Part 3

Now, it will be very easy to prove that these assertions are wholly erroneous, and are mere conjectures, unsupported either by history or etymology. In the first place, the three instances above given to show that the words _clan_ and _slioght_ were prefixed to the names of territories among the Irish, instead of supporting the author’s assumption, go to prove the very contrary, for in the first two instances the names adduced are not names of territories, but of men; and with regard to the third instance, there was no such name among the ancient Irish, and it is a pure fabrication of Beauford’s own imagination! As for his assertion that in the time of paganism every child at his birth received a name generally from some imaginary divinity under whose protection he was supposed to be, it is another pure fabrication; there is no authority in any of our ancient documents that men were called after their pagan deities, except in three instances, in the darkest period of Irish history; and even from these it does not appear that such names were given immediately after the birth of the individuals referred to, but that they assumed them after having arrived at the age of maturity. These instances are to be met with in ancient Irish MSS. concerning the history of the Tuatha De Dananns, a colony said to have preceded the Scoti in Ireland, at a period now generally believed to be beyond the reach of authentic history; but granting that what has been handed down to us concerning this colony is authentic, it does not follow from any thing stated that even among them every child at his birth received a name from a divinity under whose protection he was placed; for the sum of what has been handed down to us on this subject is, that on the arrival of the Scotic or Milesian colony in Ireland the Tuatha De Dananns were governed by three kings, who were distinguished by surnames derived from the names of the gods whom they worshipped. Thus, one of those kings, whose real name was _Eochy_, was, it is said, usually styled _Mac Greine_, because he worshipped the sun; the second, whose proper name was _Eathur_, was called _Mac Cuill_, because he worshipped the hazel tree, for I suppose men generally lived on nuts in his time; and the third, whose proper name was _Teathur_, was called _Mac Ceachta_, _i.e._ son of the plough, for he worshipped that useful implement as his god! We have no instance of men having been named after pagan deities but these three, and I venture to say that they are not sufficient to establish Beauford’s hypothesis. But a stronger argument than this can be urged against his theory, namely, that among all the pagan names of men which have been preserved by our authentic annalists, not one appears to be called after a pagan deity; and if it had been a general custom to call children after such deities, it might be expected that at least a few of them would have been transmitted. Since, then, they have not been transmitted, how, I would ask, did Mr Beauford discover that such a custom had ever existed? It is true that after the establishment of Christianity in the fifth century, the descendants of the pagan Irish who entered into holy orders, or into the monastic state, had their pagan names sometimes changed, as we learn from the lives of the saints of the primitive Irish church, but no documents now remain to prove, or even suggest, that such a change had been made previous to the introduction of Christianity. It is undeniable that cognomens, epithets, or sobriquets, were frequently added to the first name from some warlike exploit, or from some perfection or imperfection of body, colour of hair, or disposition of mind; but this continued to be the custom in Christian times, and still continues so, but no authority has been discovered even to suggest that any change of the original pagan name had occurred previous to the introduction of Christianity; and we find that even long after that period many distinguished Irish bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastics, bore the names of their pagan ancestors.

It is also a groundless assumption that the chief changed his name for that of the territory after his election to the government, or that the names of either the clan or district became surnames or family names in the tenth century. Can any one believe that Brian was the name of the territory of the O’Briens before the establishment of the name O’Brien? Was Donnell the name of the territory of the O’Donnells previous to the tenth century? Was Niall the name of the principality of the O’Neills?

So much then for Mr Beauford’s general theory as put forward in the introduction to his work. I shall now proceed to show the equal fallacy of the etymological processes by which he attempts to sustain his theoretical assumptions in the work itself; namely, that the names of Irish tribes and families were derived from the situations and natural features of the territories they inhabited.

1. “CLANN CUILEAN, or the race or children of the corner of the water; called also _Hy na mor_, or the district of the sea; the chiefs of which were denominated _Mac na mor aois_, the sons of the elders of the sea, by contraction Macnamara,” &c.

