Let’s look at some specific examples.The letters themselves are referred to as feda or fid in the singular, which means respectively ‘wood’ and ‘tree’. He also points out that much of the terminology surrounding Ogham refers specifically to the parts of trees/bushes, which is further indication that the alphabet is almost definitely a tree alphabet. What MacCoitir has done is return to the early legal tracts such as Bretha Comaithchesa, cross-referencing it with the oldest extant versions of the Bríatharogaim Maic ind Óc, Bríatharogaim Con Culainn and Bríatharogaim Morainn mic Moín. This standard list has not been challenged for quite some time, but that changed in 2003 with the publication of Niall MacCoitir’s work. Unfortunately, the most common Ogham list is based on evaluations of translations of medieval Irish into modern English. It would be nice to say that there is a definitive and correct interpretation of the letters’ meanings and their correspondences, but unfortunately it is not that simple and the best we can achieve is a model of best fit, based on the original source material. Having studied his work, I find his arguments and re-interpretation to be convincing, however given the cryptic nature of the three Bríatharogam (word-ogham) lists, it remains somewhat open to question. Although this is in fact correct, as McManus himself acknowledges, the kennings often allude to trees or could possibly do so.Īnother scholar, MacCoitir, has re-interpreted the old-irish kennings, specifically in reference to trees – which gives a complete list of trees and bushes, not including plants.
Scholars such as McManus tend to dismiss Ogham as a tree alphabet, citing the fact that only eight of the letters actually refer specifically to trees. Having dismissed the idea of the calendar, let us now turn our attention to Ogham as a tree alphabet. There is no evidence that I have found in academic work or translations of the ancient manuscripts that suggest that such a thing ever existed prior to Graves’ suppositions. Any tree calendar, viable or not, is an entirely modern invention. Of course scholars were and are aware that there are actually 15 consonants, which instantly destroys Grave’s theory, based on a mistake in O’Flaherty’s work. One of his prime sources for his 13 month lunar calendar was O’Flaherty’s Ogygia (published in an English translation in 1793). However, much of his work was erroneous and speculative, which he admitted himself subsequent to the publication of The White Goddess. Firstly, we must thank Graves for a re-introduction of Ogham into modern culture and specifically the area of Celtic Spirituality. However, I believe that a re-evaluation of the kennings and the general ethos of the beith-luis-nin or Ogham alphabet, based purely on the evidence and not whimsical notions, is long overdue. As a generalisation, it appears that some people with an interest in Ogham, including many writers and druidic orders, seem happy enough to go with the ‘accepted wisdom’ that can be found in many books and on the internet. Those in academia generally have different ideas about Ogham in general and most differently on the possibility of there being a lunar Ogham calendar or indeed the attributing of arboreal or plant characteristics to the entire 20 or 25 letters of the alphabet. It is not well known amongst those interested in Celtic Spirituality that the modern interpretation of the Irish Ogham alphabet is largely based on the ideas of Robert Graves, following the publication of his magnum opus The White Goddess.
0 kommentar(er)
