SOURCE: "Mythology in Täin Bö Cuailnge" in Studien zur "Táin Bó Cuailnge," edited by Hildegard L. C. Tristram, Gunter Narr, 1993, pp. 114-32.

[In the essay that follows, Ó Cathasaigh explores the presence of Celtic and Indo-European mythological elements in the Táin and demonstrates how they were made meaningful for its Irish audience.]

Táin Bó Cúailnge is a work of some complexity, and it should therefore be amenable to a wide range of critical approaches, literary, linguistic, historical and mythological. The complex character of the Táin is sometimes overlooked by individual critics, but it is reflected in the diversity of the criticism which has been devoted to it. While that criticism is as yet quite modest in extent, the Táin has been discussed, in whole or in part, separately or as part of the Ulster Cycle, from a number of viewpoints, all of them having some implications for the general theme of orality and literacy. The Ulster Cycle was considered by the Chadwicks and their disciples as a reflection of a lost Heroic Age;¹ it has also been discussed, by Ó Corráin and Aitchison, in terms of the historical circumstances in which it was given shape.² The mythological components in the Táin, and in the Cycle generally, have been considered by O'Rahilly, Sjoestedt, Rees and Rees and others.³ James Carney held that the Táin was a work of literature, created in a mixed culture, and he agreed with Thurneysen that it was deliberately imitative of the classics.⁴ John Kelleher argues that the Táin was created in response to certain historical circumstances, but he implies that its dominant figure, Cú Chulainn, was based on the model of Jesus Christ.⁵

In view of all this it will be helpful to begin our discussion of the Táin with the question "Cid so?"; in other words to ask ourselves "What is it?". The answer is "not dificult": Táin Bó Cúailnge is an epic, and it follows that its primary claim on our attention must be as a work of literature. It is useful to make this point at the outset, because there has been a tendency to discredit the literary status of early Irish narrative texts, to see them, not as works in their own right, but rather in relation to myth or history or oral tradition. This tendency can be put down to the fact that the serious study of early Irish literature has historically (and necessarily) been the domain of philologists, who have understandably fought shy of the concerns and methods of literary critics. This is usually done without explanation or apology, but one eminent philologist, Jaan Puhvel, makes the case for his own discipline by expressing undisguised disdain for literary criticism:

Modern literary myth-critics, armed with ungainly ritualist and psychoanalytic panoplies, may indeed set to work on any ancient epic, as well as take apart to their own satisfaction a work by James Joyce or Scott Fitzgerald: they will never get any closer to the core of one than the other, because in their butcher shop all carcasses hang equal. If we are to make any headway in studying Indo-European epic as a narrative genre, philology alone will help us along.⁶

Our knowledge of early Irish literature we owe in large measure to philologists, and in the case of the Táin we are especially indebted to the late Cecile O'Rahilly for her remarkable editorial achievement;⁷ it is therefore with no disrespect for philology that I say that it alone, as traditionally practised, will not suffice if we are to understand our texts. There is of course nothing amiss in viewing the Táin within a mythological or historical perspective, nor would I suggest for a moment that it is not a suitable case for consideration within the general topic of this series of colloquia. All that I am saying is that we should always bear in mind what it is that we are dealing with. If that is done, we need not, and should not, exclude any critical approach to the Táin which remains faithful to the transmitted texts, and which helps to illuminate them.

Commentators on the Táin have ignored, rather than reviled, literary criticism, but the result is that we are still very much in the dark as to how the Táin is constituted as a work of literature. Moreover, one of the weaknesses of much of the commentary on the Táin has been the reductive way in which theories have been applied to it: thus T. F. O'Rahilly, being satisfied that the Ulster tales "are wholly mythical in origin," contends that "they have not the faintest connexion with anything that could be called history, apart from the fact that traditions of warfare between the Ulaid and the Connachta have been adventitiously introduced into a few of them, and especially into the longest and best-known tale, 'Táin Bó Cualgne'."⁸ Kenneth Jackson, on the other hand, states that the Ulster Cycle "belongs to the genre of literature of entertainment and contains very little that can reasonably or safely be taken for myth or ought to be interpreted as such."⁹ It is in no such reductive spirit that I begin my paper with a brief consideration of the Táin as epic.

For a general description of epic, we may turn to M. H. Abrams, who says that "in its strict use by literary critics the term 'epic' or 'heroic poem' is applied to a work that meets at least the following criteria: it is a long narrative poem on a great and serious subject, related in an elevated style, and centred on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or the human race."¹⁰ Setting aside the fact that it comprises a mixture of prose and verse, the Táin meets the criteria set out by, Abrams: it is a long narrative work, related for the most part in an elevated style; its subject matter, the invasion and defence of Ulster, is great and serious; it is centred on the heroic figure of Cú Chulainn, on whose actions the fate of Ulster depends. The difference between the Táin and short sagas such as Scéla Mucce Meic Da Thó ('The Story of Mac Da Thó's Pig') is not merely, or even mainly, a matter of relative length; the difference in scale, in subject matter, and in treatment of subject matter bespeaks a difference of genre between the Táin and the short sagas. This is not something which we can pursue here. For our purposes it is enough that the identification of the Táin as an epic helps us to put its mythic content into focus, and to see how what may seem to be quite disparate mythic strands are woven into a literary work which is simple in its general outline, but remarkably complex in its detail; single-minded in the achievement of its purpose, but multifarious in the means so used.