Now, what will be thought of all this etymological induction, when it can be proved from history that _clann Cuileain_ signifies the race of _Cullen_?

The _Cuilean_ or Cullen from whom this tribe took their name is found in the pedigree of Mac Namara, within the authentic period of Irish history, for he flourished in the eighth century, a period to which our authentic annals reach with perfect historical certainty. Let us then see how this meaning “children of the corner of the water” is obtained from the compound _clann Cuileain_. Apparently by a very simple process, thus; _clann_ means descendants, _cuil_ means _corner_, and _ean_ water; but regular as this process appears, it is nevertheless utterly fallacious, for the word _clann_ means children or descendants relatively to an ancestor, not to a _locality_; and though the name _Cuileain_ (now anglicised Cullen or Collins) when cut in two, would apparently make the words _cuil_ and _ean_, still the word is not compounded of _cuil_, a corner, and _ean_, water, for the first syllable is short, and the last syllable is a diminutive termination of the same power with the Latin _ulus_, as in the compounds _campulus_, _colliculus_, _catulus_; and the word _cuilean_, whether taken as a common noun substantive or as a proper name, is synonymous with the Latin _catulus_, or _Catullus_.

The next assertion above made, that _clann Cuileain_ was also called _Hy na mor_, is untrue, for the name _Hy na mor_ had never any existence except in Mr Beauford’s fancy; and even if it had, the meaning given for it would not be correct, for _hy_ does not properly mean district, nor does _mor_ mean sea. The assertion that the chiefs of _clann Cuileain_ were called _Mac na mor aois_ is also untrue, for the name was never so written by any one except Mr Beauford. They were uniformly called _Mic Conmara_, as being the descendants of _Cu-mara_, who was chief of the _clann Cuileain_ in the tenth century; and the name _Cumara_, signifying _hero of the sea_, was first given to a chief of this family, from his being an expert seaman, not from his dwelling on the sea, for the _clann Cuileain_ or Mac Namaras were not located on the sea, or near the sea, but in an inland territory in the south-east of the county of Clare.

2. “CINEAL EOGHEAN, or _Cean all Eoghain_, from _cean thuath oll Eogh-an_, pronounced Connal Owen, or the principal division of the northern county of the Oll or Bolgæ, an ancient district in the province of Ulster, comprehending originally the present counties of Tyrone, Armagh, Donegal, and part of the county of Derry, being the ancient divisions of Eirgal or Orgall,” &c.

Here the name _Cineal Eoghain_, which had been translated _genus Eoghain_, _i.e._, race or progeny of _Eoghan_, by all the early Irish writers, is made to signify the principal division of the northern county of the Oll or Bolgæ. Let us examine how this interpretation has been wrested from _Cineal Eoghain_. In the first place, he spells the name incorrectly, though we cannot see that he gains any point by doing so; next he takes asunder what he conceives to be its component parts, first metamorphosing the word _Cineal_, which is cognate with the Latin _genus_ and the English _kind_, _kindred_, into _Cean all_, which he made to signify “principal division,” and resolving _Eoghan_, a man’s name, into _Eogh-an_, to make it signify I know not what; but as the four vocables thus obtained would not answer his purpose, he took the liberty of adding one more of his own coining, thus making five distinct words of the two original ones. But even allowing that these five vocables are legitimately obtained from the two original ones, I have still a further objection to them, for they do not grammatically coalesce, or bear the meaning he affixes to them, as there is no word among the five to express _principal division_ or _county_. And granting further that the five words thus formed could really bear the signification he gives them, it would not follow that the name _Cineal Eoghain_ is so compounded, while in opposition to the testimony of all authentic history; and we have the testimony of all the authentic Irish annals, the lives of the Irish apostle, and of the most ancient genealogical books, to prove that the great northern race called _Cineal Eoghain_ took that appellation from their great ancestor _Eoghan_ (the son of Niall of the Nine Hostages), who was contemporary with St Patrick, as did a neighbouring race that of _Cineal Conaill_, from Eoghan’s brother, Conall Gulban.

