Early Irish Poets and Combat

[claimhteoir]

They're all fair points. I think it would be interesting to look more at the hereditary nature of filidh training and the ages at which training began. But yeah, I'm not saying their were warrior poets, of course not! I was trying to establish if there would be precident for poets either carrying sidearms for self defence or becoming involved in the larger politically orientated battles. I just thought, as I found no reference to it one way or another in academic literature, it would make an interesting discussion piece and would help with a batter understanding of the filidh class in early medieval Ireland.

I know we have no definitive answers, but it's a nice one to discuss.

Next time I have access to Fergus Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law I'll check the finer details with regard to hereditary nature of poets and the age of training. I know that because of the 3 generation class rule (eg. that a bóaire could not become a King, but could become wealthier, increase their status and their grandson, if the wealth remained in the kingroup, could potentially become a King. OR that a poet, whose father was not a poet could not become an ollam fili, but they could progress in the ranks and if their son and grandson were trained filidh, the grandson could attain the recognise rank of ollam fili.) caused the professions to begin to become family traditions at a later date. I'll have to look more closely at the rule in relation to the filidh profession during the early medieval period anyway.

But anyway, I think I'm fairly happy that a fili could carry a sidearm if they had the wealth to afford it and felt so inclined. As for their military role in battles... I think we've probably dismissed that notion, with the possible exception of extraordinary circumstances, such as if they became targetted etc.

[the_power]

we can't deny that they may carry a side arm, as the poem of Colman Mac Leneni would suggest. Wouldn't it make sense to carry one and be somewhat familiar with it's use just in case?

When I see 'side arm', I always have to remember that the way you signified your status was clothing, and the fact that you carried a blade. Even if it was a wee one for peeling spuds...or .. em...apples. It signified your status as a free man. So, it's not unlikely that a poet would carry a knife, and if someone was mad enough to attack someone with the honour price of his king...I'm sure he understood it was "pointy end toward the other guy".

So..yeah, carry a knife! Just make sure it's pretty.

John

[brendan]

This might be relevant http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/26419 - the law on non combatants

Havent read btw

Brendan

[Maid-MarionRose]

Sometimes when discussing historical facts and the accepted understanding of what was common in those times; we forget to regard the people we are discussing, as individuals.
I'd agree with the opinion that choosing to carry a sword, (to get involved in a cattle raid, or just write about things from safe on the sidelines) would be a personal choice.

I suspect that more ambitious poets, honored as they were, would choose to travel and experience for themselves.
Beyond their learning, incredible feats of memorization, repertoires that they carried with them; they also sought to eulogize and compose satire for themselves. There'd be those content enough to make their living on the talents of their predecessors. But to aspire and create, to see with a poets eyes I'd imagine one went out to experience the world they sought to capture in a phrase.

And just like other men/women, would experience life, lust, love and fighting and adventuring and whatever else took their fancy...
As artists perhaps removed from the dictates of society, (certainly not grubbing for a living) if they had a taste to be amidst the battle as warrior-ports then perhaps that gave them the inspiration for their verse.
The term fili means seer and I doubt a true artist would take a second hand account of a happening as his raw material for an epic.
Accepting that they'd be there, it's just as possible that they would want to be part of it.
To feel the blood thrum within, as they stole across a neighboring boundary. Not likely they'd hold their hands up in the half-darkness when caught, relying on their feuding neighbors not to slice first and ask questions later.

I don't know but I'd imagine in every time, in every society, there'd be those who ventured to see and feel; in order to phrase and excel. Being knowledgeable and learned they knew more about life experience in a myriad of forms, and wouldn't be as constrained as others of their age. And I don't think they'd feel a prohibition on carrying any weapon they liked.

I do think like all individuals, their ego would be a determining factor in what they did.
Some wouldn't choose to risk their skin, or comfortable lives, but some would, just to compose convincingly and evoke something real.
Maybe some individuals dressed down to pass unnoticed in the land, rather than traveling as poets/ minor celebrities and be imposed upon to remain as the guest of such and such... Reputation and notoriety not always a comfortable thing.

Perhaps certain poets might see inspiration within four walls, but others would choose to experience reality, to taste it...

[claimhteoir]

We can't forget that from our sources, early Irish society seems to have been strict on personal freedoms and on the roles people played, so I think the idea of "warrior poets" is perhaps a little difficult to support without evidence. But, again, the idea of poets being able to carry and wield a sidearm seems likely and down to the individual. The idea of poets being both professional poets and warriors however, doesn't fit into what we know of the society, I don't think.

That book Brendan found a link fopr looks like it could be very interesting. Might be worth a look when I can afford to!

