• Sanas Gaoidhilge-Sagsbhearla, An Irish-English Dictionary (Dublin: John Barlow 1817), [536]pp. [see details]; and Do., reiss. as An Irish-English Dictionary [ ...] A new edition [ ...] corrected, with a supplement [ ...] by J. O’Donovan (Dublin: James Duffy 1864, 1877; [1910]), 725pp.; 4o.
• A Chronological Account of Nearly Four Hundred Irish Writers [ ...] with a descriptive catalogue [ ... &c.], by Edward O’Reilly (Dublin: Iberno-Celtic Society 1820), ccxxxiiipp., and Do., introduced by Gearóid S. MacEoin [facs. rep.] (Shannon: IUP; NY: Barnes & Noble 1970), [7], [8], ccxxxviipp [233pp.], & index [3pp. - see details as Transactions ... &c - infra.].
• An Essay on the Brehon Laws (Dublin: Graisberry 1823), 88pp.; Essay on the Authenticity of the Poems of Ossian, in Transactions of the RIA, XVI (1828-30) [q.pp.

The volume is prefixed by a subscription list and Rules and Regulations [of the Society], to be governed by a president and six Vice Presidents, with an unlimited number of Members, life-membership for 10 guineas, monthly committee meetings, four annual meetings (one on St. Patrick’s Day), election by open but anonymous ballot, rules relating to funds and expenses, and a non-sectarian rule, viz., ‘No religious or political debates whatsoever shall be permitted in any of the meetings of the Society; such subjects being foreign to the objects of the Institution’ (Rule XI) - which objects are defined in the Resolution of 28th Jan. 1818, copied in the Preface, viz., “Resolved, That the principal objects of this Society shall be the repservation of the venerable remains of Irish Literature, by collecting, transcribing, illustrating, and publishing the numerous fragments of the Laws, History, Topography, Poetry and Music of Ancient Ireland; the elucidation of the Language, Antiquities, Manners and Customs of the Irish people; and the necouragement of Works tending to the advancement of Irish Literature.” (p.vi). The Preface gives an account of the impermanent foundation of the Cóimhthional Gaoidhilge or Irish Society, and the publiccation about the same time of the ‘first edition of O’Connor’s [sic] Dissertation on the History of Ireland.

Reilly goes on: ‘The publication, however, attracted a good deal of notice and drew from the celebrated Doctor Johnson a letter to the author, on the subject ofIrish literaure, from which the following extract may not be considered impertinent: “I have long wished that he Irish literature were cultivate. Ireland is known by tradition to have been the seat of piety and learning; and surely it would be very [i] acceptable to those who are curious either in the original of nations, or the affinities of languages, to be further informed of the revolutions of a people so ancient, and once so illustrious. I hope you will continue this kind of learning which has lai so long neglected, and which, if it be suffered to remain in oblivion for another century, may perhaps never be retrieved.’ In the year 1777, Dr. Campbell, autor of Stricktures on the Ecclesiastical and Literfy Hisoty of Ireland”, was the bearer of another letter from Johnson to Mr. O’Connor, from which, it becomes necessary to give the following extract, as it appears in the Lifeof Johnson, by Boswell, who may be presumed to have fairly gibven the letter as it was written by its illustrious author.- “What the Irish languate is in itself, and to what language it has affinity, are very interesting question which every man wishes to see resolved, that has any philological or hsitorical curiosity. Doctor Leland begins his History too late. the ages which deserve an exact inquiry, are those those, for such times there were, when Ireland was the School of the West, the quiet habitation of sanctity and literature. If you could give a history, though imperfect, of the Irish nation, form its conversion to Christianity, to the invasion of England, you would amply knowledge with new views and new objects. Set about it, therefore, if you can; do what you can easily do without anxious exactness. Lay the foundation, and leave the superstructure to posterity.” / After the extinction of the Irish Society [of 1752], nothing appears to have been done towards the publication of our History of Antiquities by any collective body, until about the year 1782 or 1783 when some essays having appeared under the name of Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, induced the highly talented authors to co-operate and found the Society of Antiquaries. The principal person of this Society, and the publication of those tracts, was the late General Vallancey; and the specimens he gave of some of our ancient laws excited much curiosity, and a desire for further information on so interesting a subject. Amongst those who were particularly charmed with its novelty and importance, was the late celebrated Edmund Burke. That Gentleman felt the matter of such vast moment to literature, that he prevailed on Sir John [ii] Seabright to restore to this country many of her ancient records that had fallen into his hands, and he accordingly presented to the library of Trinity College, Dublin, an invaluable treasure of Irish MSS. that had been collected form various parts of Ireland about the beginning of the last century, but the learned and indefatigable antiquary Edward Lhuyd, author of Archæologia.