A question of literary history arises at this point. Was the Táin composed in deliberate imitation of classical epic, of Homer's Iliad or Vergil's Aeneid? Or is it rather a "primary epic," a type, which, as Abrams puts it, would have been "shaped by a literary artist from historical and legendary materials which had developed in the oral traditions of his nation during a period of expansion and warfare."¹¹ Thurneysen detected what he claimed were reminiscenses of classical epic in the Táin, and he was inclined to assign these to the Grundtext, in which, as it seemed to Thumeysen, an Irishman had for the first time attempted to compile a single extensive narrative from the "short narratives and episodes as the storytellers were accustomed to relate them," and which would compare with classical epic.¹² Thurneysen's view has been endorsed by James Carney,¹³ but Gerard Murphy and Proinsias Mac Cana have argued against it.¹⁴ Very briefly one might say that whereas Carney holds that the Táin was composed in imitation of Homer, Murphy rejects this and offers two other explanations for such similarities as exist between the Iliad and the Táin, the first being "a common Indo-European tradition," the second "the natural resemblance of manners in any Heroic Age."¹⁵ It is important to note that when Carney says that the Táin "consists in part of traditional material, in part of imaginative reconstruction of the remote pagan Irish past in form and terms that belong to the mixed culture of early Christian Ireland,"¹⁶ he recognizes the presence in the Táin of elements derived from oral narrative. Murphy, for his part, goes some of the way to meet Carney, saying that when Carney "warns us against regarding Christian elements in Irish stories about pagan times as 'interpolation' he is on firm ground. The pagan stories are available only in Christian versions, and the Christian element is as definitely a part of them as the Christian language in which they are told."¹⁷ What is in question, therefore, is the role of those who gave the Táin written form. Neither Murphy nor Carney would support Mac Cana's remarkable assertion that "it is (…) very possible—indeed probable—that an oral version of the Táin not radically different from the first written version was already in existence during the seventh century."¹⁸ The notion that the early writers of Irish saga were passive traditors of oral narrative is dismissed by Carney, who sees them "as literary authors rather than as scribes."¹⁹ I agree in general with this view of Carney's, which now commands increasing consent among scholars,²⁰ but I have to say that, whatever may have motivated or influenced the composition of the Táin, it has not as yet been demonstrated that the content of the Táin is derived in any significant measure from classical epic. It has also become necessary, in view of what has recently been happening in Irish studies, to mention the possibility of biblical influence, but again it remains to be shown that the content of the Táin is significantly indebted to the Bible.²¹

The Táin, as Cecile O'Rahilly puts it, "tells of a foray made by Medb of Connacht into the territory of the Ulaid for the purpose of carrying off the bull Donn Ćualnge from the district of Cúalnge, present-day Cooley, Co. Louth." As O'Rahilly remarks in this context, "plundering raids, especially cattle-raids, are a characteristic feature of Irish heroic saga;"²² we are reminded too of Scéla Mucce Meic Da Thó in which contention of the Connachta and the Ulaid for a gigantic pig is framed by their contention for an extraordinary hound. We cannot say whether this cattle-raid represents an ancient invasion-myth which here provides the kernel of an epic. What we can say is that the object of the quest, the Donn Cúalnge, is a creature of mythical proportions; his role in the Táin is complemented by that depicted or alluded to in other Irish texts; his Celtic congeners are represented in iconography and nomenclature; and he is an Irish reflex of an Indo-European male bovine, whose primary role in a myth of cosmogony by dismemberment is reflected in the Táin and in one of its associated remscéla ('prefatory tales'), De Chopur in da Muccida. Our knowledge of Donn Cúalnge is thus greatly extended by attending to the comparative data.

The mythological study of early Irish narrative has been conducted in two main ways, one of them being concerned with Celtic mythology, the other being the wider discipline of comparative mythology. The two are not always kept apart, but they nevertheless represent different orientations in the mythological study of Irish texts. Each of them, in its way, has light to cast on Donn Cúalnge.

In the narrower field of Celtic mythology, the texts are interpreted in conjunction with evidence from other sources for Celtic religion. An account of this kind of work is given by Anne Ross in the introduction to her Pagan Celtic Britain,"²³ where she discusses the three kinds of evidence which are available: the evidence of archaeology, the testimony of Greek and Roman commentators, and the vernacular literatures of Ireland and Wales.

Ross points out that "the evidence for the cults is very much of an archaeological nature, but its interpretation is another matter. The material evidence is suggestive of certain patterns of belief, but an understanding of these apparent patterns cannot be based on archaeology alone;" for such an understanding we must turn to the other two varieties of evidence. As for the comments of Greek and Roman writers, these "are too insubstantial and fragmentary to do more than point the way in certain instances. Moreover, it is only too easy to misinterpret archaeological evidence, and in complex societies such as those which existed in Celtic countries during the period of Roman occupation, where classical and exotic cults became fused and confused with the more homely native equivalents, we are indeed in the middle of a quagmire." Much more abundant than the testimony of Greek and Roman commentators is the evidence of vernacular narrative, which Ross characterizes as being "on the whole more reliable than the two sources already discussed." Our assessment of the reliability of Irish narrative as a source for Celtic mythology will depend, of course, on our view of the nature and extent of the oral component in the transmitted texts. Ross's view is that "we may suppose that certain cult legends, changed in a Christian milieu into hero tales or topographical legends, may have circulated for centuries until they found written form under the sympathetic aegis of the Irish church;" indeed I would say that her work presupposes that the cult legends must have circulated for centuries until they "found written form." Comparison of the narrative with the other sources can be helpful in two ways: "The other sources can assist in getting the mythology contained in these early literary traditions into perspective, and the literary material can act as an invaluable yard-stick against which the conclusions the archaeological material allows us to draw can be compared and measured." The fruits of this kind of work are described with some modesty: "And when, as is not infrequently the case, the three sources can all be shown to point in the same direction, then we may feel justified in concluding that, for a little while, and in a very limited fashion, we have managed to check the constantly shifting and changing patterns of Celtic religion, and have penetrated a little below the confusing, moving surface, to discover something of the permanent core which underlies the unstable picture which normally confronts us."

What we tend to get in this way is a thematic skeleton, derived in large measure from the archaeological evidence, but fleshed out with stories from Irish, and, to a lesser extent, Welsh manuscripts. The narrative material is indeed brought into perspective, but there must be some doubt as to the validity of that perspective. The criticism of Ross's book by Liam de Paor should be borne in mind: he reminds us that the Celts were an essentially non-literate people, and says that "if we wish to study the Celts at all, we are forced to see them as a half-Hellenised or half-Romanised people—because they are shown to us in the framework of Greek or Roman ideas—or we are forced to try to understand the society and ideas of one people, such as the Gauls or Britains of pre-Roman times, through the writings (about themselves) of another people, the Irish of a thousand years later."²⁴ Ross's work is nevertheless valuable as a work of reference: the material which she has gathered, for example, about the bull shows the importance of this animal in Celtic iconography and nomenclature, and tends to confirm the impression which we get from the Irish literary sources that the Donn Cualnge has its origins in a bull-cult.²⁵

The second way in which the mythological content of the texts can be studied is that of comparative mythology. The work which we have been considering is of course comparative, in so far as it entails the comparison both of different kinds of evidence, and of the narrative texts of Ireland and Wales. But the study of comparative mythology differs from that of Celtic mythology in taking a wider canvas, either within a general science of comparative religion, in which typological comparisons are made, as in the work of Mircea Eliade, or a comparison of the myths and literatures of speakers of Indo-European languages, where similarities are deemed to spring from a genetic relationship among the items compared. Here we are comparing text with text; in this we are perhaps on firmer ground than when the comparison is of text with icon or other item of material culture. But it must be remembered that the reading of any given text is to some degree interpretive, and, in the case of early Irish narrative, the hypothesis is that we are dealing with mythology refracted through literature.

In the nineteenth century, comparative mythology was practised by philologists, but criticism of their theories led, by the end of the century, to what has been aptly called 'the eclipse of solar mythology'.²⁶ Comparative mythology had something of a second coming in Ireland in the work of T. F. O'Rahilly: he criticised John Rhys for having applied "'solar' methods of interpretation in all directions with incredible recklessness,"²⁷ but he was able, for his own part, to see a solar deity in the type of personage which he called the 'Otherworld God', and of which he names as examples, among many others, both Donn Cúalnge and Culann's Dog, who is slain and replaced by Cú Chulainn.²⁸ In France, in the meantime, Georges Dumézil was rehabilitating the comparative study of mythology on a foundation which combined anthropological and sociological considerations with those of philology.²⁹

Two aspects of Dumézil's work are relevant to our topic. In the first place he has uncovered a number of story-patterns which can be taken to have their origins among the speakers of Proto-Indo-European. Secondly, he has discerned in numerous texts in the Indo-European languages a common ideology which he has also attributed to the speakers of the original language. We shall consider the matter of ideology somewhat later, but here I want to draw attention to an Indo-European story-pattern which Bruce Lincoln has uncovered in the Táin.³⁰ Lincoln analyses what he calls the Indo-European myth of the first sacrifice, of which independent Indian, Iranian, Germanic and Roman versions can be located, in addition to Greek, Russian, Jewish, and Chinese versions "that seem to be the result of secondary diffusion."³¹ In each of the primary texts, a primordial being is killed and dismembered, and from his body the cosmos is fashioned.³² On the basis of comparative reconstruction, Lincoln argues that the Proto-Indo-European myth is one which is characteristic of pastoralists. It tells of the creation of the world through the primordial sacrifice of a man and an ox or a bull, and it establishes a pattern for all future sacrifice and for all future creation.³³ Two major variants of the Indo-European myth are reconstructed, one Indo-Iranian and the other European.³⁴

Now Lincoln sees a reflex of this myth in the confrontation of the bulls at the end of the Táin and-in the prefatory tale De Chophur in da Muccida.³⁵ (The latter tells that the bulls originated as pig-herds, and went through a series of transformations as various creatures before they reached their final condition; there is an allusion to this story in the Táin itself when Dubthach prophesies: "There will come a leader of armies who will try to recover the cattle of Murthemne. Because of the companionship of the two swineherds, ravens of the battle-field will drink men's blood.")³⁶ Lincoln remarks:

This Irish variant of the Proto-Indo-European myth has been much transformed. Relegated to a position as prologue and postscript to an epic tale of battle and adventure its characters and values are thoroughly subjugated to those of the epic. Its heroes become retainers and servants of epic kings, or alternatively, the bulls sought by those kings as booty. Its central act of sacrifice becomes an epic duel between those noble bulls. For all these trans-formations, it remains recognizable nonetheless and provides valuable confirmation of the authenticity of the Indo-Iranian versions of the myth on numerous points.³⁷

Here, then, we have an example of myth refracted through literature. In this respect the Táin and its prefatory tale belong to the category which Jaan Puhvel has recently described as follows:

Yet equally important is the next level of transmission, in which the sacred narrative has already been secularized, myth has been turned into saga, sacred time into heroic past, gods into heroes, and mythical action into 'historical' plot. Many genuine 'national epics' constitute repositories of tradition where the mythical underpinnings have been submerged via such literary transposition. Old Chronicles can turn out to be 'prose epics' where the probing modern mythologist can uncover otherwise lost mythical traditions. Such survival is quite apart from, or wholly incidental to, the conscious exploitative use of myth in literature, something that Western civilization has practiced since artful verbal creativity began.³⁸

There are some questions here for the comparatist: for example, is it not possible to think of an Indo-European epic hero, of which Cui Chulainn is to some degree a reflex? I, for one, find it hard to credit that he is an Indo-European god who has been transformed into an Irish hero. But the general point that an epic like the Táin constitutes a repository of tradition is well illustrated by Lincoln's findings.

