Talk:Lúin of Celtchar

[Untitled]

where does this idea that the TDD "originally" lived by the Danube originate? i haven't seen anything like that in the extant lore. Whateley23 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably from somebody trying to link the Scythia of LGÉ material with the historical Galatian settlements in the valley of the Danube. A clever thing to notice on the one hand, but an unhelpful distraction on the other. QuartierLatin1968 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably derives originally from Herodotus - see e.g. [1] so at least there's a long tradition, however inaccurate it may be. Dlyons493 Talk 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No no, Herodotus is right; there were historical Celts on the Danube (especially on the upper Danube, which is what he's talking about in that passage, unless I misread it). The archaeological and toponomical evidence confirms the same thing. The question was whether the Tuatha Dé, known to us essentially from literature, lived on the Danube. QuartierLatin1968 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Spear Luin

the description of the "element" of the spear seems to be an artifact of modern new age writers, rather than an accurate description of how the spear was viewed historically. though someone is attempting to overrule me on this, i do think that it is not appropriate to this article. i'll be happy to relent on this if someone can show a citation of an old source indicating that it was described as having an "element" of fire. Whateley23 07:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gae Bolg?

i've looked, and i can find nothing from the extant tradition which supports the idea that Lugh's spear was equated with the Gae Bolg of Cúchulain. if someone can find a cite to support that, feel free to return the info, but without any citations, i felt it best to simply remove the probably spurious information. Whateley23 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• They probably made it up for lack of material, like they did with Lorelei. Raijinili 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I think you guys are right, but mention of the Gáe Bulg could be moved to a 'see also' section since both are, after all, Irish spears of mythical significance. Anybody might innocently come to the one article when they really meant to search for the other. QuartierLatin1968 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • I always got the impression that the Gae Bolg was a technique for wielding a spear, rather than any spear in particular. I admit that I never read the original Irish, but the part where it enters the body through a single wound but splits into a number of barbs always seemed like shattering a perfectly good spear to me. (I mean, maybe it was the one spear that could magically do this, but it wouldn't seem consistent with a hero's need to learn all the "feats." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.141.116 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Am I right to think that the subject of this article and Spear of Lugh are the same, and should be merged? QuartierLatin1968 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

seems appropriate to me. Spear of Lugh is also the more likely name to look for. Whateley23 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-merge

Okay, I hope nobody objects to the one or two liberties I took in the course of merging – for example, I toned down the article's equation of the Spear of Lug with the Gáe Bulg and removed the (irrelevant and contested) mention of the Danube. Many of the statements flagged as needing citations are legitimately from LGÉ; I can look up the reference tonight, if I remember... QuartierLatin1968 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Change of topic

The article was previously called "Spear Lúin" and so I rewrote it under the natural impression that it dealt with the Lúin of Celtchar (the way it is renamed now). I now see, however, that that title was quite recent, owing to a somewhat controversial move from "Spear of Lug". Lug's spear had been equated with the Lúin by a number of older literary scholars (see present article) and was treated in the older article as if they were the same, hence the confusion. This synthetic approach is, however, no longer accepted (see eg. Carey). As far as I'm aware, a magical spear belonging to Lug occurs (1) in Middle Irish texts dealing with the Four Treasures of the Túatha Dé Danann, see there; and in (2) the later Oidheadh Chloinne Tuireann. "Spear of Lug" should probably redirect to the former, with a note on the existence of the latter. Cavila (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that the Lúin Celtchar of the Ulster cycle should be kept separate from Spear of Lugh. They shouldn't be automatically equated on the strength of a singular notice in the TCD 1336 (olim H 3.17) col. 723 summarized by Hennessy plus the suggestion that it was found in the Mag Tuired (in Togail B.D.D.).

As to "Lug's spear" I added considerably under Lugh Lugh#Lugh's weapons] but I will discuss that there. Kiyoweap (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Grand Unifying Tract

I want to log the nature of the change I made to the article 02:30, 2 January 2012‎ Kiyoweap (→Circulation: The source for Dubthach's death was wrong. Cited Stokes ed., Da Choca's Hostel as correct source.)

I want to preface this by a remark "TCD 1336 (olim H 3.17) col. 723" which I'd like to call the Grand Unifying Tract or GUT because it equates three famous spears from three ages (Luin, Lugh's spear Yew, and Crimall that blinded Cormac).

A previous contributor was confused (probably after Kuno Meyer's notes to Deaths of Ulster Heroes) into thinking that the GUT was the source that said "Dubthach was slain by Fedlimidh using Luin of Celtchar". But further Googling led the discovery that this occurs in a notice postscripted to the A version (TCD 1337 olim H 3.18) of Togail Bruidne Da Choca, Stokes ed. RC 21, and Stokes remarks on this in his endnotes, p.403. So I corrected that.

There seems to be further confusion on the GUT. Somewhere in the article, a contributor has remarked that the GUT has never been edited so it has only been published in summary by Hennessy in his intro to Mesca Ulad, p.xiv. In the manuscript itself the GUT occurs on the same leaf (col. or p.723) as where the Expulsion of the Dessi text ends in this manuscript. This is a later or B group recension of the Expulsion of the Dessi, as Kuno Meyer calls it. He edited these (Irish only) in the Anecdota volume I. Here, Meyer's primary text (H text) was another manuscript so only variant readings of our interested MS (h text) was given, in footnote. What is more important, Meyer did not print the edited text of the GUT here, so citing this becomes almost irrelevant. However I do think it may be worthwhile to note that the "h" text bears the variant title Cóecad Cormaic i Temraig (Blinding of Cormac at Tara) instead of the base text title Tucait indarba na nDéssi ("The Expulsion of the Déisi"), since in some future event, someone may edit and pubish the h text with the GUT. Also the citation that "It may be read online Meyer, Kuno, ed. (1901), "The Expulsion of the Dessi", Y Cymmrodor, XIV, London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 101 – 135" is just misleading -- it makes it sound as if the GUT tract can be read heere -- so I'm going to delete it. (True, you can read the story in English translation, but the spear that blinds Cormac is never specified here in the tale as being the Luin, so it's going off topic. And it is not even the later recension where the GUT belong, but is the earlier Group A recension.

Of course the foregoing doesn't hold if your contemplating the merge of Luin Celtchair with the page on Crimall that blinded Cormac, but that is to be discouraged just as the other merger idea was. ---- Kiyoweap (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)