What were the views of Mr. Burke in this interference, and what his expectations from the University and the Society of Antiquaries, will best appear from his letter of 15th August, 1783, addressed to General Vallancey. In this he says, “I shall tell you what a judicious antiquary, about twenty years ago, told me concerning the Chronicles in verse and prose, upon which the Irish histories , and the discussion of antiquaries are founded, that he wondered that the learned of Ireland had never printed the originals of these pieces, with literal translations into Latin or English, by which they might become proper subjects of criticism, and by comparison with each other, as well as by an examination of the interior relations of each piece within itself, they might serve to shew how much ought to be retained, and how much rejected. They might also serve to contrast or confirm the histories which affect to be extracted from them, such as O’Flaherty’s and Keating’s. All the history of the middle ages, which have been founded in other countries, have been printed. The English have, I think the best histories of that period. I do not see why the Psalter of Cashel should not be printed, as well as Robert of Glouster. If I were to give my opinion to the Society of Antiquaries, I should propose that they should be printed in two columns, one Irish and the other Latin, like the Saxon Chronicle, which is a very valuable monument, and above all things, that the translation should be exact and literal. it was in the hope that some such thing should be done, that I originally prevailed on Sir John Seabright to let me have his MSS. and that I sent them to Doctor Leland in Dublin. You have infinite merit in the taste you have given of them in several of your collections. But these extracts only increase the curiosity and the just demand of the public for some entire pieces. until something of this kind is done, that ancient period of Irish history, which precedes official records, cannot be said to stand upon any proper authority. A work of [ii] this kind, pursued by the University and the Society of Antiquaries, under your inspection, would do honour to the nation.’ [iv].

Dean Swift, also (though fond of abusing the Irish) in a letter to the Earl of Oxford, gives much praise to our ancestors for the care with which they preserved the “memory of times and persons” so much greater than is used “in this age of learning, as we are pleased to call it;” and in a letter to the duke of Chandos, dated 31st August, 1734, he requests that nboleman to restore to Ireland, by presenting to the library of Trinity College, Duiblin, then newly erected, a large quanity of her ancient records, on paper and parchment, then in his Grace’s possession, that had been formerly collected and carried off frin this country by the Earl of Clarendon, during the time of his government here. The Duke, however, did not comply with the Dean’s Request, and the manuscripts still remain in an English Library.

