“Poor spite of your good learning..” O false sages!
Contention of the Bards Poem III.
Tadhg mac Dáire Mac Bruaideadha
Contention of the Bards Part 1:
https://archive.org/details/iomarbhghnabhf20mckeuoft
Contention of the Bards Part 2:
https://archive.org/details/iomarbhghnabhf02mckeuoft
Salmon of Wisdom Part 2
Forum rules
The obvious rules apply: behave yourself. Moderators will delete (parts of) posts that are inappropriate.
The obvious rules apply: behave yourself. Moderators will delete (parts of) posts that are inappropriate.
-
Cú Chulainn
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 15 Jan 2025, 18:32
Re: Salmon of Wisdom Part 2
This post expands further on the Contention of the Bards, the relationship between Niall of the Nine Hostages and Corc of Cashel, the interplay of bardic poets, and interconnectedness of likened cultures.
In relation to the “feud” between Niall and Corc, the Érimónian and Éberian seniors of their respective tribes, I found, through thorough testing of “Grok” AI as a data scraper, a hidden motif regarding the story of Niall of the Nine Hostages.
This motif is an element which the Filidh, more poet seers than bards, yet often described as those who procured bardic poetry, used against Niall to input a triple death narrative that twisted his story figuratively by sending shafts against him in the past by future strokes of the pen in epic metre.
The Book of Leinster features references to Niall, however in the notations that follow this initial primary source of prior ages of Gaelic history, there is a specific story elaboration which embeds Niall’s words to Corc and sets the narrative for an unusual truce at at time when more frequent than not, especially in successive centuries, Europeans would fight one another than choose to stand alongside each other.
Coinciding the Contention of the Bards testament, here is the Irish, then English, regarding Niall’s feud with Corc.
The passage (normalized Irish spelling, key lines in bold):
“Do-lluid Niall co n-óenach na noí catha co Mag Féimhin i n‑deiscert Érenn.
Do-bert Corcc mac Luigdech a díchell dá chéill ⁊ do-bert a lámach fó Niall.
Do-bert Niall trí túatha do Chorc i Mag Féimhin: an cétnai, an darna túath, an tres túath.
Ro-lá Corcc a chúl re Niall ⁊ ro-gab a ngloin i ndáil.
Ro-erich Corcc iarsin ⁊ ro-indis a scéla do Niall.
Is andsin ro-indis Niall do Chorcc: ‘Tabair dam-sa do géill ⁊ do chét mbuidne déc do géill.’
Ro-lá Corcc a chenn re Niall ⁊ ro-thairbir a géill.”
Literal translation:
“Niall came with the assembly of the nine battalions to Magh Féimhin in the south of Ireland.
Corc mac Luigthig neglected his sense and put his wrestling under Niall.
Niall gave three falls to Corc on Magh Féimhin: the first fall, the second fall, the third fall.
Corc turned his back to Niall and put his knee in submission.
Corc rose afterwards and told his tale to Niall.
Then Niall said to Corc: ‘Give me your allegiance and your fifty royal hostages.’
Corc put his head to Niall and offered his allegiance.”
What I find striking is the fact that modern analysis guts the Contention of the Bards as some poetic reverence that deems itself as constructed ramblings on national identity for propagating proof of history, rather than the deliberate, wit infused at that, supra exposition of a clearly transmitted historical narrative of truths, as opposed to the former’s expounded narrative of a post transcribed history of pseudo narrative for contemporary praising at the expense of allegiances over another’s.
Saying, quite deliberately this clear as day epic of the Gael, on par with the OL, is no more than nationalist musings of fantasy for “polemical exchanges” that do nothing to further the gnosis of a dying culture.
I counter this projected psychosis and deem it to be continued efforts at wiping the literary story of the Gael aside, since not only the wit is astronomically above those who review it, yet it composes two sides that go as far to defer easy points for hard ones to make their case for one (an Érimónian king) over another (an Éberian king).
