[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]women. There may have been a particular association of this offence
with women whether as victim or culprit because of women s
crucial role in milking and dairying. It is noteworthy that two of
the other versions of the evil eye passage occur in conjunction with
material on offences or failures by or against women, particularly those
leading to a divorce. Thus Version B is preceded by a passage on the
bruising of a wife (cétmuinter) or concubine (adaltrach) (672.36 7),
and by a passage on a wife s barrenness with consequent return of her
bride-price (672.38 673.2). This version is followed by a discussion
of the legal consequences if a woman has a child by a man other than
her husband (673.11 17), and on a husband s infertility (673.23 6).
Version C is followed by a discussion of forcible rape (éigen) and rape
by stealth (sleth) (955.12 21). Version D (1051.17 23) is a slip of
parchment which has arbitrarily been placed between pp. 500 and 501
in the manuscript.
Not enough of the Old Irish text on marriage and divorce has
survived for it to be dated with any degree of precision. The form
denughudh in Rawlinson B 506 (CIH i 140.10) may be for Classical
Old Irish díanugud (DIL s.v.) with archaic é. This would place the
text in the first half of the Old Irish period, perhaps seventh century.
On the other hand, the spelling of this section of the manuscript is
particularly irregular, so too much significance cannot be attached
to a single spelling. One can compare the unusual spellings ormath
(144.34) for ormat, imairius (146.10) for amaires, rigul (147.29) for
ríagul, nerguinch (148.11) for nerguinech. The commentary dates from
around the twelfth century.
No etlod tri ormath .i. in drochrusc, (a) acht masa duini dana gnath
ni do mhilliudh do gres, gidh re hesba gidh re beccdeithberus
gidh re hindeithberus [docuaid amach BD], gidh dabennaigh gidh
(=cin) gur bennaigh is lanfiach. (b) Mas re deitberus daeccma,
acht ma rabennaigh islan, mainir bennaigh is aithghin. (c) Masa
duini dunach gnath ni do milliud do gres, mas re beccdeithberus
[docuaid amach BD] dabennaigh islan, mainir bennaig is
aithghein. (d) Mas re hespa dachuaidh, cia rabennaigh gid gur
bennaigh is lethfiach. (e) Mas re hindeithberus foghla dachuaidh,
ge dabennaigh gidh gur bennaigh is lanfiach. (f) Mas re deithbirus
daeccma dachuaidh, ge dabennaigh gid gur bennaigh islan.
cel
2003
page
36 THE EVIL EYE IN EARLY IRISH LITERATURE AND LAW
Or stealing away through envy i.e. the evil eye; (a) if it is a
person whose habit it is to bewitch something generally, whether
through wantonness or minor necessity or culpability [that he went
out], whether he blessed or whether he did not bless, it is full
penalty. (b) If it is through unavoidable(?) necessity that it hap-
pened, provided that he blessed, it is without liability; if he did not
bless, it is restitution. (c) If it is a person whose habit is not gen-
erally to bewitch something, if it is through minor necessity [that
he went out] and he blessed, it is free from liability; if he did not
bless, it is restitution. (d) If it is through wantonness that he went,
whether he blessed or did not bless, it is half penalty. (e) If he went
out with criminal culpability, whether he blessed or did not bless,
it is full penalty. (f) If it is through unavoidable(?) necessity that
he went, whether he blessed or whether he did not bless, it is free
from liability.
No etlod tri ormath. The other versions have No etla tria format
(B), Int etla tre formad im- (C) and No etlo tria format (D). The original
text probably read No etlae tre ormat. The form etla(e) is vb.n. of as-
tlen steals away ; spellings with -ód are common in later manuscripts
(see DIL s.v. etla). Format is vb.n. of for-muinethar envies for
envy as a form of casting the evil eye, see section 4 of Part I above.
It is probable that in the original text the phrase no etlae tre ormat
came immediately after 144.30 Oghoghal dano etlod senmilg (Óg ogal
dano etlae senmilg) a full offence, indeed, is the stealing away of old(?)
milk . No is likely to be original, as it is present in three of the four
versions (ABD against C).
in drochrusc. The normal spelling of the nom. sg. is rosc (DIL s.v.
1 rosc eye ). In Versions B and D, the evil eye is called in drochsúil; in
C it is in béim súla the strike of the eye .
(a) acht masa duini. The other versions do not have acht here: masa
duini (B), ma duine (C), mas duine (D).
gnáth. The commentary distinguishes between persons who make
a habit of inflicting damage through the evil eye and those who do not.
The other versions use the word bés custom, practice , e.g. ma duine
dana bes do gres beim sula if it is a person whose regular practice is
the evil eye (Version C).
ni do mhilliudh. The verb millid ruins, destroys (vb.n. milliud)
can be used of damage, particularly on livestock, caused by the evil eye:
see section 3 of Part I above.
esba, beccdeithberus, indeithberus. Irish law regularly takes into
account various circumstances in which the liability for an offence may
be reduced or cancelled.211
docuaid amach. It makes better sense to read docuaid amach with
BD, and assume that this phrase was omitted from A. Version C uses a
211
Fergus Kelly, A guide to early Irish law (Dublin 1988) 149 54.
cel
2003
page
FERGUS KELLY 37
different construction with the verb imm-tét (immthigid) goes out (CIH
iii 955.2).
gidh dabennaig. As has been shown in section 5 of Part I of this
article, the effects of the evil eye can be countered by a blessing. Con-
sequently, if a person who is known to have the evil eye neglects to utter
a blessing, his legal liability may be increased.
lán íach, leth íach, aithgin, slán. Four legal circumstances are dis-
tinguished in relation to destruction caused by the evil eye. The first is
lán íach full penalty , which is due in the case of a person who is a
habitual offender. If he or she is not a habitual offender, and has cast
the evil eye through wantonness or folly, a half penalty (leth íach) is
due. If a person who is not a habitual offender goes out through minor
necessity, but fails to utter a blessing, he or she must provide restitution
(aithgin) for any damage caused by the evil eye. If a blessing is uttered,
he or she is without liability (slán).
(b) deitberus daeccma. I tentatively translate this phrase as
unavoidable necessity , though the range of variants renders the
interpretation of the second word uncertain. The variants in the other
versions of this commentary are doecma (Version B), doa echma
(Version C), and dechm- (Version D). The phrase is found elsewhere
in legal commentary, with a similar degree of spelling-variation in
the second word. Thus commentary on Heptad 23 (AL v 206.16) has
dosechmu (CIH i 22.31), doeachma (CIH ii 548.24) and doechmu (CIH
v 1837.28). Other spellings are doeagma (CIH i 188.25), doecma
(280.22) and dochma (283.11). It is clear from his footnote at CIH v
1837 that Binchy regarded the best reading as being doa echma, as
in Version C of the evil eye commentary. In addition, Version C uses
a verb sechmaid in the phrase in beim sula sechmas, where sechmas
seems to be 3 sg. pres. indic. rel. The verb sechmaid is possibly a
by-form of sechnaid avoids , vb.n. sechna; cf. CIH i 155.35 mani
raibhi a a eachna if it was not possible to avoid it .
The forms doecma, daeccma, etc. could be 3 sg. pres. subj. of
do-ecmaing happens , but this does not seem to suit the context.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]zanotowane.pldoc.pisz.plpdf.pisz.plkajaszek.htw.pl