[the_power]

To finish off; a poets, children and clergy carried serious fines if you hurt one of them. If one of them showed a willingness to use a weapon, I'm sure that taboo would quickly go out the window.

John

[Maid-MarionRose]

"Keating, amusingly credulous as an Irish historian, records with gravity the story of an ancient militia, numbering nine thousand in time of peace, who had both serjeants and colonels. Into the ranks of these Fine Eirion no one was admitted unless proved to be a poetical genius, well acquainted with the twelve books of poetry."
Bonwick, James 1894 "Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions" Retrieved 3 Jan 2009 http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr08.htm

He is referring to Geoffery Keating author of "A History of Ireland" a noted historian from the mid seventeenth century and it supports the idea that warriors may have had poetry as part of their education, which was alluded to earlier in this discussion.

I suppose I've always thought the celebrated warrior-poet idea is about celebrating that these weren't just thick, brutal feudal struggles but that warfare could be glorious and epic.
The names of warrior-poets such as Oisin, Amergin, Briccriu... would be among those I learned when I was a child.
I don't think I'm influenced by that romantic ideal, as much as that I just believe they aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't believe the argument that they would soon forfeit the taboo (not to strike a poet) applies.
Judgments/decisions regarding striking a poet/ child would be made in court. If a Poet carried a musical branch onto the field, or was wielding a harp he'd be quite safe. A sword wielder (with a way with words) wouldn't have been regarded the same way.
Amergin is killed in battle by his brother Heremon, but there is no judgement that this is unlawful even though Amergin is a celebrated poet. It was a fight, fair and square.

Anyway in thinking out the advantages of warrior-poet I reckon to advance ones chances in tainaisteach too -that to be chieftain, a level of education and study would give definite advantages, and in learning there are always those with an aptitude for words...
And those with talent would be introduced into the profession, even with respect to the traditional hereditary nature of poets:
"All offices and professions, such as those of druid, brehon, bard,
physician, &c., were hereditary; yet not absolutely so, as others might
also be introduced into these professions..."
Haverty, Martin 1867 "The History of Ireland, Ancient and Modern" Retrieved 3 Jan 2009 http://www.archive.org/stream/historyof ... e_djvu.txt
So perhaps also we'd regard instances of Chieftains retiring to a life of study (after receiving wound or blemish that makes it untenable to remain as chief), which again would result in a warrior /poetic talent.

Anyway I'm going to suppose there were, (I don't suppose there were many) but since it's about opinion I hope this helps inform where mine comes from...

[claimhteoir]

Well, to what extent the ideals depicted in the Fianna mythology can be attributed to early medieval Irish society is a Pandoras box and how it is interpreted is a tricky business for even the most learned scholars. But for what my opinion is worth, I would say that the idea of warriors being trained in poetry in the mythology shows early Irish society's respect and praise for both knowledge and combat prowess. [This ties in with the idea of honour price for nobility and wealth, which can be lost through cowardice in certain instances, and honour price for knowledge and poetic, legal or clerical office.] The respect I believe these sagas show for both areas does not mean that these mythological characters and their multi-defined roles were indicitive of the society that we use them to interept - early medieval Ireland, the society in which they were written down.

Your idea about carrying the tools of the trade is an interesting one. So, would this imply that a poet would always have to have a craobh/"musical branch" (if we can be sure these were hand-held or adorned branches and not figurative or ceremonial decorative wreaths of office or distinction) on his person for his honour price to count? Surely, if he is harmed even if holding a sword his honour-price remains the same and his attacker is subject to pay a body fine or the relevant penalty? (forgetting possible issues here with battle engagements) Surely poet is a poet regardless of what he has on his person. Would a king still not be a king whether or not he carried a token of his office with him at all times? Also, I don't think using Heremon and Amergin as an example cuts ice for this kind of issue. For example, kinslaying in early medieval Ireland was about the worst thing one could do because of the role of the kin-group and their shared assets and legal liability in law enforcement. If a kinslaying between these two mythological figures from an earlier, likely fantastical period, is deemed lawful, then this same kinslaying can hardly be held up to be positively indicative of early medieval Irish society.

The idea of knowledge being an asset in chieftainship or in advancing through political ranks is a certainty. Knowledge and intelligence benefits all who have it... especially if it's relevant knowledge i.e. knowledge of negotiation skills and clan "management" for a chieftain. This does not mean however that there was a hybrid class of warrior-poet! Filidh had certain roles within early Christian Ireland and the pagan centuries prior to this. From what we know these roles included prophecy, the keeping of tradition (sagas and poems filled with themes representing society ideals and morals), the keeping of geneaologies, the praise of clients and noteworthy kings, heros, professionals or other individuals and the satire of law-breakers and people they or their clients didn't like. These were specific tasks that required years of training and experience to master. Similarly, warriors and politically driven nobles, while I think that surely some would have received basic education in some kind of professional or poetic art (like I also think those poets of wealthy families would also have been able to avail of basic combat training in their youth), were not pre-occupied with the study of poetic tradition, sagas, poetic meter and such as they had battles to fight, clients to manage and kin-groups to rule/manage etc.