To wit, Niall’s thrice throwing of Corc to the ground in wrestling, in any fashion, would be enough to shape the North’s (of Ireland) superiority, physically at minimum, over the South’s (of Ireland) any day of the week for the common man; yet, in the case of poetic historians that had family positions for such necessary means, would indicate, “Tagdh would destroy you,” in reference to refraining one of their own (a Northern poet) from bringing up such an easy take down, if you will, of the front man (the Southern poet, Tagdh) who started the “contention” in the first place.
It appears that Torna, Ollamh Érenn in Niall’s time, transmitted by Tagdh Mac Dáire, a Munster poet of equal footing as Torna in essence, indicated that Niall and Corc would compete against each other in feats of high archery in initial quatrains of the Contention’s first poems.
However, in the case of Niall’s death motifs, thrice, as the story goes (which may be the actual pseudo history if there is any in Gaelic lore), was slain by an arrow at the highlands of the picts, at the cliffs overlooking the sea of wight (English channel), and at the River Loire (located in France).
Why weren’t either of these mentioned in the Contention by either side, North or South?
To mention Niall’s defeat of Corc in wrestling by the North would unleash the shafts of the South against Niall himself, since, by poetic discernment, it is more likely that Niall bested Corc in archery, at each aforementioned point (highlands of Alba, sea of wight, river of France), than for Niall to have died thrice there.
How so? In Corc’s case, Torna (from Tagdh’s recounting, a Southern point mind you) said, “Corc would have gone further east had Niall not been against him.”
Thus, how would they choose to decide the fate of their expeditions, some of which near the Frisian lands of their respective lore, most certain by correlation along the now named English Channel? By way of high archery.
Archery being the thing that ultimately drew Niall back to the Ireland of his time, rather than pushing his legacy further east, akin to Alexander, culminating in the shrinking of his legacy in the literary sense when it comes to authenticated memory of actual exploits beyond poetic histories in the form of an epic, illicitly depicted as no more than rhymer’s musings by scholars of none-ethnii association of Gaelic tribes which still exist.
Thus, further, it is clear that both the Gael and the Frisian have faced equal means of literary denouncing for an obvious end, of preventing, if not erasing, cultural identity that consists of morally higher values, in the case of OL, and, what I will determine to be, historical data points of man (clearing of forests, bursting of lakes, ruling of these kin, battles won by this king), in the case of the Contention of the Bards (CotB).
Now, Niall and Corc would be akin to being the descendents of a Freya archetype figure in Scota, the mother of the Gael, which further persist, from the perspective of reconstructing new chronicling of history with its corresponding dating, in the happenings and enunciations of kings and people descended from said archetypical mother goddesses.
In relation to the “feud” between Niall and Corc, the Érimónian and Éberian seniors of their respective tribes, I found, through thorough testing of “Grok” AI as a data scraper, a hidden motif regarding the story of Niall of the Nine Hostages.
This motif is an element which the Filidh, more poet seers than bards, yet often described as those who procured bardic poetry, used against Niall to input a triple death narrative that twisted his story figuratively by sending shafts against him in the past by future strokes of the pen in epic metre.
The Book of Leinster features references to Niall, however in the notations that follow this initial primary source of prior ages of Gaelic history, there is a specific story elaboration which embeds Niall’s words to Corc and sets the narrative for an unusual truce at at time when more frequent than not, especially in successive centuries, Europeans would fight one another than choose to stand alongside each other.
Coinciding the Contention of the Bards testament, here is the Irish, then English, regarding Niall’s feud with Corc.
The passage (normalized Irish spelling, key lines in bold):
“Do-lluid Niall co n-óenach na noí catha co Mag Féimhin i n‑deiscert Érenn.
Do-bert Corcc mac Luigdech a díchell dá chéill ⁊ do-bert a lámach fó Niall.
Do-bert Niall trí túatha do Chorc i Mag Féimhin: an cétnai, an darna túath, an tres túath.
Ro-lá Corcc a chúl re Niall ⁊ ro-gab a ngloin i ndáil.
Ro-erich Corcc iarsin ⁊ ro-indis a scéla do Niall.
Is andsin ro-indis Niall do Chorcc: ‘Tabair dam-sa do géill ⁊ do chét mbuidne déc do géill.’
