This paper examines the characterisation of three conifers: yw (yew), pinus (pine) and ffynidwydd (‘fir’ in the broadest sense) in Middle Welsh sources, as well as the status of these trees in medieval Wales. Pine was likely extremely rare in Wales during the medieval period, but there is some evidence possibly referring to its presence in medieval texts. Yew was declining but more common, both as a naturally occurring species and as individual trees planted in churchyards and abbeys and beside holy wells. Yew gained a reputation for holiness based on these holy trees, and pine gained a separate reputation for holiness based on its appearance in the legend of the rood. All the conifers also seem to have acquired reputations as disruptive, liminal species and may have been included in texts as a sign to the reader that the ordinary rules of the secondary world had been suspended.

This paper presents an annotated transcription and translation of a legal deed in Irish, dated 1622, recording an agreement between Cairbre Ó Conchubhair and Richard Lane, pertaining to lands in Co. Roscommon. Historical background is provided as an introduction.

An early eighteenth-century greeting in accentual verse by Muircheartach Ua Gríofa to a medical doctor, Muircheartach Ó Dubhagáin, wishing him success and resilience as he embarks on an unspecified mission abroad.

Is éard atá san alt seo ná eagrán criticiúil den dán Uaigneach a- deirthear Dún Baoi, marbhna ar Eóghan Óg Ó Súilleabháin, a cumadh sa bhliain 1616. Tá an dán lán le híomhánna suimiúla den dúlra, agus tugtar léargas suimiúil dúinn ar an bport ag Dún Baoi ag an am sin agus an tábhacht a bhain leis mar ionad trádála agus láthair chruinnithe. Tá an t-eagrán bunaithe ar an dá leagan den dán a mhaireann i LSí in Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann. Foilsíodh tras-scríbhinn den dán seo in ABM sa bhliain 2010 le heagarthóire- acht éadrom déanta air. Tá aistriúchán Béarla curtha ar fáil anseo taobh leis an eagrán, chomh maith le plé ar theanga, meadaracht agus ábhar an dáin.

The late fifteenth-century Itineraries of William Worcestre pre- serve a brief account of the legendary history of Brittany. Although the fragment goes back ultimately to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s His- toria regum Britanniae, it differs from that in several respects. The exact match to the narrative is found in another fifteenth-century document, the so-called Canterbury Roll (previously known as the ‘Maude Roll’). The paper shows that this particular variant of the history of the conquest of Armorica was in some circulation in late medieval England, and provides some suggestions regarding the interrelation of the texts containing it.

The linguistic affiliation of Pictish has long been disputed. Since the nineteenth century many investigators of Pictish have argued that it was a Celtic language. Yet the morphological behaviour recorded in the Ogam inscriptions associated with the Pictish kingdoms is not paralleled in Brythonic or in Old Irish, and much of the onomastic material recorded in ancient sources such as Ptolemy’s Geography also appears to preserve characteristics that are not found in comparable Celtic forms. The morphology of Pictish indicates that it may be an Indo-European dialect influenced by Brythonic, but that it cannot be considered a regular member of the Celtic family of languages.

In Old Irish, the word díberg designated not only the activity of brigandage, and by extension an individual who performed such activity; but also a vow to kill undertaken by a brigand, and symbolic headgear representing this vow. It is proposed that the word mind, attested in the senses ‘diadem’ and ‘relic’, was originally also used of headgear of this kind. The discussion concludes with further observations on practices associated with oaths in pre-Christian Ireland, and on the changes undergone by these practices in the early Christian period.

This article presents a palaeographical and codicological examination of RIA MS 3 B 22 and RIA MS 3 B 23, two fifteenth-century volumes thought to have originally belonged together, written by Tadhg Ua Ríghbhardáin. RIA MS 3 B 23 contains a copy of The Monastery of Tallaght and an interpolated copy of Apgitir Chrábaid, both of which display certain palaeographical ‘peculiarities’ not found elsewhere in either manuscript volume. According to Gwynn and Purton (1911–12), these ‘peculiarities’ were probably copied from an exemplar. It is argued here, however, that these ‘peculiarities’ were introduced by Ua Ríghbhardáin himself and that he was assisted by another scribe who also employed unique palaeographical features. It is shown that Ua Ríghbhardáin deviated from his typical graphic repertoire and consciously modified his script when copying these texts. An overview of script modification in medieval Ireland is offered first, outlining the sources from which letterform variations were derived and the purpose for which scribes used them. This is followed by a palaeographical study of Ua Ríghbhardáin’s main scribal characteristics and, in turn, the ‘peculiarities’ employed by him and his assistant. Lastly, palaeographical and codicological features in the two manuscripts are reconsidered and it is suggested that they may not have been associated until much later in their history, contrary to previous suggestions that the two originally formed a single codex.

The article comprises notes on different aspects – readings, analyses, etymologies and interpretations – of six Cisalpine Celtic inscriptions: VA·1.1 kasikos, MI·2 atep, TI·49 inutu, TI·13 pirauiχeś, and the alphabetically Latin documents MI·15 SEUUONIS and MI·17 CALEDONOS.