to Begriffsrunen Düwel (2001: 8) says: “Die zuerst von IvarLindqvist gefundene und von W. Krause ausgebaute Methode (vgl. RGA 2, S.150f.), vor allem einzeln stehenden Runen mit ihrem Begriffswert aufzulösen,kan nur mit großer Behutsamkeit angewandt werden, zumal in manchen Fälleneindeutig eine Abkürzung vorliegt (z.B. Brakteat von 132 Femø f für fahi, “ichschreibe”).” This is in stark contrast to Elliott’s standpoint (1980: 60, fn.1): “Inthis connection [i.e. the ritual import of rune-names] might be noted that magicwords which occasionally occur in runic inscriptions, like alu, auja, laukaz,generally appear written in full or intelligibly shortened, whereas the wordsdenoted by rune-names are represented by the rune alone. Conversely, wheresingle runes occur, they should always be interpreted as standing for theirname.”

According to Krause (e.g. 1970: 33–34) and Elliott it would thus seem that:

1. Assumption of the early existence of rune-names (before their record inmanuscripts) rests on the assumption that some single runes in earlyinscriptions were used to stand for their names, i.e. they had a Begriffswert.

2.2. The assumption of the early use of runes with a Begriffswert, i.e. Begriffs-

runen, rests on the assumption that such an assumption allows us tounderstand these single runes.

3. This assumption is only valid, however, if the single runes cannot otherwisebe understood.

In other words any assumption of an early existence of rune-names rests on ourinability to understand a few sporadic single runes, which in fact need not beBegriffsrunen at all but could simply be abbrevations, or perhaps magicallyendowed notae, or even runes cut at the idiosyncratic whim of a carver.

An example of an abbreviation (f for fahi) is given by Düwel in hisconclusion given above. Examples of possible magical formulae may beprovided by the inscriptions on 29 Lindholm (Schonen) amulette (6th saec.) and27 Kragehul (Fünen) spearshaft (init. 6th saec.) The Lindholm inscription:

22 The form of the inscription is in fact highly reminiscent of V.M.G.’s examples ofcryptography (Tardi 1928: Epitomae XIII.De scinderatione fonorum), e.g. “Cicero’s” RRRSS PP MM NT EE OO A V I for: spes romanorum perit.

23 As suggested by Krause (in KJ).

106 Alan Griffiths

aaaaaaaa nnn RRR -bmu ttt alu is as likely to be a cryptographic or magi-cally inspired inscription as it is to be a set of Begriffsrunen,22 while the thricerepeated ga ligatures on the Kragehul spearshaft need not have anything to dowith Gabe-Asen,23 any more than the gæ go gæ ligatures do on the Undleybracteate. (A curse on an amulette found at Sigtuna using three i runes datesfrom the 11th century and thus obviously postdates the establishment of asystem of rune-names and cannot be used to support the early existence of rune-names.) The remaining examples cited as Begriffsrunen are:

1. Two inscriptions with f runes: KJ 37 Fløksand (scraper, d.?); KJ 95 Gummarp (Bautastein, c.650).

2. One inscription with a j rune: KJ 96 Stentoften (Bautastein, c.650).3. One inscription with an l rune: KJ 38 Gjersvik (scraper, d.?)4. Two inscriptions with o runes: KJ 20 Thorsberg (Ortband,c.200);

KJ 41 Pietroassa (gold ring, c.380).

The f on 37 Fløksand is inverted with respect to the original inscription (c. 350)and has been added later, there being absolutely no means of interpreting itsmeaning. The inscription on KJ 95 Gummarp reads: “Haduwolf placed threestaves fff”. Because this Bautastein is linked via its location and the name citedon it to three other stones, in particular to KJ 96 Stentoften, which reads:“Haduwolf gave the new farmers, the newcomers, j”, both the three f’s and thej have been interpreted as Begriffsrunen in the context that Haduwolf was amember of a Wulfinge clan intent on demonstrating their generosity to theirunderlings: the fff meaning “wealth” (fé = cattle as a sign of wealth) and j

meaning “(good) year, harvest”. But, if one wants to be pedantic, why shouldthree f’s be “placed” on Gummarp whereas a j is “given” on Stentoften? It couldbe that the “placing” of fff is of a different order to the “giving” of j. The three

24 Reichert (1991–3) in fact suggests a reading j rather than o on the Pietroassa ring.


f’s were apparently perceived as “staves”, but signifying what? Was the j per-ceived as a person, an object, a concept? We do not know.