Enough has been said about the great bull which was the object of the raid; let us turn now to consider some of the other mythological components of the epic, and we may begin with a look at the cess or 'debility' with which the Ulstermen were afflicted; this is a necessary condition of the raid, since it renders the Ulstermen unable to defend their territory. This cess has been much discussed, and the most plausible interpretation of the way it is presented in the Táin seems to me to be that of Tomás Ó Broin, who sees it as "a death or winter sleep" of the kind represented in seasonal myth and ritual.³⁹ The effects of the winter sleep are overcome by the actions of Cú Chulainn; the basic idea is "the triumph of life and fecundity over death and decay."⁴⁰

We first hear of the 'debility' of the Ulstermen before the raiders set out from Connacht. Medb encounters Fedelm, a poetess who is possessed of the power of prophecy called imbas forosna, and asks her to prophesy the fate of Medb's expedition. Fedelm's chilling prophecy is: "I see it blood-stained, I see it red." But Medb is nothing daunted: "'That is not true;' said Medb, 'for Conchobor lies in his debility in Emain together with the Ulstermen and all the mightiest of their warriors, and my messengers have come and brought me tidings of them'."⁴¹ The expedition sets out "on the Monday after Samain."⁴² Fergus sends a warning to the Ulstermen "who were still suffering from their debility, all except Cú Chulainn and his father Suialtaim;"⁴³ it was apparently they who received Fergus's warning, and it was Cu Chulainn in particular who acted upon it. The reason for Cú Chulainn's immunity is later hinted at by Fergus. He is recounting one of Cú Chulainn's Boyhood Deeds, and he says: "On another occasion, the Ulstermen were in their debility. Among us women and boys do not suffer from the debility nor does anyone outside the territory of Ulster, nor yet Cú Chulainn and his father."⁴⁴ Cecile O'Rahilly points out⁴⁵ that this particular passage seems to derive from the tale Noínden Ulad, which purports to explain the origin of the debility, and which explicitly states that Cú Chulainn did not suffer from the debility because he was not an Ulsterman (ar nirbo do Ultaib dó).46

There are clear indications in the Táin that the debility lasted for the three month from Samain (Ist November) to Imbolc (Ist February), which in Ireland are the three months of winter. So much is implied in Recension II,⁴⁷ while in Recension I we are told that Cú Chulainn fought single-handed "from the Monday after Samain until the Wednesday after the festival of Spring" (ón lúan íar Samain cosin Cétaín íar nimoig ');⁴⁸ we are also told twice that he fought for the three winter months ('trí mísa gaimrid')." Ó Broin's notion that the debility is a winter sleep is obviously consistent with these indications as to its duration.

A difficulty which must be considered is the surprise expressed by Fergus at the duration of the debility in the Täin: "'And I find it strange', said Fergus, 'that they are so long in recovering from their debility"' ("'Ocus machdad limsa," ol Fergus, "a fot co tecatside assa cessaib ".) ')⁵⁰ We would expect Fergus, of all people, to know the facts of this matter. It is conceivable that this utterance of his is intended to deceive the Connachta, whom he is addressing on this occasion. We have clear evidence of the duplicitous side of his character in the passage of the Táin in which he takes the invading Connachta on a detour to give the Ulaid time to complete the mustering of their army.⁵¹ The narrator tells us about this, adding for good measure that Fergus acted "out of affection for his own kin" ('ar chondalbai).⁵² When Medb challenges Fergus and suspects that he may be feeling "the pull of kinship," he denies his treachery.⁵³ Whatever about Fergus's intentions in relation to the Connachta, however, his expectation that the Ulaid would have time to complete the mustering of their army is scarcely compatible with their debility, and it suggests therefore that Fergus was unaware that they were in that condition. Perhaps we should simply remember that absolute consistency is not to be expected on matters of this kind. By way of illustration in the Táin itself, we may compare the clear implication, to which I have already alluded, that Cú Chulainn was immune to the debility because he was not an Ulsterman with the remark made by Follomon son of Conchobor when the young Cu Chulainn (then called Sétantae) came as a stranger to Emain Macha: "The boy insults us … Yet we know he is of the Ulstermen" ('sech rafetamár is di Ultaib dó).⁵⁴ In any case, even if Fergus's avowed surprise at the duration of the debility is to be taken as genuine, it may indicate a certain instability in the tradition relating to the matter, but it does not negate the clear statement in the Táin that on this particular occasion the Ulstermen were afflicted for three months.

Cecile O'Rahilly points out that there is also in Recension I "a suggestion that the attack of cess was intermittent:"

In a long passage denoted by the scribe as córugud aile containing many roscada and obviously belonging to the oldest stratum of TBC we are told that Cú Chulainn goes to Conchobor to warn him of the enemy's attacks, but Conchobor tells him that the warning is useless and comes too late: 'Indiu tonánic ar tinorcuin in chétnae' (1219-20), 'Today we have been smitten (by the cess) as before'. The H-interpolator later takes up the same point and borrows the word tinnorcain when he tries to explain how the Ulsterman Munremar can come to fight with Cú Rof. 'At this point the noéden Ulad came to an end. According as they awoke (from their cess) a band of them kept attacking the (enemy) host until they were once more smitten (by their cess)' … 1629-30.⁵⁵

The remark of Conchobor's which O'Rahilly quotes would not seem to be very telling one way or the other: it could simply be a way of saying that the Ulstermen are still afflicted by the debility. As for the narrator's words as given by the H-interpolator, they certainly indicate that a temporary remission from the debility was considered possible. This is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of a winter sleep: we could say in seasonal terms that spring has seemed to come early, but that it is a false spring, and quickly yields once more to the sleep of winter.

Ó Broin has been accused of distorting the textual evidence,⁵⁶ but it is quite clear that the cess is presented in the Táin as a winter sleep. In accepting this, however, it is not necessary to follow Ó Broin in his theory that the cess is based on a fertility ritual.⁵⁷ The seasonal character of the debility does suggest a connection with fertility, however, and we shall see presently that the circumstances of Cú Chulainn's conception imply that he is to be a fecundating hero. The cess in the Táin is also symptomatic of the collapse of social order. As Joan Radner has said in a different context:

Thematically, the Ulster Cycle as a whole tends to present the tragic breakdown of those relationships on which early Irish society was founded: the relationship between host and guest, between kin-dred, between fosterbrothers, between men and women, between lords and clients and kings and overkings, between the human world and the gods.⁵⁸

It is Cú Chulainn, in Sjoestedt's words, "their defence and their champion (…) at once the glory and the living rampart of his tribe"⁵⁹ who saves Ulster from final disaster, and so I turn now to a brief consideration of what has been called the Myth of the Hero, as it is represented in the Ulster Cycle, and in the Táin in particular.

We have seen that an epic is said to be "centred on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation or the human race."⁶⁰ In the Táin, Cú Chulainn is that figure: the work celebrates his martial heroism, his courage and ingenuity, his mastery of the martial arts, his unswerving loyalty. In short, he is an epic hero, the epic theme of the Táin being his single-handed defence of Ulster. When we look at his life as a whole, however, we find that it is a realisation of the heroic biographical pattern common to Indo-European and Semitic tradition.⁶¹ This pattern is not confined to epic heroes, but in Cú Chulainn's case it is realised in martial terms that are altogether appropriate to epic.

It is characteristic of the heroic biography that the birth of the hero is anomalous, and Cú Chulainn is no exception. The early version of his conception-story⁶² opens with the theme of the Waste Land: the fruits of Emain Macha are consumed to the roots by birds. The Ulidians set out in pursuit of the birds, and they are led to Bruig na Bóinne, the great necropolis at the end of the Boyne, and a site of singular importance in Irish myth. There Sétantae was born, and he was brought back to Ulster; he died, but he was conceived again. The parents of his first conception were the god Lug and his (unnamed) Otherworld consort, those of his second Lug and Dechtine, sister to the Ulster king, Conchobor. Sétantae was not born of his second conception, but was conceived for a third time, his parents now being the human Sualdam and Dechtine. (Sétantae later went on to acquire the name Cú Chulainn, in circumstances which are recounted in the Táin.)

The theme of the Waste Land implies the need for a fecundating hero, an element which is of course consistent with Ó Broin's interpretation of the debility of the Ulstermen as a winter sleep, from the effects of which Ulster is rescued by this vigorous young male as the vital force in nature. Cú Chulainn shares with many sacred or mythic personages the characteristic of dual paternity: he is at once the son of a god (Lug) and of a human father (Sualdam). As I have already said, anomalous birth is a predictable feature of the heroic biography. It is therefore quite unnecessary to assume that the numerous Irish examples of this phenomenon are based on the life of Christ. John Kelleher, however, has noted that Irish annalists placed the death of Cú Chulainn at 2 A.D., and, having made the unexceptionable point that "the choice of that date—like 33 A.D. for the death of Conchobor—was clearly to associate these heroes with Christ,"⁶³ he goes on to say: "Thus the lives of Christ and Cú Chulainn overlap by one year—to which may be added that each of them has a life-span divisible by three; each has a divine father but is known as the son of a mortal father; each dies for his people, erect and pierced by a spear. By such manipulations the pre-eminence of the Táin was again asserted."⁶⁴ The implication is that just as the death of Cú Chulainn was dated to overlap with the life of Christ, so also the other features of his biography mentioned by Kelleher were "manipulations" whereby Cú Chulainn was associated with Christ.

This seems to me to be extremely far-fetched. Cú Chulainn's role in the Táin is indeed that of saviour of his people, but he is a very different kind of personage from Jesus Christ. Moreover, while he shares with Christ, and with many other heroes, the characteristic of dual paternity, he differs from them in having a triple conception, which shows a sequence from fully divine, through mixed divine and human, to fully human parentage. I have elsewhere said of this sequence that in it

the hero recapitulates in his own life the history of man, since, if we may judge from the occurrence of deity names in their pedigrees, the Irish apparently believed themselves to be descended from the gods. Furthermore, this sequence gives us a singularly clear example of the manner in which the hero mediates between the gods and men: the second (or middle) conception, linked to the first and third by Lug and Dechtine respectively, mediates the opposition between the divine and the human. In this case at least the 'meaning' of the triplicity of the hero is inseparable from the structure of the narrative."⁶⁵

Kim McCone, who accepts Kelieher's views on Cú Chulainn, writes as follows about the conception-story:

Going as it does well beyond the standard requirements of heroic liminality, this genesis of the Ulster hero par excellence can hardly be understood except as an orthodox allegory and 'native' typology of Christ's mysterious incarnation as set forth in the New Testament.⁶⁶

One has to say, however, that the narrative also goes well beyond what might reasonably be required of an orthodox allegory and "native" typology of Christ's incarnation. The three-fold conception of Cú Chulainn is not directly based on the story of Christ, and it must be seen rather in the light of the prevalence of triplicity of gods and heroes in Irish literature, and of the occurrence of triplicity in Celtic iconography. Perhaps this is what McCone has in mind when he speaks of "native" typology, but it can be understood as such without recourse to the hypothesis of Christian allegory. Moreover, there are good comparative grounds for holding that Cú Chulainn's triplicity is an inherited feature which is inextricably bound up with his destiny as a warrior. Cú Chulainn's warrior initiation is achieved by successful combat with the three sons of Nechta Scéne;⁶⁷ taken together, his conception and his initiatory combat exemplify the Indo-European theme which Dumézil has summed up in the formula 'The third kills the triple'.⁶⁸

We have wandered away from the Táin in our treatment of Cú Chulainn as hero, but with the three sons of Nechta Scéne we have returned, not, it is true, to the three-month time frame of the great raid, but to Cú Chulainn's 'Boyhood Deeds', which are recounted to the invaders by exiled Ulstermen. There is evidence in the Book of Leinster of some disagreement as to the status of the 'Boyhood Deeds' in relation to the Táin; we are informed that they were classified by some people as 'prefatory tales', but that they are in fact narrated in the body of the Táin.⁶⁹ Daniel Melia has pointed out, however, that we have no version of the Táin which lacks the 'Boyhood Deeds', and he is doubtless correct in saying that they "were considered a part of the Cattle Raid of Cooley from the time that it was put together as an entity."⁷⁰

The episodes which constitute Cú Chulainn's 'Boyhood Deeds' are successive stages in the development of the martial hero and of his incorporation into society. Melia has shown that many of them share the pattern of arrival, opposition, and final acceptance: Cú Chulainn enters from outside; he asserts himself against the men of Ulster; and he is accepted by the Ulstermen as a warrior (several times by Conchobar himself). Within the framework of this recurrent pattern we find a cumulative exposition of heroic themes, which have been well treated by Alwyn and Brinley Rees.⁷¹ We can regard them as mythical in origin, but it is instructive also to consider their place in the epic.

The 'Boyhood Deeds' present Cú Chulainn as a precocious hero: "one can say that for the purpose of the larger story his precocious heroism cannot simply be stated but must be illustrated graphically."⁷² The Connacht army—and the reader—are being prepared for Cú Chulainn's prodigious feats in the Táin, and those very feats are lent a degree of verisimilitude by the accumulation of eye-witness accounts of his youthful exploits. Within the framework of the Táin, then, the 'Boyhood Deeds' arouse expectations, and in a way authenticate Cú Chulainn's subsequent actions in all their extravagance. The narrative device which is used—that of the so-called 'flashback'—enables the narrator to escape from the tyranny of linearity, and to appropriate for his purpose events which lie outside the temporal frame of the cattle raid. One of the major themes of the Táin is martial heroism, and the portrayal of the hero is deepened by the details of the Boyhood Deeds'.

Much of the ideological content of the Táin is centred on the heroic figure of Cú Chulainn. Proinsias Mac Cana has drawn a contrast between the king tales and those devoted to martial heroes:

The king tales taken as a whole have a social orientation, centred as they are on the paramount institution in Irish society. By contrast, when we turn to the heroic literature pur sang we find by and large that each protagonist stands as an in-dividual rather than as a kind of surrogate for society. The hero par excellence is the hero alone.⁷³

There can be no gainsaying that the martial hero par excellence is the martial hero alone; indeed, the best example we have is Cú Chulainn who stands alone against the invaders of Ulster. Yet in doing so he is a kind of surrogate for society, and in particular for the men of Ulster who lie stricken by their debility. But this is scarcely what Mac Cana has in mind: the social orientation of the king tales is seen in their ideological content, and this is presumably what Mac Cana thinks is lacking in the tales of martial heroism. The fact is, however, that the ideology of warfare is richly explored in the Táin, and in other tales of the Ulster cycle. Important work on this aspect of the material has been published by Philip O'Leary.⁷⁴ I would also mention here the way in which kinship is presented in these tales, and especially Cú Chulainn's status as a sister's son to Conchobor (and to the Ulaid as a whole).⁷⁵ There is no lack of social orientation in the Ulster cycle: what we need is further detailed analysis of the ideological content of the texts.

T. F. O'Rahilly discerned two basic myths in the Irish material, the Myth of the Birth of the Hero, and the Myth of the Rival Wooers. The latter, more prosaically known as the eternal triangle, is represented in the Táin by Medb, her husband Ailill, and her lover Fergus. Medb shows many of the characteristics of the goddess of sovereignty, but we see little of this in the Táin. It has been suggested that the three essential attributes of a king—justice, victory, and the power to give fruitfulness to the earth and health to mankind—are reflected in Medb's requirements in a husband: he must be without jealousy, without fear, without niggardliness.⁷⁶ There is also an ideological dimension in the relation-ship between Fergus and Medb, the essential notion being that, by yielding to Medb's attractions, Fergus is unmanned, and betrays his own kith and kin.

The unmanning of Fergus is expressed in terms of the taking of his own sword from its scabbard. This is done by Ailill's charioteer while Fergus and Medb are engaged in intercourse. When Fergus discovers his loss, he fashions a wooden sword as a replacement.⁷⁷ Cú Chulainn later speaks derisively of Fergus's "empty rudder."⁷⁸ Connall Cernach upbraids Fergus for assailing his own people "for the sake of a woman's buttocks."⁷⁹ These sentiments are echoed by Fergus himself when he finally speaks of the folly of following a woman's buttocks.⁸⁰ In general, this is an expression of the inappropriateness of following a woman into battle: we may compare Ailill's contemptuous dismissal of banchomhairle (woman's counsel).⁸¹ More precisely, however, the sexual nature of Fergus's relationship with Medb is in contrast with Cú Chulainn's response to the advances of a beautiful young woman (who in reality is the Morrígan in disguise): he rejects them, saying that it was not for a woman's buttocks that he had undertaken his task.⁸² The warrior is single-minded in pursuit of his aims, and is not to be distracted by sexual temptation. It is true that Cú Chulainn had earlier abandoned his post for an encounter with Fedelm Nóichride, but he does this in fulfillment of a pledge which he has already given, and he takes precautions to ensure that the raiders will not be able to take advantage of his absence.⁸³

A further layer of meaning is encoded in the allusion by Conall Cernach, Fergus and Cú Chulainn to a woman's buttocks. Thomas Charles-Edwards has pointed out that these allusions echo the account given in the laws of the circumstances in which a freeman forfeits his legal rights: he "follows the buttocks of his wife across a boundary," and henceforth depends for his status upon the status of his wife.⁸⁴ This is obviously regarded with disdain: loyalty to kindred is an absoluted value, and it is love of kindred which saves Ulster in the Táin.⁸⁵ In all of this we have further evidence of the "social orientation" of the heroic literature.

It has not been possible to do more in the space at my disposal than to touch upon some aspects of the mythological component in the Táin. We can claim, however, that some of the personages, some of the story-patterns, and some incidental details in the Táin reflect the Celtic, and even the Indo-European, heritage of Ireland. To the extent that they do so, credit must be divided between the oral traditors who made them available to the epic's authors, and those authors in turn for having used them in their literary work. Out of fairness to these authors, it must be stressed that the Táin is no mere "respository of tradition," still less a "dessicated husk."⁸⁶ By way of illustration, we may take Cú Chulainn's role as sister's son, which I have already mentioned as part of the ideology of kinship which is presented in the Táin. The role of the sister's son, which is also a central concern of Cath Maige Tuired, is part of the ideological framework within which the Irish accommodated the story of Christ: so much is clear from the manner in which his life and death are narrated by the eight-century Blathmac. His work "offers a clear demonstration of the presence of a set of concepts relating to the sister's son in the ideological matrix within which the poet apprehended the life of Jesus. This set of concepts is an inherited one: it is reflected in the kinship terms, in the laws, and in the literature."⁸⁷ The ideology which is expressed in the Táin includes inherited elements, then, which cannot be dismissed as mere baggage, retained for the purposes of a literature of entertainment. That the ideology which underlies the Táin was charged with meaning for Irish people in the eighth century is shown by Blathmac's recasting of the life of Christ within the framework of that ideology.

