Oghamica : in a letter to J.G.A. Prim, Esq. / by Samuel Ferguson.
- Samuel Ferguson
- Date:
- 1873
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Oghamica : in a letter to J.G.A. Prim, Esq. / by Samuel Ferguson. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
10/14 page 8
![Mocchea description which seems to savour rather of an order than of a family affiliation and here I would observe that, if ‘ Maqi Mocoi’ and ‘ Maqi Decedda’ be anything in the nature of tribe-names, the tribes must he considered rather as families in religion than as lay relations ; for no other kiud of family could send its members so widely over both islands. Leaving Dufgal ‘ Maqi Mocche’ for such consideration as he may be deemed worthy of, I shall [secondly] next notice, more in detail, a matter which I ventured to glance at in a communication on this subject, read some time ago, at the Royal Irish Academy. The accomplished Trench inscriptionist, Edmond Le Blant, in the 1 Revue Arcbseologique’ (N. S. x., p. 5), in a valuable paper, entitled Sur quelques noms bizarres adoptes par les premiers Chretiens, has shown that, prior to the eighth century, pious— perhaps it would be better to say, fanatic—Christians were in the habit of assuming names of self-reproach and humiliation, such as, from amongst his examples:— Contumeliosus, Foedulus, Injuriosus, Maliciosus, Importunus, Molesta, Malus, Pecus, Exitiosus, Fimus, Calumniosus, Stercus, Insapientia, Stercoreus. In respect of the two last names, LeBlandt’s statement that they were names of reproach has, strangely enough, been called in question ; but a reference to Du Cange, under ‘Concagatum,’ will, I think, dispel any doubt on that subject. We find, in some of the Ogham texts, already decyphered, what seem to he indications of a practice of the same nature among those, whoever they were, for whom those memorials were written. ‘ Malus’ has its counterpart in ‘ Cobb’ (Seskinan) and ‘ Olcan’ (Glanavullin); Foedu- lus is repeated in * Turpill’ (Crickhowell); ‘ Insapientia’ seems to be reflected in ‘ Amadu’ (Ardmore); and the latter designations appear to have their counterpart in 1 Caqosus’ (Ballintaggart). To these I might add the recently observed legend at Donard, in Wicklow, which, if read retro- versely, yields ‘ Iniqui.’ If these be real, and not merely seeming agree- ments, it might not unnaturally be expected that ‘ Pecus’ also should have its representatives : and that names of vilification were in fact known to Irish Antiquaries to be concealed under Ogham texts—a fact strongly attesting the reality of the resemblances which I have noticed— appears from the following, which I submit as an important statement of Mac Curtin. In his treatise on Ogham writing, he says: ‘ It was penal for any but those that were sworn Antiquaries to study or read the same. For in these characters those sworn Antiquaries wrote all the evil actions and other vicious practices of their Monarchs and other great Personages, both male and female, that it might not be known to any but themselves, and their successors, being sworn Antiquaries as aforesaid.’2 I do not know Mac Curtin’s authority for this statement; but the statement itself is not 1 Reeves’ Culdees, App. 130. “Trans- 2 Irish Gram., c. 14, appended to “Die- actions” Royal Irish Academy. tionary,” p. 714.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22458451_0012.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
