Ten Thousand SaintsAuthor(s): Hubert ButlerSource: Folklore, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Winter, 1974), p. 279Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Folklore Enterprises, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1259626 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Folklore Enterprises, Ltd. and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:43:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letter to the Editor

From Hubert Butler

Ten Thousand Saints MR O'CATHASAIGH, in his review of Ten Thousand Saints (Folklore 85, pp. 65-7) has quite misunderstood the argument, though it is not a new one. As long ago as 1849, Richard Butler, a leading scholar of the day, maintained that 'the strange and portentous' Irish legends could only be explained as 'hieroglyphic records' of forgotten history, interpreted by a later people whose language and civilization were different.

To say, therefore, that I 'laud' the pseudoetymology of the Irish monks is fantastic. What I do say is that the monks felt free to weave their 'portentous' legends round the ancient names, because they knew them to be undecipherable (tribal) hieroglyphs. The modern scholar, six centuries later, presumes to translate these names, and the results are more misleading because more solemn. For example, I show (TTS, 200) that the name-element GARBH could not possibly mean 'rough' as alleged by both ancients and moderns. So I do not condemn the story that St Fuinche Garbh, one of the five 'rough' saints, was 'roughened' by a coating of sea-shells when she swam across Loch Erne to escape a lecherous suitor. On the other hand, I do find Professor Byrne's view (Irish Kings and High Kings, p. 91) that the famous hero, Oengarb, was uniquely 'rough' silly and unperceptive.

Again, Mr O'Cathasaigh says 'pseudo-etymologists' were wrong in saying that Lug Ith (Lugaid) was a composite name. He says it is the same as Luigdech, which occurs in an ogam-stone as Lugudeccas. It is he who is wrong. It is not the same name, as he will see if he refers to Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae (p. 304), where Lugaid and Luigdech are brothers. In fact, Lugudeccas confirms my argument, but that is another story.

279

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:43:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions