Cover Page
The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/20979 holds various files of this Leiden University
dissertation.
Author: Griffiths, Alan
Title: A family of names : Rune-names and Ogam-names and their relation to alphabet
letter-names
Issue Date: 2013-06-18
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
Examination of the names attached to characters used in the Irish ogam and
Germanic runic scripts has shown that they were mostly coined within the
tradition of giving names to letters of the Hebrew alphabet and interpreting
these names as being meaningful, as found in the writings of Eusebius of
Caesarea, Jerome and Ambrose, as well as in rabbinical works such as The
Alphabet of Rabbi Aqiba. The possible provenance of the Irish and Germanic
names has to be deduced from a comparison of name-forms in manuscript
lists and an interpretation of obliquely formulated, metaphorical descriptions
of the names’ meanings provided by kennings, glosses and poetic
periphrases. It is in the nature of such evidence that any conclusions will not
be devoid of some speculation. However, by demonstrating the relation of
ogam and runic evidence to the wider tradition of coining names for the
letters of Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets, I have tried to reduce such
speculation, despite not having been able to offer even speculative
suggestions for a number of rune-names in particular, i.e. ēþel, peorð, ing,
rād, and wyn(n)/wen.
My conclusions for each ogam- and rune-name are summarized in the
résumés at the end of my discussion of the individual names. Rather than
repeat all those résumés here, I highlight conclusions relating to a selected
number of names which illustrate the principles I have proposed for the
process of coining the names or which appear to have wider implications
than a determination of the origin of the names: 1. two examples of
homonymous transfer from Hebrew letter-names to Irish ogam-names; 2.
two examples of semantic transfer from ogam-names to rune-names; 3. an
example of homonymous transfer from ogam to runes as well as within the
runic community of names; 4. three examples of transfer from letter-names
to ogam-names that may help in determining the sound-values of the ogam
characters as well as the prototype for the ogam scheme in general; and 5. a
quartet of rune-names where biblical exegesis may help in the matter of
dating.
1. My discussion of the apparently near-homonymous relation
between, on the one hand, the ogam-names beithe and nin and, on
the other hand, the Hebrew letter-names beth and nin, or nun,
demonstrates that whoever devised the kenning-like descriptions of
the Irish names and the later glosses on them exploited Latin as well
as Irish allusions in the descriptions. The apparent play on Irish barr
[crown (of a tree)] and Latin frons [crown (of a tree); (eye)brow] in
the case of beithe, and on Irish ginol garmna [fork of a weaver’s
beam] and Latin iugum [weaver’s beam; yoke (of spears)] in the
case of nin, illustrates the intellectual agility and linguistic flexibility
of the word-smiths.
2. The proposed relationships of ogam beithe and nin to runic
beorc/biarkan and nyd/nauðr exemplify two different forms of
semantic transfer. Beorc is probably a direct translation of beithe,
whereas nyd shows a subtler semantic connexion with nin. The
possibility of a beithe-beorc relation being coincidental rather than
the result of translation is diminished in the light of the many other
315
A Family of Names
points of contact that can be demonstrated between the names of
ogam and runic characters. Appreciation of the nin-nyd relation,
however, requires knowledge of the grammatical relation – whether
real or perceived – between nin and forms of the Irish verb-form
naiscid [binds, makes fast]. A connexion between the ogam-name
for N and the concept of ‘binding’, and even ‘bondmaid’, would
correlate with an interpretation of the nin/nyd stanzas in the AngloSaxon and Scandinavian poems as describing the rune-names for n
in terms of ‘obligation’ and ‘bounden duty’ rather ‘necessity’ or
‘need’.
3. An example of the exploitation of homonymy in the coining of
names is provided by ogam úr and runic ūr/úr. There is no semantic
connexion between any of these names. Ogam úr appears to relate to
the ‘cold earth’ – possibly inspired by the fact that the letter U was
the last of the Latin alphabet’s five vowels and that the name úr
expressed this finality in terms of the cold earth of the grave; AngloSaxon ūr would appear to be based on Latin urus [aurochs]; the úr
described in the Norwegian rune-poem appears to mean ‘slag’, while
the úr in the Icelandic poem appears to refer to ‘drizzle’. The
principle of homonymy is generally accepted as an explanation for
the identical forms but divergent meanings of the rune-names. But
the obvious homonymy of ogam úr with the rune-names would
probably be dismissed as coincidence alongside the beithe-beorc
relation if it were not for certain parallels in the vocabulary of the
ogam kennings and glosses on úr and the ūr stanza of the AngloSaxon Rune Poem. In the poem, the aurochs is called frecne
[dangerous, savage] and a morstapa [roamer of moors], which can
be compared with the Irish fráech [heather], as used to gloss the
ogam-name and found in words like fráechmes [heath-fruit,
bilberries, etc.] and fráechmedra [heath-dog, ?wolf], as well as with
the homonymous fráech [rage, fury, fierceness]. Support for AngloSaxon familiarity with the ogam tradition, moreover, is provided by
the last stanza of the Rune Poem, in which the rune-name eār is
presented as referring to the cold earth of the grave, on a par with
ogam úr. The idea of finality evidently attached to the final rune in
the Rune Poem, 6, appears also to be reflected by the rune with a
similar form placed at the end of numerous runic alphabets, but
provided with a sound-value noted as z.
4. My explanations for ogam (h)úath, straif and cert not only confirm
the reliance of the coiner(s) of these ogam-names on patristic
interpretations of Hebrew letter-names, but also have wider
implications in the discussion of the origins of the ogam script as a
whole. It is generally accepted that ogam úath meant ‘fear’.
Ambrose interpreted the Hebrew letter-name heth as meaning ‘fear’.
The equivalent of the Hebrew letter in the Greek alphabet was Η, the
sound-value of which evolved from that of a consonant to that of a
vowel in the classical alphabet. The equivalent Latin letter was H,
the sound of which before vowels had become so weak by the fall of
the republic that it was frequently omitted in writing. In recent times
there has been some debate about the original sound-value of the
ogam character represented in early Irish manuscripts as H. The
316
Conclusions
same attribution of meaning, i.e. ‘fear’, to the Hebrew letter-name
by Ambrose and to the ogam-name by Irish scribes is unlikely to
have been a coincidence. These attributions do not unequivocally
confirm the original sound-value of the ogam character, but, as I
have argued, they do confirm the scribes’ perception of ogam H
being equivalent to Hebrew heth – a perception which in turn
correlates with my own derivation of the ogam script as a whole.
Similarly, there has been a debate about the original soundvalue of the ogam character to which Irish scribes assigned the name
straif or sraiph. My derivation of the ogam scheme points to this
character being ultimately equivalent to the letter named in Hebrew
sade or tsadeh. Patristic interpretations of this name vary from
Ambrose’s consolatio [comfort] to Jerome’s iustitia [justice], regio
[country, field] and uenatio [hunting]. None of these interpretations
has any relation to ogam straif, which is generally taken to refer to
‘sulphur’ and to have connexions with ‘lightning’, as does Latin
sulfur. However, in the tsadeh octave of the acrostic Psalm CXVIII,
the initial word of the Hebrew text of verse 140 (beginning with the
letter tsadeh) is tsaraph. In his Vulgate translation, Jerome renders
the text as Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer [D-R: Thy word is
exceedingly refined. AV: Thy word is very pure], which Ambrose
cites in his homily on the passage. The Hebrew word ¹rx, tsaraph,
comprises the senses ‘made red hot; purge, refine; pure; goldsmith,
refiner’, the connexion with fire in the biblical passage being the
function of fire in the refining or purification of gold and silver. The
Irish kennings and glosses on the ogam-name straif contain
sufficient allusions to the refining of gold to justify the conclusion
that the name of the letter tsadeh was connected with Hebrew
tsaraph and that this word was then associated with Irish straif in
connexion with the refinement of gold. If this explanation is correct,
then the coiner(s) of the ogam-names will, to some extent, have been
familiar with biblical Hebrew, presumably via patristic
interpretations, and will also have been aware of the association of
the ogam character that they named straif with a letter equivalent to
Hebrew tsadeh – an association I assume in my derivation of the
ogam scheme.
Finally, in the case of cert, a focus of discussion in recent times
has been whether the initial sound-value of this name was /kw/ or
/k/, since the character it was attached to, the fifth in the H-aicme,
was regularly transcribed in manuscripts as Q (as well as CC), in
order to distinguish it from C, the fourth character in the H-aicme.
No Irish form *q(u)ert is known other than as an artificial creation
based on cert in the manuscripts intended to align the name with the
supposed sound-value /kw/. The name cert must therefore have been
assigned to the character after the delabialization of /kw/ to /k/. An
explanation of the name cert, linking it to the alphabet letter Q, can
be given if it is assumed that the name was coined on the basis of the
patristic tradition. One of Ambrose’s interpretations of the Hebrew
letter-name transcribed in Latin as coph or cof was conclusio [a
shutting in, an enclosing], which can be connected with ogam cert
via a series of word associations: (a) clithar [shelter (in an
enclosure); sheltering, protective], a concept exploited in the ogam
kennings and glosses on cert; (b) clith [hiding-place, protection;
317
A Family of Names
concealing, protective (clothing)]; (c) ceirt [rag (as protective
clothing)], simplified to cert, said to mean ‘small’. Also, clith is
related to cleth [act of hiding], which in turn is a homonym of cleth
[house-post], a synonym of which, clí, is one of the glosses on the
ogam-name. A Latin equivalent of cli/cleth [house-post] is mālus
[upright post], a homonym of which is mālus [apple-tree], via which
the gloss on cert of aball [apple-tree] may be derived.
5. Four of the rune-names – īs, cēn, lagu and man – when listed in the
order of the four equivalent alphabet letters, I, K, L and M, which
form a group at the centre of the Mediterranean alphabets, appear to
refer to the four primordial elements given by, for example, Aristotle
and Ptolemy as air, fire, water and earth. The rune-name man [man]
is clearly linked to the element earth in the man-stanza of the AngloSaxon Rune Poem, while the names lagu [water] and cēn [torch]
also refer the elements water and fire. The name īs less obviously
refers to air, but when the Icelandic rune-poem’s reference to an icebridge and the imagery of a crystalline ice-floor are taken into
account and compared with the imagery of the crystalline heaven
described in passages of Ezekiel and Revelation, then a connexion
with the crystalline heaven in Ptolemy’s cosmography becomes
clearer. However, the order of the four names when arranged in
alphabetical order – I, īs [ice/heaven/air]; K, cēn [torch/fire]; L, lagu
[water]; M, man [man/earth] – does not correlate with the systematic
ordering of the four elements set out by Aristotle: fire, air, water,
earth. The Aristotelian order is repeated by, for example, Jerome in
his commentary on various biblical quaternities. The most celebrated
of the quaternities, discussed by numerous early Christian
commentators, were the four Evangelists and their emblems, which
Jerome, following Irenaeus, paired as: Matthew/Man, Mark/Lion,
Luke/Bull (Calf), John/Eagle. Subsequently, Gregory the Great
associated these pairings with the four principal mysteries of Christ’s
life in chronological order: Matthew/Man/Christ’s Incarnation,
Luke/Calf/Christ’s Crucifixion, Mark/ Lion/Christ’s Resurrection,
John/Eagle/Christ’s Ascension. It was exceptional, however, for a
direct link to be made with the four elements. An example in which
a link is made is a ninth-century manuscript (Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6235, probably reflecting work of c.750–75,
showing Irish influence), which contains a text with the elements
first in Aristotle’s order – fire, air, water and earth – and then paired
with the Evangelists in the order of the Gospels in the Vulgate
translation: Matthew/earth, Mark/water, Luke/air and John/fire. But
more significantly, the prologue to a late seventh-century Irish text,
Expositio quattuor evangeliorum, attributed to Jerome and said to
have been widely influential in Hiberno-Latin exegesis, gives the
pairing of elements and Evangelists as earth/Matthew, water/Mark,
fire/Luke and air-heaven/John, which is distinct from Aristotle’s
ordering of the elements but which provides a more satifactory
pairing of John with heaven and air (rather than with fire). It is this
sequence of the elements that appears to be reflected in the runenames when arranged in reverse alphabetical order: M, man
[man/earth] (Matthew); L, lagu [water] (Mark); K, cēn [torch/fire]
(Luke); I, īs [ice/heaven/air] (John). It is also this congruence in the
318
Conclusions
order, together with the Irish provenance and late-seventh-century
date of the manuscript, that prompts me to suggest that this text may
well have had an influence on the coining of these four rune-names,
particularly in view of the strong Irish influence among the elite in
Northumbria at the time when the rune-names in general appear to
have been coined.
In summary, the present study challenges the theory of a purely
indigenous, north-European origin for the names given to ogam and runic
characters. This theory was nurtured by nationalist sentiment from the
fifteenth century on, as is evident in particular in the Gothic renaissance in
Sweden in relation to rune-names. In the nineteenth century, it gained
impetus from the Romantic movement and has persisted to the present day.
Against this nationalistically tinted theory, I argue that the names given to
ogam characters and the kennings describing them, in conjunction with the
glosses interpreting the kennings, show clear evidence of having been
inspired by patristic interpretations of Hebrew letter-names, imported into
Ireland by Christian missionaries some time after the creation of ogam as
such, but before the end of the seventh century. Some glossators, however,
were intent on re-interpreting the ogam-names as belonging to a purely Irish
scheme of tree-names. Similarly, the names given to runes show clear
evidence of having been inspired by the Irish process of coining ogamnames, transmitted to the north of England by Christian clerics from Ireland,
probably some time between the late-seventh and late-eighth centuries. The
rune-names were subsequently transmitted to Scandinavia as part of the
Christian missionary activity from the ninth to tenth centuries and were
subject to re-interpretation as a result of the adaptation of Christian elements
to earlier pagan tradition. In other words, neither ogam-names nor runenames were independent, pre-Christian, purely native creations, but they
were coined within the continuing tradition evident in the assignment of
names to letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
319