The l rune on the Gjersvik scraper is cited by Krause (1970: 34) in connexionwith Begriffsrunen because he interpreted it as standing for laukaR in the senseof Gedeihen and could as such be used as supporting his supposition that thename of the l rune was at one time *laukaz. There is, however, no definitiveevidence to support the idea that the KJ 38 Gjersvik l rune had any such conno-tations.

This leaves us with the two inscriptions with apparently single o runes,supposedly meaning “property (of), inheritance (of)”. The hypothesis of theearly existence of Begriffsrunen, however, is a heavy burden to bear by just twosolitary runes, which could be abbreviations or anything else.24

108 Alan Griffiths

Table 1

List of manuscripts and sources giving ogam-names with kennings and glosses.The texts in the present paper are taken from an edition by McManus (1988), forwhich he mainly used four manuscripts containing either complete texts orfragments of the tracts known as In lebor ogaim [The Book on Ogams] and theAuraicept na nÉces [Students’ Primer], namely:

Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 23PI2/536 (s. xiv–xv) = Book of Ballymote (BB)Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, H.2.16/1318 (s. xiv–xv) =Yellow Book of Lecan (YBL)Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, H.3.18 (s. xvi)Dublin, National Library of Ireland, G53 (s. xvii)

There are three series of kennings relating to ogam-names. These are ascribedto: Morann mac Moin (series A), Mac ind Óc (series B) and Cú Chulainn (seriesC). The glosses on these kennings are distributed throughout the above manu-scripts. Many of the texts were published by Calder in his edition of the Au-raicept na nÉces and by Bergin et al. in volume 3 of Anecdota from Irish manu-scripts. McManus sigla are:

Series A

Sigla MS Passages in MS Published source (1)

A1 BB 309a50–310a21 Aur. 11. 5528–5614

A2 H.3.18 34 Anec., pp. 43–4

A3 G53 3,4–5,21

A4 BB 325a20–325b2 Aur. 11. 1157–1198 (2)

A5 YBL 536 Aur. 11. 4253–4308 (3)

A6 G53 20

A7 H.3.18 26b22–27b29


Series B–C

Sigla MS Passages in MS Published source

B1 BB 310a22–310b5 Aur. 11. 5615–5667

B2 H.3.18 34 Anec., pp. 44–5

B3 G53 5,22–7,7

B4 G.53 20

B5 H.3.18 27b30–28a30

C1 H.3.18 34 Anec., p. 45

C2 G53 21

1 Aur. = Auraicept na nÉces (ed. G. Calder Edinburgh, 1917, reprinted 1995).

Anec. = Anecdota from Irish manuscripts, vol. 3 (ed. O.J. Bergin et al., Dublin 1910).

2 For this text Calder also used Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, Gaelic I/72.2.2 (ca.

1425), fol. 26a.

3 For this text Calder also used London, British Library, Egerton 88 (1564), fol. 71v-72r.

110 Alan Griffiths

Table 2

Overview of the names of alphabet letters, runes and ogam characters referredto in this paper.

H Greek X Z4 Latin X D

Hebrew names (c)het sade deleth

Latin inter-pretations1

uita iustitia, re-gio, uenatio

tabualae, ia-nua, pauper

Hebrew words1 chai,chayyim

tsedeq, sa-deh, tsayid

deleth, dal, dal

Latin inter-pretations2

pauor consolatio timor, natiuitas

Hebrewwords2

cheth,chittah

? saad ? dak, dor

Greek name ητα (eta)

χι (chi)

σαν (san, sampi)

δgλτα (delta)

Latin “names” ah, he ex, ix de

V.M.G.’s inter-pretations3

hilaritas longa uita5

fortitudo

OE-rune-names hægl eolhx (secg) dæg

Translations hail sedge, sword day

Ogam-names úath eba(d) s(t)raif eman-choll

dair

Translations fear ? life ? sulphur double C oak

1 The Latin interpretation provided by Jerome in his De psalterio passage of his Liber

interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (PL XXIII, 871). The Hebrew words are those thatI suspect formed the basis of his interpretations.


2 The Latin interpretations provided by Ambrose in his Exposition in Psalmum CXVIII (PLXV, 1263–1604). The Hebrew words suggested as a basis for the interpretations here are lesscertain than for Jerome.

3 The Latin interpretations as given in Aur. 4211–4222, and paralleled in Virgilius MaroGrammaticus’s Metrofia alphabet in his Epitomae (see Tardi 1928).

4 This letter represents the Greek san, Hebrew sade, which I identified with runic z (OE X) andogam s(t)raif from an analysis of the sequence of characters in the futhark and ogam(Griffiths 1999).