Recent scholarship has fruitfully attended to the specifically ecclesiastical elements in early Irish literature. It is important that this new emphasis should not lead to a devaluation of the material which derives from extra-ecclesiastical sources. I have remarked elsewhere that

early Irish literature is not the detritus of a lost mythology, nor yet a new phenomenon, born, like Athena, fully grown. It is the creation of a society which had two sets of cultural institutions, one indigenous and oral in its medium, the other ecclesiastical and literate. These were sometimes hostile, sometimes amicable, but between them they contributed to the formation of a literature which combined matter drawn from the oral tradition with other elements and transmuted them into something new.⁸⁸

Ulster's epic, Táin Bó Cúailnge, is one of the works of literature which was thus brought into being.

Notes

¹ H. M. Chadwick and N. K. Chadwick, The Growth of Literature, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1932), passim; Gerard Murphy, Saga and Myth in Ancient Ireland (Dublin, 1955), pp. 25-47, reproduced in Eleanor Knott and Gerard Murphy, Early Irish Literature (London, 1966), pp. 114-31; K. H. Jackson, The Oldest Irish Tradition: A Window on the Iron Age (Cambridge, 1964), passim. Criticism of the Heroic Age theory will be found in J. N. Radner, "'Fury Destroys the World'," Mankind Quarterly, 23 (1982), 41-60; Tomás Ó Cathasaigh, "Pagan Survivals: the Evidence of Early Irish Narrative," in: Ireland and Europe: The Early Church, ed. Próinseas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Stuttgart, 1984), 291-307, pp. 296f.; N. B. Aitchison, "The Ulster Cycle: Heroic Image and Historical Reality," Journal of Medieval History 13, 87-116.

² Donnchadh Ó Corráin, "Irish Origin Legends and Genealogy: Recurrent Aetiologies," in: History and Heroic Tale: A Symposium, ed. Tore Nyberg and others (Odense, 1985), 51-96, p. 85; N. B. Aitchison, op.cit.

³ T. F. O'Rahilly, Early Irish History and Mythology (Dublin, 1946), p. 271 and passim; Marie-Louise Sjoestedt, Gods and Heroes of the Celts (London, 1949); Alwyn Rees and Brinley Rees, Celtic Heritage (London, 1961), passim.

⁴ James Carney, Studies in Irish Literature and History (Dublin, 1955), pp. 276ff., 321f.; idem, "The History of Early Irish Literature: The State of Research," in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Celtic Studies, ed. Gearóid Mac Eoin (Dublin, 1983), 113-130, pp. 128-30.

⁵ J. V. Kelleher, "The Táin and the Annals," Ériu 22 (1971), 107-27.

⁶ Jaan Puhvel, "Transposition of Myth to Saga in Indo-European Epic Narrative," in: Antiquitates Indogermanicae, ed. Manfred Mayrhofer and others, 175-184, p.175.

⁷ She edited The Stowe Version of Táin Bó Cuailnge (Dublin, 1961); Táin Bó Cúalnge from the Book of Leinster (Dublin, 1967); Táin Bó Cúailnge: Recension I(Dublin, 1976). The latter is referred to hereinafter as TBC Rec. I and cited by line.

⁸ Op. cit., p. 271.

⁹ Op. cit., p. 2.

¹⁰ M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (3rd ed., New York 1971), p. 49.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Rudolf Thurneysen, Die irische Helden- und Königsage bis zum 17. Jahrhundert (Halle 1921), pp. 96 f. Thurneysen then tentatively assigned the Grundtext to the eighth century, but he later revised this to the middle of the seventh (idem, "Colmán mac Lénéni and Senchan Torpéist," ZCP 19, 193-209, p. 209).

¹³ James Carney, Studies, esp. pp. 321 f.; idem, "History of Early Irish Literature," pp. 128-30.

¹⁴ Gerard Murphy, review of Carney's Studies, Éigse 8 (1955-57), 152-64; Proinsias Mac Cana, "Conservation and Innovation in Early Celtic Literature," EC 13 (1972-73), 61-119, pp. 86-89. See also Patrick Sims-Williams, "Riddling Treatment of the 'Watchman Device' in Branwen and Togail Bruidne Da Derga," SC 12/13, pp. 83-117.

¹⁵ Op. cit., p. 158.

¹⁶ Carney, Studies, p. 321.

¹⁷ Op. cit. p. 162.

¹⁸ Op. cit., p. 89.

¹⁹ Murphy, op. cit. p. 158.

²⁰ See especially Kim McCone, Pagan Past and Christian Present in Early Irish Literature (Maynooth, 1990).

²¹ For a judicious comment on the difficulty of assigning the ultimate origins of certain motifs which occur in the Táin to "either classical or biblical models as opposed to pagan Celtic or common Indo-European models," see William Sayers, "'Mani maidi an nem … ': Ringing Changes on a Cosmic Motif," Ériu 37 (1986), 99-117, pp. 114 f.

²² C. O'Rahilly, Táin Bó Cúalnge from the Book of Leinster, cit., p. ix. See also Wolfgang Meid, Die Romanze von Froech und Findabair (Innsbruck 1970), p. 67.

²³ Anne Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain (London, 1967), pp. 1-3.

²⁴ Liam de Paor, review of Ross, op. cit., Studia Hibernica 10 (1970), pp. 156 f.

²⁵ Ross, op. cit, 302-308. For some further information on Donn, see Tomás Ó Cathasaigh, "The Eponym of Cnogba," Éigse 23 (1990), 27-38, pp. 34-35 and references there cited.

²⁶ Richard M. Dorson, "The Eclipse of Solar Mythology," in: Myth: A Symposium, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok (Bloomington, 1965), pp. 25-63.

