168
AN GAOḊAL.
dum —
"The breast [or fronts] of two leaves of the old
book, out of which I write this, are wanting here,
and I leave what is before me of this page for them.
I am Dubhaltach Firbisigh.”
Unfortunately, this defect occurs, by some un¬
known chance, not only to the extent of the loss
here noticed, but as far as from the year 722 to the
year 805.
It is remarkable that the defeat in the annals of
Tighernach should begin early with the same year
(718); but it extends much further, to the year
1068.
The order and arrangement of the events record¬
ed, and the events themselves, often, though not
always, agree with the annals of Tighernach. The
details are brief and condensed but they so often
convey scraps of rare additional information, as to
leave us reason to regret the unknown circumstan¬
ces which caused the writer to leave out, as he said
he did, the "tediousness" of the old historical
book.
The Chronicum comes, in its present form, only
to the year 1135; and, whether it was ever carried
down with more ample details to the year 1443,
when the compiler's translations for Ware com¬
mence, is a question will never probably be cleared
up. Such as it is, however, and as far as it goes
there can be no doubt of its being one of the most
authentic existing copies of, or compilations from,
more ancient annals.
I have already stated that this manuscript is in
the well-known hand of its compiler. Duald Mac
Firbis, and that it was written, probably about the
year 1650 ; yet we hear what the Rev Charles O'¬
Conor has to says of it, in the Stowe catalogue:
"Some have confounded this chronicle with Ti¬
ghernach's, because it is frequently called Chroni¬
con Cluanense, and was written in Tighernach's
Monastery of Cluainmacnois." He then continues.
"The Stowe copy now before us was carefully
transcribed from the Dublin cony, by the compiler
of this catalogue, from the Dublin MS, which is
quite a modern transcript, being the only copy he
could find."
How clearly these words show that the reverend
writer, though otherwise a sufficiently good schol¬
ar. was totally incompetent to pronounce a correct
opinion on the age of any Gaedhlic MS., from the
character of the writing, or from an acquaintance
with the peculiar hands of the different writers
who preceded him excepting indeed, that of his
own grandfather, Charles O'Conor, of Belanagar.
Yet there is no man more dogmatic in his dicisions
on the dates of manuscripts and compositions. —
"the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries," and "the
reign of James the First." Indeed I am obliged to
say that his readings and renderings of text, as well
as his translations of Irish, are as inaccurate as his
historical deductions, and even possitive statements
are often unfounded, however arrogantly advanced.
In connection with this fragment of the Lecain
collection of annals I may mention that there is a
short tract of annals preserved in the great Book of
Lecain, now in the library of the Royal Irish Aca¬
demy, the compilation of which was finished in
the year 1416. These annals are without date, and
some of the items are out of chronological order.
They begin with the battle of Uebhadh, which was
fought in the year 793, at a place of that name in
the county of Kildare, between Aodh Allan, the
monarch of Ireland, and the king and chiefs of
Leinster, in which the latter were completely over¬
thrown, and their whole country devastated and
nearly depopulated.
These chronicles come down to the treacherous
death of the celebrated Tiernan O'Rourke, king of
Breifne [Brefny], at the hands of the Anglo-Nor¬
man in the year 1172. The events recorded, brie¬
fly of course, are the reigns, battles, and deaths of
the monarchs and provincial kings of Ireland: the
accessions and deaths of the bishops and abbots of
Armagh; and the more unusual atmosphere phen¬
omena, such as remarkable seasons and other ex¬
traordinary occurrencies, etc.
There are several little additions, among the i¬
tems of information recorded in these annals, which
are not to be found in the Annals of the Four Mas¬
ters: as, for instance, in recording the death of the
monarch Maelseachlainn, or Malachy the Second
(who died Anno Domini 1022), they give a list of
five-and-twenty battles gained by him, of which
the Four Masters mention but four. In connection
with these battles also, many topographical names
are preserved, not to be found in any of the other
existing books of annals. And I may remark in
conclusion, that the annals contained in this short
tract are, as regards date of transcription, the old¬
est annals that we have in Ireland.
I shall close this lecture with some account of
one other book of annals, to which I have already
shortly referred, and which, though only remain¬
ing to us in the English language, is not without
its interest and value. I allude to the book tolera¬
bly well known under the name of the Annals of
Clonmacnois, the only copy or version of which
known to be extant is an English translation made
from the Irish in the year 1627, by Connla Mac
Echagan of Lismoyne, in the county of Westmeath
for his friend and kinsman, Torlogh Mac Cochlan,
Lord of Devlin, in that county.
The translation is written in the quaint style of
the Elizabethan period, but by a man who seems
to have well understood the value of the original
Gaedhlic phraseology, and rendered it every just¬
ice, as far as we can determine in the absence of
the original. It was believed, — and, indeed, there
a reason still to believe it, — that the original book
was proved in the possession of the family of the
late Sir Richard Nagle. who was descended from
the translator on the mother's side; however, on
the the death of the worthy baronet, a few years a¬
go, no trace of it could be found among the family
papers though other ancient memorials of the house
of Mac Echagan were preserved among them. It
was rumoured in the country, that this old book
contained, or might possibly contain some records
of events that would be as well for the Mac Echa¬
gan family not to have brought before the world,
and that for this reason the female representatives
of the family had for some generations kept the
volume out of sight. I had the honor of a slight
aquaintance with the late Sir Richard Nagle, which
I improved so much as to mention this tradition to
him. He did not deny the correctness of the rumor
as far as keeping out of sight of the book went; but
he had no knowledge of any particular reason.
more than a laudable care for what was looked
upon as a remarkable national record, and a wit¬
ness to the respectability and identity of the family.
Indeed, the impression left on my mind by my
conversations on this subject with Sir Richard was,
that the book had been in the custody of his moth-