So I think it is more than fair to say that the two classes were seperate and that in a historical context, the idea of warrior poets is out the window. That's not to say that those poets with affluent backgrounds couldn't have picked up some basic training in weapons if they had wanted to, like an affluent and inclined nobleman's son could have studied some basic poetic, legal or clerical arts in their youth.

We do see in later medieval Ireland that some nobles/clan-leaders have other professions eg. bishop or poet. I think this is a later development and even then was rare enough, as only a few nobles we hear of in all those centuries did so. It was probably more to do with the changing role of chieftainship with the changing structure of the island as a whole, the decline of the traditional Gaelic kingdoms and institutions and maybe Anglo-Irish influence on some level than with anything else. Though that's merely unfounded speculation on my part. I don't think this can be used as an argument for a hybrid class or classes, though perhaps it lends weight to the idea of the affluent seeking to study more of the professional arts, which is possibly a continuation of possible basic education in such fields amongst the affluent as discussed above.

[Sean-Hogan]

Hey,

I wanted to add something on the mythical characters of Erimon (hEremon in some texts) and Amergin. There was a bit on this subject in the first edition of the New History Of Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, Cormac Mac Cuilleanáin, king of Munster and abbot of Cashel, mocked the Irish people thusly:

Imprudens Scottotum gens, rerum suarum obliuiscens, acta quasi inaudita siue nullo modo facta uindicat, quoniam minus tribuere litteris aliquid operum quorum praecurat, et ob hoc genelogias Scottiae gentus litteris tribuam: primam Muminensium, secundam Laginensium, tertiam Neill, quartam Connachtorum.
(The foolish Irish race, forgetful of its history, boasts of incredible or completely fabulous deeds, since it has been careless about committing to writing any of its achievements, therefore I propose to write down the genealogies of the Irish race: firstly that of the men of Munster, secondly that of the Leinstermen, thirdly that of the Ui Neill and fouthly that of the men of Connacht.)

The Book of Invasions is essentially a collection of propaganda to fit the status quo of c.800's and synchronise a series of Clan's claims of decent, to better justify their claims for power. Almost everything about the Book of Invasions concerning the Gaels, or the Milesians, didn't exist prior to it. The above passage is proposed to be a preface to the eighth-century listing of genealogical lore, perhaps from Munster, since its source is alleged to have been Cormac Mac Cuilleanain the "Psalter of Cashel". However by the time of its composement, synchronists had already been obliged to add to Milesius' progeny posthumously: The Ulaid, the peoples of the ancient province of Ulster, did not belong genealogically to Leth Cuinn (Conn's Half) and never acknowledged the claims to sovereignthy made by the Ui Neill, and hence they had to fitted into the scheme by the addition of Ir son of Mil as their remote ancestor. Later other dynasties, whose claims as well had to be accommodated for, were written into the scheme of things; the results being that Mil's posthumous sons jumped from the "original" Erimon and Eber to eight sons in total. In order for this pseudo-history/mythology to work it isn't entirely unlikely that much of it was drafted to fit popular ideas of the times as well as avoid taboos, excepting of course that the taboos were laid on villainous characters. So, the use of Amergin as an example might not be too far-fetched.

Interestingly, Cormac Mac Cuilleanain wass a scholar and warrior than an ecclesiastic. He died in a battle at "Bellach Mugna", where, when he troops took to flight, he fell from his horse and snapped his neck. Afterwards his enemies cut his head off. That action, unless there's some law that notes otherwise (And I profess ignorance on that subject), might throw into question whether people of Ireland at the time would punish such a deed, to disfigure the body of a bishop, king or no.

[brendan]

when he troops took to flight, he fell from his horse and snapped his neck. Afterwards his enemies cut his head off. That action, unless there's some law that notes otherwise (And I profess ignorance on that subject), might throw into question whether people of Ireland at the time would punish such a deed, to disfigure the body of a bishop, king or no.

Fleeing battle is one of the ways that a King can lose status. Being without retinue is another. I am not sure the extent to which this was 'all or nothing' BUT if the king was devoid of status by virtue of cowardice then killing him would carry possibly carry no great penalty (compared to the same act in the king's own lands)

Brendan