5 V.M.G. (Virgilius Maro Grammaticus) appears to have connected Latin X with Greek Χ (chi)and then equated this with Hebrew chai [alive, life].

112 Alan Griffiths

Table 3

The text af the Irish kennings and glosses on úath (for the sigla, see Table 1;A137, etc. means that the glosses occur in A1, A3 and A7).

1. Kennings

A. Condál cúan Assembly of packs of hounds

B. Bánad gnúise Blanching of faces

C. Ansan aidche Most difficult at night

2. Glosses

A137 .i. uath sin, ar is uath la nech conal chon alladh. Conal

cuan do rad re huath in ogaim (A37 .i. scé ar is uatmar i aradeilgibh) ar coibnius (A37 choibdelighiudh) in anma, aruath iad ar ænrian.[i.e. that is Úath, for an assembly of wolves is fearsome to aperson. ‘Assembly of packs of hounds’ is applied [as akenning] to the Húath of Ogam (A37 i.e. whitethorn, for it isfearsome on account of its thorns) because of the kinship(A37 apportioning) of the name, for they are úath alike.]

A26 .i. is ann fo-ceird coin alti uaill .i. scei.[i.e. it is there that wolves howl i.e. whitethorn.]

A45 Huath dono, is o chrand ro hainmniged .i. sce ut dicitur

comdal cuan huath ar is uathmar hi ara deilgibh, no isminic la cach comdail ic sgiaigh.[Húath, then, was called after a tree i.e. whitethorn ut dici-tur ‘assembly of packs of hounds’ is húath, for it is fear-some on account of its thorns, or people frequently meet ata whitethorn.]


B135 .i. uath, ar is ban gnuis in duine in tan do-berar uath noua-mun uimi. Uad-side for fid in ogaim ar æntaid anma aturu

fen .i. uath cechtar de.[i.e úath, for a person’s face is white when he is surroundedby terror or fear. [The kenning was transferred] thence tothe Ogam letter on account of the identity of name betweenthem, i.e. both are úath.]

B24 .i. scei.[i.e. whitethorn.]

C12 .i. huath[i.e. fear.]

114 Alan Griffiths

Table 4

Texts of the ogam kennings and glosses on dair (for the sigla, see Table 1; A137,etc. means that the glosses occur in A1, A3 and A7).

1. Kennings

A. Ardam dosae Most exalted tree

B. Grés soír Handicraft of an artificer

C. Slechtam soíre Most carved of craftsmanship

2. Glosses

A137 .i. dur (A3 duir) sin a dualas a feda isin caill.

[i.e. that is dur (= Dair) on account of its [corresponding] tree in thewood.]

A69 .i. dair.[i.e. oak-tree]

A45 Duir dono is o chrand ro hainmniged .i. airedem dossaib duir.[Dair, then, was called after a tree, i.e. ‘most exalted tree’ is oak tree.]

B135 .i. dair. Tucad uad-side fora fid coibnesa in ogaim.[i.e. oak-tree [The kenning] was transferred thence to its cognate ogamletter.]

B24 .i. dauir

[i.e. oak-tree]

C1 .i. niama sairte (= niam as airde ?)[i.e. most exalted beauty (?)]

C2 .i. niama sairde (= niam as airde ?) nó niansu.[i.e. most exalted beauty (?) or (?)]


Bibliography

Ahlqvist, A. 1982. “The early Irish linguist.” In: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 73,Finnish Society of Science and Letters.

Anec. = Anecdota from Irish manuscripts. Ed. O. J. Bergin et al., Dublin 1910.Aur. = Auraicept na nÉces, see Calder.Blackburn, M. 1991. “A Survey of Anglo-Saxon and Frisian coins with Runic inscriptions.” In:

Old English Runes and their Continental Background. Ed. A. Bammesberger, Heidelberg,pp. 137–189.

Calder, G. 1917. Auraicept na nÉces, (The Scholars’ Primer). Being the Texts of the OghamTract from the Book of Ballymote and the Yellow Book of Lecan, and the Text of theTrefhocul from the Book of Leinster Edited from eight Manuscripts, with Introduction,Translation of the Ballymote Text, Notes, and Indices. Edinburgh (rpt. 1995).