But the supporters of Mr Beauford’s system may say that although it may be true that the _Cineal Eoghain_ took their appellation from their ancestor Eoghan, still that this EOGHAN may have taken his name from the territory over which he ruled. I answer, that this does not bear even the semblance of probability, for we have the authority of Cormac’s Glossary for asserting that the proper name _Eoghan_ (still used as a man’s name in every part of Ireland, and anglicised Owen and Eugene) was understood by the ancient Irish literati to signify the _good offspring_, or the _goodly born_, and this looks much more probable than the signification which Mr Beauford wrings from it, for the Irish had many other names similarly compounded, as _Finghin_ (now Florence), meaning the fair offspring; _Coemhghin_ (now Kevin), the beautiful offspring, &c. Thus it appears that Beauford’s derivation of the tribe name of _Cineal Eoghain_ is a mere etymological phantasy, unsupported by history or etymology. I have also to mention that the extent he gives to the territory of this tribe is too great, for it never comprised the one-fourth part of the present county of Donegal, or any part of Armagh.

But I am exceeding the space allowed me for this article, and must defer the remaining examples till next number.

[2] Let not the reader confound this Beauford with the author of the ecclesiastical map of Ireland, for the latter was Dr Beaufort, and his works are distinguished for their accuracy.

LETHE: AN ALLEGORY.

BY J. U. U.

Has it e’er crossed thy fancy to explore The mystery of that old forgetful river In which the Shade, permitted to renew Its servitude to clay, went down to drink Oblivion of itself and all it was; A dread completion of the work of Death!

Now lend a patient hearing, and I’ll tell thee --Thou wilt receive it as a wayward dream-- The course of this old river. Know it glides Beneath thy steps, with lapse invisible, For but by glimpses mortals may behold it; And these seem far too glorious for one thought Of dull oblivion ever to intrude On the rapt vision. Not a shadow there From gloomy Hades clouds the living light That glances gaily down the rippling stream. But past description’s power, ’tis loud and bright With trumpet voices, and with silken sails Full-blown with Fortune’s breath; while from the bank Hope lifts her siren strain, and bids them speed For ever on to happy isles afar. And every ripple teems with springing thoughts-- In one sense faithful to the Samian’s creed-- A constant iteration of old fancies As if the wise and fools of time came back With their old dreams; forgetful of experience. There system swells on system, bubbles gay, Conventions, empires, powers, authorities, Song’s intellectual fabric, pictures, modes, Those myriad lights, the glory and the glitter Which make that current gaily beautiful. And so it rolls, in its magnificence Tumbling and sparkling up into the sun Like an eternal thing: buoyant and bright Beneath the airs of Heaven that murmur mirth And hope, and life, and pauseless interest. While on its living course no spot is seen That is not far too bright and glorious For the approach of grim decay, or that More mighty and more terrible shadow Death To find a cave to lurk in… … Thou wilt say, This is not Lethe, whose dull waters glide Sunless among the silent fields of death, Oblivion’s formless valley. Yet attend-- Mark well the course of each bright-crested wave:-- As it rolls by, the gallant barks it bore Are vanished, and have left no trace, as if They never had existence. Though for ever New shadows fast emerge into the Sun (So like the last, that scarce one notes the change), And take a look of immortality, Incredulous of the Past, blind to the Future; Not knowing whence they come, from what they are, Or whither tend. Alas, the stream With all that went before, is lost below In dim Oblivion’s world: It were a dream Most fleeting and fantastic, were there not A chain of awful consequence that binds What has been, with what must be. Death and Life, The Past, the Present, and the Future, are But names bestowed on one perpetual stream, In different provinces beneath the Crown Of Him who is the source from whence all comes And to whom all returns--we see no more But as the gazer from some narrow bridge Looks down upon the waters, when beneath They come from far, and so pass, and are gone.