²⁷ T. F. O'Rahilly, op. cit., p. 270, n. 2.

²⁸ Op. cit., p. 454, n. 4 (Donn Cúalnge); p. 314 (Culann's Dog). On the latter, see Tomás Ó Cathasaigh, The Heroic Biography of Cormac mac Airt (Dublin, 1977), pp. 14 f.; Kim McCone, "Aided Cheltchair Maic Uthechair: Hounds, Heroes and Hospitallers in Early Irish Myth and Story," Ériu 35 (1984), 1-30, pp. 8-11.

²⁹ See C. Scott Littleton, The New Comparative Mythology (Berkeley, 1966).

³⁰ Bruce Lincoln, Priests, Warriors and Cattle (Berkeley, 1981). See also William Sayers, "Fergus and the Cosmogonic Sword," History of Religions 25 (1985), 30-56.

³¹ Lincoln, op. cit., p. 69.

³² Ibid., p. 75.

³³ Ibid., p. 92.

³⁴ Details, ibid., p. 87.

³⁵ E. Windisch, ed., Irische Texte III (1891), pp. 230-247; Ulrike Roider, De Chophur In Da Muccida (Innsbruck, 1979).

³⁶TBC Rec. I, lines 194 ff. (There may also be an allusion in the placename Mag Muceda (ibid., line 827), which is perhaps for Old Irish Mucedae.)

³⁷ Ibid., p. 92.

³⁸ Jaan Puhvel, Comparative Mythology (Baltimore, 1987), p. 2.

³⁹ Tomás Ó Broin, "What is the 'Debility' of the Ulstermen?," Éigse 10 (1961-63), 286-299, p. 288.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 289.

⁴¹TBC Rec. I, lines 51 f.

⁴² Ibid., line 114.

⁴³ Ibid., line 216.

⁴⁴ Ibid., lines 524 ff.

⁴⁵ Note ad loc.

⁴⁶ Vernam Hull, ed., "Noínden Ulad: The Debility of the Ulidians," Celtica 8 (1968), 1-42, p. 29, lines 65 f.

⁴⁷TBC Rec. I, note to line 51.

⁴⁸ Ibid., line 2138.

⁴⁹ Ibid., lines 3397, 3434.

⁵⁰ Ibid., lines 1283 f.

⁵¹ Ibid., lines 227-255.

⁵² Ibid., line 229.

⁵³ Ibid., lines 244-255.

⁵⁴ Ibid., lines 421 f.

⁵⁵TBC Rec. I, note to line 51.

⁵⁶ P. L. Henry, Saoithiúlacht na Sean-Ghaeilge (Dublin, 1978), p. 33.

⁵⁷ See now the discussion in Edgar M. Slotkin, "Noinden; Its Semantic Range," in: Celtic Language, Celtic Culture, ed. A. T. E. Matonis and Daniel F. Melia (Van Nuys, 1990), pp. 137-150.

⁵⁸ J. N. Radner, "'Fury Destroys the World': Historical Strategy in Ireland's Ulster Epic," Mankind Quarterly 23 (1982), 41-60, p. 47.

⁵⁹ Sjoestedt, op. cit., p. 59.

⁶⁰ See above, fn. 10.

⁶¹ See Ó Cathasaigh, Heroic Biography, passim.

⁶²Idem, "The Concept of the Hero in Irish Mythology," in: The Irish Mind, ed. R. Kearney (Dublin, 1985), 79-90, pp. 81-83.

⁶³ Kelleher, op. cit., p. 121.

⁶⁴ Ibid., pp. 121 f.

⁶⁵ Ó Cathasaigh, op. cit., p. 82 f.

⁶⁶ McCone, Pagan Past, p. 199.

⁶⁷TBC Rec. I, lines 608-821.

⁶⁸ Georges Dumézil, The Destiny of the Warrior (Chicago, 1970), pp. 15 f.

⁶⁹ R. I. Best and M. A. O'Brien, The Book of Leinster V (Dublin, 1967), p. 1119, lines 32905 ff.

⁷⁰ Daniel Melia, "Parallel Versions of 'The Boyhood Deeds of Cuchulainn"', Forum for Modern Language Studies 10 (1974), 211-226, p. 215.

⁷¹ Op. cit., pp. 246-249.

⁷² Melia, loc. cit.

⁷³ Proinsias Mac Cana, Literature in Irish (Dublin, 1980), p. 27.

⁷⁴ Philip O'Leary, "Contention at Feasts in Early Irish Literature," Éigse 20 (1984), pp. 1,15-127; idem, "Verbal Deceit in the Ulster Cycle," Éigse 21 (1986), pp. 16-26; idem, "Fír Fer: An Internalized Ethical Concept in Early Irish Literature," Éigse 22 (1987), pp. 1-14.

⁷⁵ See Tomás Ó Cathasaigh, "The Sister's Son in Early Irish Literature," Peritia 5 (1986), 128-160, pp. 150-156.

⁷⁶ See Rees and Rees, op. cit., pp. 129 f.; Alwyn D. Rees, "Modern Evaluations of Celtic Narrative Tradition," in: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Celtic Studies (Cardiff, 1966) 31-61, p. 53.

⁷⁷TBC Rec. I, lines 1039-63.

⁷⁸ Ibid., line 1306.

⁷⁹ Ibid., lines 4068 f

⁸⁰ Ibid., lines 4123 f.

⁸¹ Ibid., line 183.

⁸² Ibid., line 1855.

⁸³ Ibid., lines 222-224.

⁸⁴ T. M. Charles-Edwards, "Some Celtic Kinship Terms," Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 24 (1970-72), 105-122, pp. 115 f., 119 f.

⁸⁵ See Ó Cathasaigh, "Sister's Son," pp. 156 f.

⁸⁶ Compare the remarks of Puhvel (loc. cit.): "Yet in the course of human events societies pass and religious systems change: the historical landscape gets littered with the husks of dessicated myths."

⁸⁷ Ó Cathasaigh, op. cit., p. 145.

⁸⁸Idem, "Pagan Survival," p. 307.