Derolez, R. 1954. Runica Manuscripta. Brugge.Dickins, B. 1915. Runic and Heroic Poems of the old Teutonic Peoples. Cambridge.DIL = Dictionary of the Irish Language (Compact edition). Dublin, 1990.Düwel, K. 2001. Runenkunde. 3., vollständig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Verlag J B. Metzler,

Stuttgart–Weimar.Elliott, R.V.W. 1959, rpt. 1980. Runes, An Introduction. Manchester.Etym. = Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum. Ed. W.M. Lindsay, Oxford,

1911.Evelyn White, H.G. (ed.) 1951. Ausonius, Vol. 1. London and Cambridge, Massachusetts.Exeter Book = The Exeter Book. An anthology of Anglo-Saxon poetry presented to Exeter

Cathedral by Leofric, first bishop of Exeter (1050–1071), and still in the possession of thedean and chapter. Edited from the manuscript, with a translation, notes, introduction etc. byIsrael Gollancz. 1: Poems 1–8, 1895, 2: Poems 9–32, 1934.

Germ. = Tacitus, C. Germania. Ed. J.B. Rives, Oxford, 1999.Glorie, F. (ed.) 1968. “Versus cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto.” In: Variae Collectiones

Aenigmatum Merovingicae Aetatis, II, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, 133A. Turnhout.Griffiths, A. 1999. “The Fuþark (and Ogam): Order as a Key to Origin.” In: Indogermanische

Forschungen 104, pp. 164–210.Halsall, M. 1981. The Old English Rune Poem. Toronto.Herren, M. 1980. “On the Earliest Irish Acquaintance with Isidore of Seville.” In: Visigoths in

Spain: New Approaches. Ed. I.E. James, Oxford.Historia Ecclesiasticae = Bedae Historia Ecclesiasticae. Ed. B. Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors,

Oxford, 1969.Keil, H. (ed.) 1857–80. Grammatici Latini (7 vols). Leipzig.KJ = Krause, W. & Jankuhn, H. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. 1–2. Göttingen. 1966.Krause, W. 1970. Runen. Berlin.Kuhn, S.M. (ed.) 1965. The Vespasian Psalter. Ann Arbor.

116 Alan Griffiths

Law, V. 1995. Wisdom, Authority and Grammar in the Seventh Century – Decoding VirgiliusMaro Grammaticus. Cambridge.

Löfstedt, B. (ed.) 1977. Sedulius Scottus in Donati Artem Maiorem, Corpus Christianorum,Continuatio Mediaeualis 40B. Turnhout.

McManus, D. 1988. “Irish letter-names and their kennings.” In: Ériu 39, pp. 127–168.— 1991. A Guide to Ogam. Maynooth.Meroney, H. 1949. “Early Irish Letter-names.” In: Speculum 24, pp. 19–43.Moltke, E. 1985. Runes and their Origin. Denmark and Elsewhere. Copenhagen.Page, R.I.1973. “Anglo-Saxon Texts in Early Modern Transcripts. 1. The Anglo-Saxon Runic

Poem.” Reprinted in Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Ed. D. Parsons, Woodbridge, 1995.— 1985. “Appendix 2. The legends on the coins.” In: M.M. Archibald, “The coinage of Beonna

in the light of the Middle Harling hoard.” In: British Numismatic Journal 55, pp. 10–54.— 1987. Runes. London.— 1998. “The Icelandic Rune Poem.” In: Nottingham Medieval Studies 42, pp. 1–37.Paris Psalter = The Paris Psalter MS Bibliothèque Nationale fonds latin 8824. Preface by

various contributors collected by Bertram Colgrave. Early English manuscripts in facsimile8. Copenhagen 1958.

PL = Migne’s Patrologia Latina.Polomé, E. 1991. “The Names of the Runes.” In: Old English Runes and their Continental

Background. Ed. A. Bammesberger, Heidelberg, pp. 421–438.Redbond, W.J. 1936. “Notes on the word ‘Eolhx’.” In: Modern Language Review 31, pp. 55 ff.Reichert, H. 1991–3. “GUTANI ? WI HAILAG”, In: Die Sprache 35, pp. 235–47.Seebold, E. 1991. “Die Stellung der englischen Runen im Rahmen der Überlieferung des älteren

Fuþark.” In: Old English Runes and their Continental Background. Ed. A. Bammesberger,Heidelberg, pp. 439–569.

Sims-Williams, P. 1992. “The Additional Letters of the Ogam Alphabet.” In: CambridgeMedieval Celtic Studies 23, pp. 29–75.

— 1993. “Some Problems in Deciphering the Early Irish Ogam Alphabet.” In: Transactions of

the Philological Society 91.2, pp. 133–180.Tardi, D. 1928. Les Epitomae de Virgile de Toulse. Paris.Thes. Pal. = Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus. Ed. W. Stokes and J. Strachan, Cambridge, 1901–3.Thiel, M. 1973. Grundlagen und Gestalt der Hebräischkenntnisse des frühen Mittelalters.

Spoleto.

rune-names: the irish connexion

Documents