The Auraicept na n-Éces tree-list

The Auraicept na n-Éces — “the Scholars’ Primer” — is a medieval Irish manuscript on grammar, poetics, and language. It survives in several manuscript versions, the principal copies in the Book of Ballymote (c. 1390) and the Book of Lecan (c. 1418), and it draws on materials substantially older than those compilations — some of which probably go back to the seventh or eighth century.

For a heritage publication about Irish stick-making, the Auraicept matters because of one specific element of its content: the tree-list (the Bríatharogam in some sources), which pairs each letter of the ogham alphabet with a tree, and ranks those trees by a system of social classes drawn from contemporary Irish law. The wood is given a status; the status is given a wood. The result is the nearest thing the medieval Irish material has to a formal taxonomy of native trees, organised on cultural and legal lines rather than botanical ones.

This is what is in it.

The ogham alphabet

Ogham is an early Irish alphabet of twenty letters (later twenty-five, with five supplementary letters added at some point during its medieval life). The letters are formed of straight strokes and notches cut along a baseline, traditionally read from bottom to top, and survive carved on standing stones across Ireland and parts of Wales and Scotland from roughly the fourth to the seventh centuries AD. Most surviving ogham inscriptions are personal names, often in possessive form (“of X, son of Y”), used as memorial markers.

By the time the Auraicept was compiled in the medieval period, ogham was already an antiquarian alphabet rather than a living script — the Irish of the seventh and eighth centuries were writing in Latin alphabet, with ogham preserved as a learned and sometimes magical-symbolic system. The Auraicept is, in effect, a medieval scholar’s reconstruction of an older tradition, and its associations between letters and trees should be read as a synthesis of the period’s ideas about ogham rather than as a continuous transmission from the inscription-cutters of four centuries earlier.

Letters and trees

The Auraicept and the related Bríatharogam materials give each ogham letter:

1. A letter name in Old Irish (often, though not always, the name of a tree)
2. A kenning — a short poetic phrase that captures something of the letter’s character
3. A position in a classificatory hierarchy — noble, peasant, shrub, or bramble

The standard tree associations for the letters most relevant to British and Irish stick-making are:

Letter	Old Irish name	Tree	Class
Beith	beith	Birch	Peasant
Luis	luis	Rowan / quicken-tree	Peasant
Fearn	fern	Alder	Peasant
Sail	sail	Willow	Peasant
Nion	nion	Ash	Peasant
Huath	huath	Hawthorn	Bramble
Dair	dair	Oak	Noble
Tinne	tinne	Holly	Noble (or peasant, depending on source)
Coll	coll	Hazel	Noble
Quert	quert	Apple	Noble
Muin	muin	Vine / bramble	Bramble
Gort	gort	Ivy	Bramble
Ngétal	ngétal	Reed / broom	Shrub
Straif	straif	Blackthorn	Shrub or bramble
Ruis	ruis	Elder	Shrub
Ailm	ailm	Pine / fir	Noble
Onn	onn	Furze / ash	Peasant
Úr	úr	Heather	Shrub
Eadhadh	edad	Aspen	Shrub
Iodho	idad	Yew	Noble

The classifications are drawn from early Irish law (the Brehon Laws), specifically from the section dealing with the values of trees for legal compensation purposes — the fines payable for felling another person’s trees scaled with the trees’ classification.

Some of the listed trees are uncertain in identification. The medieval glossators themselves were not always confident about what some of the older names referred to: as one Wikipedia note on the Auraicept observes, “some of these trees are not known today”. Where a definite identification is given in the modern literature, it is generally well-supported; where it is uncertain, the standard practice is to flag the ambiguity rather than fix on a single species.

The four classes

The classification system divides trees into four ranks, modelled on the social hierarchy of early Irish society:

Airig fedo — “noble trees of the wood”. Seven trees: oak, hazel, holly, yew, ash, pine, and apple. These were the most legally valuable; felling one carried the heaviest fine and, in some periods, criminal liability above and beyond the financial compensation.

Aithig fedo — “peasant trees of the wood”. Seven trees: alder, willow, hawthorn (in some versions), birch, elm, rowan, and ash (in some versions; ash appears in both lists across different manuscripts, suggesting either an editorial inconsistency or a regional difference in classification).

Fodla fedo — “shrub trees” or “lower divisions of the wood”. Eight trees, including blackthorn, elder, aspen, juniper, and others. The lowest legally protected category.

Losa fedo — “bushes of the wood” or “brambles”. The least valuable category, including bracken, gorse, briars, and several others not always identified with confidence.

The classifications had practical legal weight in early Ireland. A person whose noble tree had been felled was entitled to substantially greater compensation than one whose peasant tree had been damaged, and the fines were calibrated in séts (a unit of value, theoretically equivalent to one milking cow) at fixed rates per tree class.

The classes correspond loosely but not perfectly to economic value. The noble trees (oak, hazel, ash, yew, pine, apple, holly) were broadly the most useful timber and food trees of the early Irish landscape; the peasant trees (alder, willow, birch, etc.) were useful but more abundant; the shrubs and brambles were structural rather than productive. But the system is not a pure economic ranking — it is an early example of cultural classification, with mythological and ritual considerations folded in.

