Bretha

The court · Gúbretha Caratniad, “The False Judgments of Caratnia”, an early Irish law-text

The King Who Was Satirised and Praised

A poet satirises a king, and then makes a praise-poem for him. Is the king’s honour still harmed?

A poet in a blue cloak with a small harp raises a hand in speech. A king in a red cloak sits with his chin on his fist. Beside him stand three judges in green, yellow and grey cloaks, and between the poet and the king grow two small plants, one dark and thorny, one pale and fruiting.
The poet, the king and the judges. A reconstruction in the manner of early Irish manuscripts, not a surviving picture.

The law

From the lawGúbretha Caratniad is the “false judgments of Caratnia”. Caratnia is the judge of King Conn Cétchathach, and Kelly thinks him doubtless legendary. In each of fifty-one cases the king answers a judgment with the words “it was false”, and Caratnia defends it. Between them the cases give exceptions to many basic rules of Irish law.

GlossThe text teaches by surprise: the king calls each judgment false, and Caratnia then defends it.

From the lawKelly separates justified satire from unjustified satire. Unjustified satire normally entitled its victim to his honour-price, though in some cases the equivalent of a public retraction was enough. Judgment 51 says that a king who has been satirised may have his honour put right if a praise-poem is published that cancels the satire.

GlossSatire could damage a person's honour. Kelly says that in some cases the equivalent of a public retraction was enough, and that for a satirised king a praise-poem could do that work.

From the lawA king or lord who tolerates satire loses his honour-price, according to Heptads 13 and 14.

GlossKelly cites Heptads 13 and 14 for this rule.

Weigh it

The poet’s praise-poem is published. What happens to the king’s claim?

The commentary

Scholars sayKelly links this to a story at the start of Bretha Nemed Déidenach. The poet Aithirne satirised the river Modarn, which rose up and pursued him. In fear, he quickly made a praise-poem, and the river fell back to its old level. The text calls it “praise which washes away satire”.

Scholars sayKelly also says the author of Gúbretha Caratniad held that praise should bear some relation to the truth, so a poet could not be paid for false praise, which counted as satire. Rudolf Thurneysen edited and translated the text into German (Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 15, 1925). We have not seen the exact wording of judgment 51.

Where we are not sure

Scholars sayKelly gives the rule in one sentence, with the reference to judgment 51, and notes no dispute about it. His 'may be restored' means we do not know the conditions, such as how the poem had to be published. We have not seen the Old Irish wording. Kelly also calls Caratnia doubtless legendary and the cases 'imaginary law-cases', so they are teaching examples and not records of real judgments.

Where this comes from

  • Fergus Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law (1988), on the king and his judge, on satire and praise, and on Gúbretha Caratniad (Appendix 1, no. 5), citing CIH 2199.23–4 = Thurneysen, ZCP 15 (1925) 366, §51.
  • The Old Irish text we have not read ourselves; the rule above comes from Kelly’s account of it.

Last checked against these books: 2026-10-04. How we read our sources · Corrections