That the ancient Annals of Ireland are of vast importance and value to the Historian, is an opinion not cinfined to the natives of these islands. Several learned men on the continent have felt and acknowledged their credibility and utility. The Journal des Sçavans for October 1764, has these words: “C’est un principe incontestable, que, sur l’histoire de chaque pays, les annales nationales, quand elles sont anciennes, authentiques, et reconnues pour tell [sic] par les etrangers, meritent plus de foi que les annales étrangeres” - “Plusieurs scavan étranger, reconnoissent que les irlandois [sic] , ont des annlees d’une authenticité à toute épreuve.” The author proceeds to quote uopon this point the authority of Stillingfleet and Innes, “qui ná [sic] jamoais flatté les Irlandois.”’ [iv; note that Reilly’s printer does not have accents at his disposal] O’Reilly lists gives an account of the work being carried on by members of the Gaelic Society, formed in 1807 (and which published Teige M’’Daire’s Instructions to a Prince, in the original language and character ... and the tragic tale of the Children of Usnach, also in the original languae and character, with a strict literal translation into English’. He goes on to speak of the works they they have published not ‘as a Body, but individual Members’, incl. ‘Doctors O’Brien and Neilson, the late Mr. Patrick Lynch, and the late Mr. Halliday, a youth of extraordinary acquirements’, and cites the example of the Highland Societies of Edinburgh in preservation of Gaelic literature and antiquities’, many ‘in the original language of their country between which and our native [v] tongue there is scarcely any difference, being only a provincial varioation.’ Declares it the intention of the Iberno-Celtic Society to publish the ‘venerable remains of Irish learning’ [vi] in manuscripts awaiting attention, whether originals or copies, viz., din Seanchas, the Ulster Book, the Book of Leinster, the Book of the Eoganachts, the Book of Meath, the Book of the Conallians, the Book of the Oirgiallans, the white Book [sic], the Book of Leacan, the Book of Ballimote, the Book of Fermoy, the Book of Hua Conghabhala, the Book of MacPartholan, the Book of Conquests, the Book of Cavan; &c. &c. &c., and in the Annals of Tigernach, of Senat Macmaghus, of Inisfallen, of Boyle, of Conaght [sic], of the four masters, &c. &c.&c. and also in the Reim Riograidhe, and in the Registries of several ancient families, still preserved by their descendants.’ He cites the causes of the destruction of manuscripts as, ‘First, that immediately after the introduction of Christianity, most of the then existing books were burned, in order to destroy the vestiges of Pagan superstition contained in them. Several, however, were completely copied into the Psalter of Tara ...’. Secondly, That the Danish and invaders, who infested and obtained a temporary power over our country in the ninth and tenth centuries, commited great devastation on our ancient Record. Barbarous and ignorant themselves, they took delight in the destruction of every thing connected with learning and science.

Thirdly, that ever since the invasion of the island by the Anglo-Normans, under Henry the Second, the destruction or loss of the ancient historic monuments of the country has daily increased, partly from the policy of Princes; partly form the indifference of the new settlers to the subjects recorded; and partly by removal of the natives to other lands.

After the reign of James I of England, when numbers of chiefs and clergy were deprived of their ancient inheritance and obliged [...; vii]. Of the copies of ‘our ancient Laws’, he writes, those ‘extant are not numerous, though we are told by Archbishop Usher [sic] that in his days the Irish had large volumes of their Laws in their own language; and so late as the beginning of the last century, copies of them were common in Ireland, as we are assured by Thady O’Rody, an excellent scholar, who, in the year 1699, shewed several volumes of those Laws to Sir Richard Cox, who had entertained an opinion that our law was arbitrary, and to fixed or written.’ He shortly goes on, ‘The invasion of Ireland by Henry II, of England, and the partial domination [viii] exercised over the island by his successors, had scarcely any influence on the people, or produced any change in the laws, until the reign of James I. The Irish chiefs, therefore, succeeded to their principalities, and governed their tribes according to the ancient laws enacted by their ancestors, in the early period of the monarchy; and many of the Anglo-Normans who had obtained settlements amongst them, adopted the laws and manners of the inhabitants. Hence Ireland might furnish, what perhaps no other European nation is able to afford, a complete view of ancient Celtic legislation.’ [ix].

[Reilly e nds by noting that the libraries in which each book, tract, or poem is to be found, are ‘pointed out’, requesting that any Gentleman having copies of these notify the secretary, ‘that the Gaelic scholar may know where these Works may be consulted.’ [x; End.]

In spite of correct details for Edward O’Reilly’s publication, the above citation in the Clare Library index is actually linked to a rather different dictionary - being a second edition of the one made by John O’Brien (Bishop of Clogher, d. 1767) which was re-issued by Hodges Figgis of College Green in 1832, and for which Robert Daly contributed a short preface prefixed to the original (undated) preface by O’Brien whose Dictionary originally appeared in 1768. The title-page of the reprint - which presumably repeats the matter of the first edition - asserts that the volume has been compiled “from various Irish vocabularies, particularly that of Mr Edward Lhuyd, but also from a great variety of the best Irish manuscripts now extant, especially those that have been composed in the ninth and tenth centuries, down to the sixteenth; besides those of the lives of Saint Patrick and Saint Bridgit, written in the sixth and seventh centuries.” And this is, indeed, the language on the title-page of the original edition of 1768.