What this means for the stick woods

The five woods this site treats as the British and Irish stick woods occupy three different positions in the Auraicept classification:

Oak (dair), holly (tinne), and hazel (coll) are noble trees — the most legally protected, the most culturally privileged, and the most ritually significant. The status reflects each wood’s importance in early Irish material culture: oak as the timber for major construction and for ritual gatherings, hazel as the source of nuts and the wand of divination, holly as the evergreen winter wood with strong midwinter folklore.

Ash (nion) is more ambiguous. It appears in the noble list in some manuscript versions and the peasant list in others. The ambiguity probably reflects ash’s dual status — culturally important (the ash spear is the iconic Iron-Age and early-medieval Irish weapon) but also relatively abundant and fast-growing.

Blackthorn (straif) is firmly in the shrub category — neither noble nor peasant, ranked below the legally protected timber trees. This may seem surprising given the cultural weight blackthorn carries in later folklore, but it reflects two facts: blackthorn is a shrub rather than a timber tree (it doesn’t produce structural pieces of wood), and the dark magical associations the wood carries in later tradition were partly a product of the medieval and post-medieval period, not the early Irish classification.

The status mismatch between blackthorn’s lowly Auraicept ranking and its later iconic status as the wood of the shillelagh is interesting. It suggests that the cultural framing of blackthorn as a recognisable “Irish” wood is later than the manuscript tradition — that what we now think of as the iconic Irish stick wood became iconic in the early-modern or even modern period, well after the Auraicept had given it the formal status of “shrub”.

Kennings

Each ogham letter, in the Bríatharogam materials, is given a brief kenning — a short poetic phrase that captures something of the letter’s associated tree. The kennings are interesting both as poetry and as a window onto how the medieval Irish thought about the trees themselves.

A few examples relevant to this site:

• Dair (oak): ardam dossaibh — “highest of bushes” (with bushes here meaning trees generally; the kenning calls oak the highest). Other glosses include grés ságe, “craft of the saw”.
• Coll (hazel): cainfid — “fair-wood”. Hazel is consistently described in flattering terms across the manuscript tradition.
• Tinne (holly): trian roith — “a third of a wheel”, a reference to holly’s use in chariot-wheel components.
• Nion (ash): costud sída — “establisher of peace”, in some versions; or bag ban, “fight of women”, in others — probably reflecting ash’s dual association with the spear (war) and with weaving (peace).
• Straif (blackthorn): tressam ruamna — “strongest of red things”, referring to the dye produced from blackthorn bark; or mórad rún, “increase of secrets”, a more enigmatic gloss.

The kennings are not always consistent across manuscript versions, which is itself useful — they read as snippets of an older oral tradition that the medieval scribes were trying to fix in writing, with regional variants showing through.

The Auraicept in its time

It is worth, briefly, stepping back from the tree-list and noting what kind of text the Auraicept actually is. It is not a folk-magical text. It is a scholar’s primer on language, intended to teach Old Irish grammar, poetics, and the older alphabets. The tree-list is one element among many; the manuscript also covers Latin grammar, Greek-letter associations, and the rules of bardic composition. The medieval Irish learned class — the filid — used texts like the Auraicept to train.

The tree-list survived particularly well because it was mnemonically useful: a learned poet who had memorised the ogham alphabet by way of its tree associations could produce a poem on a tree topic with the alphabet’s structure already in their working knowledge. The classification by social class added a further layer of learned reference, allowing the poet to produce verse that played on the tree’s status as well as its species.

By the early-modern period, the manuscript tradition had effectively died out. Ogham was an antiquarian curiosity; the Auraicept was preserved in a few manuscripts but not actively studied. The Celtic Revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries brought renewed scholarly interest, and the modern editions (notably the George Calder edition of 1917 and the more recent Damian McManus Guide to Ogam of 1991) have made the material accessible to readers without manuscript Latin.

What survives in the present day

The Auraicept survives as scholarly reference rather than as a living tradition. It is read now by:

• Celtic-studies academics working on early Irish manuscripts, language, and material culture
• Modern druidic and pagan revival groups, who often use the tree-list as a structural element in liturgy and divination — though the use is reconstructive rather than continuous, and most scholars treat the modern druidic engagement with the Auraicept as a creative re-application rather than a recovery of authentic practice
• Folklorists working on the longer history of British and Irish tree-symbolism
• Students of stick-making, tree-craft, and traditional crafts with an interest in the cultural depth of the woods they work with

For a reader of this site, the Auraicept is worth knowing about because it gives the woods their cultural ranking in the older Irish tradition — and that ranking is interesting precisely because it does not match the modern iconic status of the woods. The wood that is now most associated with Irish identity (blackthorn) was, in the medieval tradition, classified as a shrub. The woods that the medieval tradition ranked as noble (oak, hazel, holly) are still made into sticks today, but the cultural register has shifted.

The shift is part of what makes the modern Irish stick-making tradition interesting on its own terms: it is the product of a thousand-year cultural conversation about which trees matter, conducted continuously, with the answer changing over time.

---

The full text of the Auraicept na n-Éces is available in scholarly editions and in the CELT corpus at University College Cork. The most accessible English-language reading of the tree-list specifically is in Damian McManus’s A Guide to Ogam (1991). Niall Mac Coitir’s Irish Trees: Myths, Legends & Folklore (2003) draws on the Auraicept material extensively.