* * * * *

THE DOMESTIC MAN.--There is no being of the masculine gender whom “the sex” so heartily despise as the domestic man. He is an anomaly--a sort of half-way house between the sexes--a concentration of weaknesses--a poor driblet of humanity--a vile caudle-drinker--an auditor of laundress’s bills--an inquisitor of the nursery--a fellow that likes his bed warmed, and takes note of the decay of carpets--a reader of works on “cookery” and a “treatise on teething”--a pill bolter--a man that buys his wife’s gowns and his children’s dresses--a scolder of maid-servants--a frequenter of the kitchen--a person who can tell you the price of treacle, and how long a mop should last--a gazer at butchers’ windows--a consumer of ginger wine--a slop eater--a market visitor--a tea maker--Faugh! He looks like the aborigine of a bed-room. He is lean and bilious--delights in black gaiters and a brown greatcoat. He gives his little bandy-legged child a walk in the Park, where he is taken for a brother of one of the nursery maids in delicate health. He entertains his visitors with his discoveries of the tricks of bakers and the machinations of grocers--_ennuies_ them to death with long stories about bad bread, and “coffee without adulteration.” He always knows what is to be for dinner, what remains in the larder--and employs his gigantic intellect in considering the best mode of cooking it. He is naturally fretful and peevish, and in cold weather has a helplessness of aspect peculiar to himself. These men never look like Englishmen. They never acquire that manly bluff appearance which is the character of our nation. God knows what is the matter with them, but they always seem out of sorts. Their features are sharp--their voices are effeminate, and they are nearly all of them “troubled with colds.” The business of life with them is to regulate the affairs of housekeeping--their tastes, habits, thoughts, and rivalries, are womanish. Their conversation is about “poor Mrs” this, and “poor Lady” that--antiquated matrons, with whom they occasionally compare notes in matters of condolence--yet who have enough of the spirit of their sex in them to despise their male coadjutor, and in their souls they think “poor Mr” so-and-so the greatest bore alive. They are always complaining; if not positively unwell themselves--a case of rare occurrence--some of their family is sure to be so--or, if all that should fail, then, at least, a dish has been broken, and there is always a number of standing grievances ready to be produced when occasion requires. “Well, heaven help them!” as Shakspeare says, “for they are sad fools.” They live a long time, these fellows, but they die at last--all the pills and possets in the world will not avert death. The passenger who sees the hearse and mutes, thinks some rational being has died--the stranger, who reads the tombstone, thinks that a man moulders below. But are they deceived? We think so.--COURT GAZETTE.

* * * * *

PETRARCH’S OPINION OF MONEY.--He who expends it properly, is its master; he who lays it up, its keeper; he who loves it, a fool; he who fears it, a slave; and he who adores it, an idolator.

* * * * *

The whole of human virtue may be reduced to speaking the truth always, and doing good to others.

Many an acknowledged truth was once a controverted dogma; the basis of every science has been considered a fundamental error.

Truth is the most compendious wisdom, and an excellent instrument for the speedy dispatch of business. It creates confidence in those we have to deal with, saves the labour of many inquiries, and brings things to issue in a few words.--_Spectator._

* * * * *

Let us hope the best rather than fear the worst, and believe that there never was a right thing done, or a wise one spoken in vain, although the fruit of them may not spring up in the place designated, or at the time expected.

* * * * *

George II., being informed that an impudent printer was to be punished for having published a spurious King’s speech, replied, that he hoped the punishment would be of the mildest sort, because he had read both, and as far as he _understood_ either of them, he liked the spurious speech better than his own.

* * * * *

Printed and published every Saturday by GUNN and CAMERON, at the Office of the General Advertiser, No. 6, Church Lane, College Green, Dublin.--Agents:--R. GROOMBRIDGE, Panyer Alley, Paternoster Row, London; SIMMS and DINHAM, Exchange Street, Manchester; C. DAVIES, North John Street, Liverpool; SLOCOMBE & SIMMS, Leeds, JOHN MENZIES, Prince’s Street, Edinburgh; & DAVID ROBERTSON, Trongate, Glasgow.