In his preface to the 1768 edition - reprinted in 1832 - O’Brien offered numerous commendatory remarks on Edward Lhuyd and his achievements and in this and other ways his book was clearly representative of the state of 18th century philological and ethnological scholarship. (There is even an allusion to Charles Vallancy which the present writer came on but has been unable to recover.) In the preface to the 2nd edition by one Robert Daly - whose name does not appear on the title-page - the reasons for reprinting O’Brien’s book after the appearance of Edward O’Reilly’s are state along with some details about the revision which was accomplished with assistance from “an intelligent and trust-worthy assistant” called Michael McGinty, an Irish and English “scholar” living in his neighbourhood (the preface is signed “- signed Powerscourt, Aug. 1832”), who revised every line and tallied the orthography with the Irish Bible.

“It is necessary to state the peculiarities of this edition, which I feel confident will be considered improvements. O’Brien’s Dictionary was printed throughout in the Roman character, and Irish, English, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words were all written in the same letter. [This is hardly true of the Irish words which are universally printed in an Irish font in the original work.] In this edition eech language has its appropriate character. In order to render the work popular among the Irish this change was necessary with regard to the Irish words, and every scholar will feel the propriety of the change in the Greek and Hebrew words. In the course of my reading some parts of the New Testament, I discovered a few words omitted in O’Brien’s book, and friends have communicated a few other omission.”

The title-page banner is printed in a virtually illegible font which has defeated numerous librarians and cataloguers. It appears to say ”Focaloir Gaoidhlige-Sags-Bhearla, or an Irish-English Dictionary; whereof the Irish Part hath been compiled from various vocabularies [&c.]”, by J. O’Brien, Second Edition, Revised and Corrected, Dublin: Printed for Hodges Figgis, 2 College-Green, 1832, v-viii [Preface to 2nd Edn.] ix-lvi [Preface to First Edition]; 471pp. [Dictionary; each letter prefaced by a single page discussion of the character used.]

In the Preface to the 2nd Edition, Robert Daly has this to say about the author of the original:

”Our author O’Brien availed himself largely of Lhuyd’s labours, and so made his book a repository of his predecessor’s selections from the Holy Scriptures, as will appear from a reference in his preace, p.xliii. We have, then, in fact, in O’Brien’s Dictionary a work particularly suited for the study of the Irish Bible, in which references are often made the chapter and verse. This circumstance had great weight with me in selecting this work for republication; and I have myself made use of both O’Brien’s and O’Reilly’s dictionaries in reading parts of the Irish Bible, and I have no hesitation in saying that I found O’Brien’s, though the smallest, far the most satisfactory of the two, from his frequently insertion of scriptural phrases and references. Whilst then O’Brien’s Dictionary has this recommendation to the student of Scripture, it recommends itself on many accounts to the native Irish reader. O’Brien was a thorough Irishman, a Roman Catholic Bishop of Cloyne; he has inserted in his book much of Irish families and of Irish geography, which will make it very interesting to those of Irish blood, and will no doubt give the book an increased popularity and circulation.
 It is further no slight recommendation of this book that it can be sold ut nearly one-third of the price of O’Reillys, which was so expensive as to preclude the possibility of general circulation.”

