AN GAODHAL.
929
of Chronicon Scotorum Cluanense, and which bel¬
onged also to the same Mr O'Flaherty, who cites
it very often in his Ogygia. I possess also a perfect
and authentic copy of the Annals of Inisfallen.“
The copy of Tighernach's Annals here last allud¬
ed to, there is every reason to believe, is that now
in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. The a¬
onymous writer in the Journal des Scavans was, I
have no doubt, Abbe Connery, though he may pos¬
sibly have been the Rev., afterwards the Rt. Rev.
Dr J. O'Brien, Bishop of Cluain Uamha (Cloyne).
How the MS passed from the hands of R O'Fla¬
herty into those of the Abbe, we know not, nor is
it certain what their destination was after his dec¬
ease. I believe it likely that they were for some
time the property of the Chevalier O'Gorman, tho'
at what period they came into Ireland is not clear,
but they appear to be at one time in the possession
of the above mentioned Dr Brien (the author of
the Irish-English Dictionary, printed in Paris in
1768), who probably brought them to Ireland a¬
bout that time.
The copy in the library of Trinity College, Dub¬
lin, underwent a pretty careful and accurate exam¬
ination at the hands of the Rev. Dr. O'Conor, and
he has left an autograph account of his examina¬
tion of it, which is now prefixed to the volume.
This critical examination is the more important
as having been made by one so familiar with the
ther copies of this codex in the Bodleian Library,
and as it well shows the actual state and compara¬
tive value of the Trinity College MS. it is well
worthy the attention of the student.
The Trinity College MS. appears to have almost
exactly the same defects as those in the Rawlin¬
son MS, No. 488 in the Bodleian Library. Both,
Dr O'Conor says, begin with the same words, but
this we do not find to be accurately and literally
correct, comparing the Trinity College MS. with
the version of the Rawlinson MS. 488, printed in
the second volume of the Rerum Hibernicarum
Scriptores. Doctor O'Conor enters with much de¬
tail into an argument to show that the T.C.D. MS
was copied, and, as he thinks, by a very illiterate
scribe, from the Bodleian MS. He pointed out va¬
rious faults in the Irish and Latin orthography
and grammar peculiar to both, and indeed incid¬
ental to the two copies.
We have already mentioned that there are two
copies of the Annals in the lipraay of the Royal I¬
rish Academy, but both, it is much to be regretted
are exceedingly imperfect. One, in the Irish cha¬
racter, is probably from the hand of the Abbe Co¬
nery already alluded to.
From all that has been said, it will appear that
not any one, nor even a collation and combination
of all the copies of these annals now known to be
extant, afford us any possibility of forming even a
tolerably complete text. In their present state, all
the copies want some of the most important parts
relating to our early history, and many chasms ex¬
ist at several of our most memorable epochs.
The authority of Tighernach is commonly app¬
ealed to by modern writers on Irish affairs, in fix¬
ing the date at which our national records should
be deemed to fall within the domain of credible
and authentic history. His well known statement
that the monuments of the Scoti before the time of
Cimboath and the founding of Emani (about 300
years before the birth of our Lord) were uncertain
has been almost universally accepted and servilely
copied without examination. And yet, on exami¬
ning the remains of his Annals which we now pos¬
sess, we shall find it extremely difficult to decide
how he was led to this conclusion, as to the value
of our records previous to this period, records
which we know to have existed in abundance in
his time. We have now no means of knowing why
he was induced to adopt this opinion, or what may
have been the grounds for it, or why, again, he
fixed on this particular event — one remarkable not
in the general national annals, but in those of a
single province — as that from which alone to date
all the true history of the whole country. It is, at
all events, exceedingly remarkable that he should
have assumed a provincial era instead of a gener¬
al national one, and that he should have chosen
the building of the palace of Emania, in the prov¬
ince of Ulster, near Armagh, instead of some ev¬
ent connected with the great national palace at Ta¬
ra, the existence and preeminence of which he him¬
self admits in the first passage of the fragments
which remain to us.
In the Rawlinson MS 438, as printed by O'Co¬
not, we find the passage runs thus.
"Anno xviii. Ptolemӕ ,initiatus est regnare in
Eamain (i.e. in Emania Ultoniae Regia), Cimbaeth
filius Fintain, qui regnavit annis xviii. Tunc in
Temair, Eachach-buadhach athair Ugainne (i.e.,
Tunc in Temoria, totius Hiberniae Regia regnabat
Eochadius Victor, pater Ugaini)." That is (for
the explanatory words in the parentheses are O'¬
Conor's). "In the 18th year of the reign of Ptol¬
emy, Cimboath, son of Finian, began to reign in
Emania, who reigned eighteen years. Then Eoch¬
aidh, the Victorious, the father of Ugaine, reign¬
ed in Tara." But he immediately after says, "all
the monuments of the Scoti to the time of Cimbath
were uncertain.
Of this singular preference of the provincial to
the national monarch as the one from whose reign
to date the commencement of credible Irish histor¬
y, we can offer no solution. It is, moreover to be
remarked that, at least in the copies of his Annals
now extant, Tighernach continues to give the suc¬
cession of the Emanian monarchs in regular order
through ten successive generations, without count¬
ing the contemporary rulers at Tara, of whom no
mention is again made until we come to the reign
of Dnach Dalta Deadhgha, whom he makes king
of Erinn about 48 years before the birth of our
Lord, when Cormac Mac Laghteghe, or Loitigh,
reigned in Emania. This period synchronizes with
the battle between Julius Caesar and Pompey.
The next kings of Erinn he mention are the two
Eochaidhs, whom he makes contemporay with Eo¬
chaidh Mac Daire, twelfth king of Emania. But
throughout it is to be remarked, and not without
great cause for surprise, that the Emanian dynas¬
ty is given the place of preference, which, as far
as we know, not to be found assigned to it in the
works of any other historian of an earlier or later
period. It is also to be observed that this prefer¬
ence for the Emanian dynasty is quite inconsistent
with his own statement as given under the reign of
Findchadh mac Biacheda, eighth king of Emania,
about 89 years before the Christian era, when he
says, "Thirty kings there were of the Leinstr men
over Erinn from Labhraidh Loingsech to Cathair
Mor." Now according to the best Irish chronolo¬
gists, Laboraidh Loingsech reigned B C. 522. and
Cathair Mor died A.D. 166 By this it is evident
that Tighernach here recognizes the existence
of supreme dynasty at Tara, ruling over Erinn at
lsast 200 years before the founding of Emania, or
