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

The King Who Was Satirised and Praised

A king is satirised, and then a praise-poem for him is published. Is his honour still harmed?

Basis. Rests on Kelly’s account of the law, not on the Old Irish text itself. Open questions are set out below.

Topics: Honour.

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. An imagined scene, made with an AI image tool. About the pictures

What would you decide?

Answer first, then read the law. Your first answer is the one kept. It is stored only on this device.

A praise-poem for the king is published after the satire. By Caratnia’s judgment, what does it do?

Choose an answer and open it to see what the law says of it. Then read the law below.

Nothing. The king is still owed his honour-price for the satire.

This answer differs from the law as Kelly sets it out. That is the normal rule for an unjustified satire. Kelly gives judgment 51 as a case where the equivalent of a public retraction is enough.

It cancels the satire, and the king’s honour is restored.

This matches the law as Kelly sets it out. Kelly gives judgment 51 so: the honour of a satirised king may be restored if the satire is cancelled by the publication of a praise-poem. He says “may be”, and neither he nor Stacey says what conditions applied.

It halves the debt. Praise cannot undo all of the harm.

This answer differs from the law as Kelly sets it out. Neither Kelly nor Stacey mentions a part-payment. In their accounts of the judgment the praise undoes the satire.

Read the law, the commentary and the sources

The law

The law, as Kelly gives itGúbretha 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.

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

The law, as Kelly gives itKelly says the law-texts regularly distinguish justified satire from unjustified. Unjustified satire normally entitled its victim to his honour-price, though in some circumstances the equivalent of a public retraction was enough. Judgment 51 is his example: the honour of a satirised king may be restored if the satire is cancelled by the publication of a praise-poem.

NoteStacey reads the same judgment as a king who has been satirised but keeps his honour, because the praise given him afterwards outweighs the shame of the satire.

The law, as Kelly gives itIt was an offence to ignore a satire. A king or lord who “tolerates satire” loses his honour-price, according to Heptads 13 and 14.

NoteKelly cites Heptads 13 and 14 for this rule.

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” leaves the conditions open: we do not know how the poem had to be made known, or who had to make it. Stacey’s wording is that the later praise outweighs the shame. We have not seen the judgment itself, in Old Irish or in Thurneysen’s German. 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), p. 24 on Caratnia, p. 43 on satire and praise, p. 52 on the cases, pp. 138 to 139 on a satire cancelled by praise, and Appendix 1, no. 5, on Gúbretha Caratniad, citing CIH 2199.23–4 = Thurneysen, ZCP 15 (1925) 366, §51.
Robin Chapman Stacey, Dark Speech: the performance of law in early Ireland (2007), pp. 107 to 108, on the same judgment.
The Old Irish text we have not read ourselves; the rule above comes from Kelly’s account of it.

Last checked against these books: 2026-10-06. How we read our sources · Corrections