Ro-lá Corcc a chenn re Niall ⁊ ro-thairbir a géill.”
Literal translation:
“Niall came with the assembly of the nine battalions to Magh Féimhin in the south of Ireland.
Corc mac Luigthig neglected his sense and put his wrestling under Niall.
Niall gave three falls to Corc on Magh Féimhin: the first fall, the second fall, the third fall.
Corc turned his back to Niall and put his knee in submission.
Corc rose afterwards and told his tale to Niall.
Then Niall said to Corc: ‘Give me your allegiance and your fifty royal hostages.’
Corc put his head to Niall and offered his allegiance.”
What I find striking is the fact that modern analysis guts the Contention of the Bards as some poetic reverence that deems itself as constructed ramblings on national identity for propagating proof of history, rather than the deliberate, wit infused at that, supra exposition of a clearly transmitted historical narrative of truths, as opposed to the former’s expounded narrative of a post transcribed history of pseudo narrative for contemporary praising at the expense of allegiances over another’s.
Saying, quite deliberately this clear as day epic of the Gael, on par with the OL, is no more than nationalist musings of fantasy for “polemical exchanges” that do nothing to further the gnosis of a dying culture.
I counter this projected psychosis and deem it to be continued efforts at wiping the literary story of the Gael aside, since not only the wit is astronomically above those who review it, yet it composes two sides that go as far to defer easy points for hard ones to make their case for one (an Érimónian king) over another (an Éberian king).
To wit, Niall’s thrice throwing of Corc to the ground in wrestling, in any fashion, would be enough to shape the North’s (of Ireland) superiority, physically at minimum, over the South’s (of Ireland) any day of the week for the common man; yet, in the case of poetic historians that had family positions for such necessary means, would indicate, “Tagdh would destroy you,” in reference to refraining one of their own (a Northern poet) from bringing up such an easy take down, if you will, of the front man (the Southern poet, Tagdh) who started the “contention” in the first place.
It appears that Torna, Ollamh Érenn in Niall’s time, transmitted by Tagdh Mac Dáire, a Munster poet of equal footing as Torna in essence, indicated that Niall and Corc would compete against each other in feats of high archery in initial quatrains of the Contention’s first poems.
However, in the case of Niall’s death motifs, thrice, as the story goes (which may be the actual pseudo history if there is any in Gaelic lore), was slain by an arrow at the highlands of the picts, at the cliffs overlooking the sea of wight (English channel), and at the River Loire (located in France).
Why weren’t either of these mentioned in the Contention by either side, North or South?
To mention Niall’s defeat of Corc in wrestling by the North would unleash the shafts of the South against Niall himself, since, by poetic discernment, it is more likely that Niall bested Corc in archery, at each aforementioned point (highlands of Alba, sea of wight, river of France), than for Niall to have died thrice there.
How so? In Corc’s case, Torna (from Tagdh’s recounting, a Southern point mind you) said, “Corc would have gone further east had Niall not been against him.”
Thus, how would they choose to decide the fate of their expeditions, some of which near the Frisian lands of their respective lore, most certain by correlation along the now named English Channel? By way of high archery.
Archery being the thing that ultimately drew Niall back to the Ireland of his time, rather than pushing his legacy further east, akin to Alexander, culminating in the shrinking of his legacy in the literary sense when it comes to authenticated memory of actual exploits beyond poetic histories in the form of an epic, illicitly depicted as no more than rhymer’s musings by scholars of none-ethnii association of Gaelic tribes which still exist.
Thus, further, it is clear that both the Gael and the Frisian have faced equal means of literary denouncing for an obvious end, of preventing, if not erasing, cultural identity that consists of morally higher values, in the case of OL, and, what I will determine to be, historical data points of man (clearing of forests, bursting of lakes, ruling of these kin, battles won by this king), in the case of the Contention of the Bards (CotB).
Now, Niall and Corc would be akin to being the descendents of a Freya archetype figure in Scota, the mother of the Gael, which further persist, from the perspective of reconstructing new chronicling of history with its corresponding dating, in the happenings and enunciations of kings and people descended from said archetypical mother goddesses.