No copy of the original by O’Brien is registered in the COPAC catalogue which covers all the main university and national libraries of Britain, including the copyright libraries of Ireland (e.g., Trinity College). A copy of the 2nd edition is held at Birmingham UL and thus listed in COPAC, while the copy digitised by Internet Archive resides at Toronto UL in Canada. (This was former property of a Professor Lavell, who presented it to that Library.) In COPAC the title page of the 2nd edition is transliterated as Foclóir saevilse-bearla [sic]; or, An Irish-English dictionary with all the attendend t.p. sentence - but also the information that the author of the original was one J[ohn] O’Brien [d.1767] - and that the book was first published in 1768. A copy recorded by the National Museums of Scotland cites it as Foclair Eireannach-Sassunnach, or an Irish-English dictionary (2nd edn. 1832), lvi, 471pp., while the catalogue at Manchester UL can find no way to transliterate the Irish words in the title and simply omits them. However, De Burca’s Catalogue contains John O’Brien, Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-Bhéarla or An Irish-English Dictionary in the Earl of Charleville’s personal copy bound with O’Brien’s Irish Dictionary in gold-letters on the ribbed spine - all for the handsome price of £1,750 [Feb. 2024] The notice by De Burca mentions additionally that O'Brien recruited a team of Irish scholars to compile his dictionary, which is said to be marred by fanciful etymology and the lack of a solid grammatical section - and that he left Ireland partly in response to the opposition of the Nagle family who defended a tenant accused of rape against ecclesiastical censure - online].

To meet with Bishop John O’Brien of Cloyne’s original publication, it is necessary to visit the catalogue of the National Library of Ireland - and there a fascinating treat awaits the anxious researcher. There we find his “Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-Bhéarla or An Irish-English dictionary: Whereof the irish part hath been compiled not only from various vocabularies, particularly that of Mr. Edward Lhuyd; but from a great variety of the best Irish manuscripts now extant ...” Here the title citation stops though the author and publication details are also given thus: By John O’Brien, anonymous, pub. 1768, with a half-title and th ... (again, the record runs dry.) Due to sophisticated databasing system employed by the NLI catalogue, a search for O’Brien’s Dictionary also turns up a series of incidental documents of greaet interest. The first is a copy of O’Brien’s Dictionary published in Paris in 1768 - in fact the first edition - which contains manuscript notes added by Muiris O Gormain and General Vallancey, its eventual owner. Even more interestingly a copy edition of the original edition with “[a]nnotations by Edward O’Reilly on an interleaved copy of O’Brien’s Irish-English Dictionary”. Sadly, the date of publication and the identity of the publisher are unnamed and nor can be discern if it was indeed anonymous. This last-named treasure is described as “manuscript” in the NLI Catalogue, which cites O’Brien as “Bp. of Cloyne” alongside with Edward O’Reilly by name as “subjects”. The whole is shelf-marked as Ms. G. 290.

All of this presumably shows that O’Reilly made systematic and extensive use of O’Brien’s Dictionary in compiling his own. It also shows that Col. Vallancey took much of his problematic knowledge of the Irish lexicon from O’Brien’s volume. (An html search of the 2nd edition shows that O’Brien did not, in fact, make any reference to Vallancey, thoguh the latter was only two years short of publishing his Collectanea which contains the famous conjectures about a Punic source for the Irish language and the origin of the round towers of Ireland as a “fire-towers” connected with pagan religion. As a matter of further interest, the NLI Collection also holds “An interleaved copy of Edward O’Reilly’s Irish English dictionary (publ. 1817)”, and a “History of the house of O’Reilly by Edward O’Reilly. Carolaniana or Miscellaneous writings, anecdotes, etc., relation to Torlogh O’Carolan .. the Irish bard, 19th c. [microfilm], and finally an interleaved copy of Edward O’Reilly’s Irish Writers (dublin 1820), with manuscript additions, apparently by O’Reilly.

Note: There is no entry for John O’Brien in RICORSO but see the article by Vincent Morley in Dictionary of Irish Biography (RIA 2009) which clarifies the date and provenance of the first edition of O’Brien’s dictionary - in fact published in Paris with funding from an Itailian cardinal though O’Brien sought direct support from the Papacy based on the parochial value of his Irish dictionary. In that article O"Brien emerges as an ecclesiastical disciplinarian who secured his post as bishop of Cloyne through family influence. (See online; accessed 20.02.2024.0