irish constitution - the "literal" irish text

764

Upload: sparxz

Post on 11-Apr-2015

1.195 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Correct "Literal translation" of Irish Constitution.This is the only valid in Irish courts. There have been many attmpts to bury this.

TRANSCRIPT

iv iv Government of Ireland 1999Baile tha CliathArna fhoilsi ag Oifig an tSolthairLe ceannach dreach nOifig Dholta Foilseachn RialtaisTeach Sun AllianceSrid Theach Laighean, Baile tha Cliath 2n trd an bp ost Foilseachin Rialtais, An Ranng Post-Trchta4-5 Bthar Fhearchair, Baile tha Cliath 2(Teil: 01-661 3111 folne 4040/ 4045; Fax: 01-475 2760)n tr aon doltir leabhar.Dublin Published by the Stationery OfficeTo be p urchased directly from theGovernment Publications Sale OfficeSun Alliance HouseMolesworth Street, Dublin 2or by mail order fromGovernment Publications, Postal Trade Section4-5 Harcourt Road, Dublin 2(Tel: 01-661 3111 ext 4040/ 4045; Fax: 01-475 2760)or through any bookseller.15.00 C19.06Pn 7899ISBN 0-7076-6400-4Printed by Criterion Press PrintersvThe All-Party Oireachtas Committee was established on 16 October 1997. Its terms ofreference are:In order to provide focus to the place and relevance of the Constitution and toestablish those areas where Constitutional change may be desirable ornecessary, the All-Party Committee will undertake a full review of theConstitution. In undertaking this review, the All-Party Committee will haveregard to the following:a the Report of the Constitution Review Groupb participation in the All-Party Committee would involve no obligationto support any recommendations which might be made, even if madeunanimouslyc members of the All-Party Committee, either as individuals or as Partyrepresentatives, would not be regarded as committed in any way tosupport such recommendationsd members of the All-Party Committee shall keep their respective PartyLeaders informed from time to time of the progress of the Committeesworke none of the parties, in Government or Opposition, would be precludedfrom dealing with matters within the All-Party Committees terms ofreference while it is sitting, and f whether there might be a single draft of non-controversialamendments to the Constitution to deal with technical matters.viThe committee comp rises eight TDs and four senators:Brian Lenihan, TD (FF), chairmanJim OKeeffe, TD (FG), vice-chairmanBrendan Daly, TD (FF)Senator John Dardis (PD)Thomas Enright, TD (FG)Samus Kirk, TD (FF)Derek McDowell, TD (LAB)Marian McGennis, TD (FF)Liz McManus, TD (LAB)Senator Denis ODonovan (FF)Senator Fergus ODowd (FG)Senator Kathleen OMeara (LAB)The secretariat is p rovided by the Institute of Public Administration:Jim ODonnell, secretaryJames McDermott, assistant secretary.While no constitutional issue is excluded from consideration by the committee, it isnot a body with exclusive concern for constitutional amendments: the Government,as the executive, is free to make constitutional p rop osals at any time.The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the ConstitutionFourth Floor, Phoenix House7-9 South Leinster StreetDublin 2Telep hone : 01 662 5580Fax : 01 662 5581Email : info@ap occ.irlgov.ieviiCONTENTSBrollach viiiForeword ixText and Context 1The Nation 54The State 70The President 116The National Parliament 222The Government 402International Relations 437The Attorney General 455The Council of State 465The Comp troller and Auditor General 478The Courts 487Trial of Offences 523Fundamental Rights 538Directive Princip les of Social Policy 640Amendment of the Constitution 666The Referendum 674Rep eal of Constitution of Saorstt ireann andContinuance of Laws 680Ap p endices1 Preamble 6912 Tarma Dl 6983 Gender-p roofing 7054 The latest amendments 7095 Enrolled text 713Irish Index 742English Index 751viiiBROLLACHT cram thacs an Bhunreachta ar an Taoiseach. Tugtar cumhacht don Taoiseach le hAirteagal 25tacs den Bhunreacht a ullmh mar a bheidh i bhfeidhm san am. Nuair at cip den tacs sindeimhnithe ag an Taoiseach agus ag an bPromh-Bhreitheamh, agus lmh an Uachtarin curtha li,deintear a chur isteach ina hiris in oifig Chlraitheoir na Cirte Uachtara. An cl Gaelach a bh sachad leagan den tacs Gaeilge a rollaodh. Is sin a sideadh shin i leith tugtar cip den tacsGaeilge mar a rollaodh nos luaithe i mbliana i bhFoscrbhinn 5.Is an tacs barntil n tacs an Bhunreachta sa d theanga oifigila. T an forlmhas ag an tacsGaeilge i gcs easaontachta idir na tacsanna rollaithe. Tuigeadh don choiste agus iad i mbun a gcuidoibre go raibh g le staidar bunsach ar an tacs Gaeilge agus diarr ar Mhichel Cearil dul imbun an staidir seo. Nl an coiste freagrach, fach, as na tuairim a nochtar ann.Tagann tr n ach go hirithe chun solais sa srstaidar seo:1 Lironn tacs an Bhunreachta saibhreas agus seandacht na teanga. Is fidir roinnt de na tarmaat ann a rian siar go dt an t-ocht haois. Baineann abairt eile leis an dul chun cinn at dantaag an teanga agus leis an tsl ar cuireadh in oiriint don saol at ann bunaodh an Stt. Nochtarsa staidar saibhreas na bhfoins scrofa sa Ghaeilge at ar fil dinne inniu. Lirtear ann anoidhreacht scrofa agus seanchais at cuimsithe sa teanga nua-aimseartha. Agus sinn ar thairseachr nua chmid nach le gluaiseacht na hathbheochana 1893 i leith a thosaigh an teanga Ghaeilgea labhratear inniu. Is acmhainn uasal a shneann siar thar dh mhle bliain an teanga a labhratearsa Ghaeltacht ach go hirithe agus a mhintear inr scoileanna.2 Tabharfaidh an staidar seo an-chabhair do dhaoine agus br baint acu as an mBunreacht. 1937 i leith t lear mr trchtaireachta sa Bharla ar an mBunreacht. T cil an linn ar chuidmhaith den bhar sin. Ach is seo an chad staidar cuimsitheach a deineadh ar thacs Gaeilgean Bhunreachta. Tabharfaidh an staidar seo largas eile dinn ar r mBunreacht. Beidh s inachabhair ach go hirithe do na breithina, dlodir, p olaiteoir agus scolir dl i gcoitinne.3 Tugtar roinnt neamhrireachta i dtacsanna an Bhunreachta chun solais sa staidar seo. Lironnan t-dar go bhfuil deacrachta ann a bhaineann le cl, litri, gramadach agus foclir an tacsGaeilge. Is iontach an staidar seo agus t sil agam go sp reagfaidh s athbhreithni ar an dthacs den Bhunreacht agus gur fearrde iad d bharr.Brian Lenihan, TDCat haoirleachCoist e Uile-Phirt an Oireacht ais ar an mBunreachtixFOREWORDArticle 25 of the Constitution emp owers the Taoiseach to cause to be p rep ared under his sup ervisiona text in both the official languages of the Constitution then in force. A cop y of the text so p rep ared,when authenticated by the signatures of the Taoiseach and the Chief Justice and signed by thePresident, is enrolled for record in the office of the Registrar of the Sup reme Court. The first Irish textwas enrolled in the Gaelic scrip t and the p ractice has been maintained ever since a cop y of the Irishtext as enrolled earlier this year is rep roduced as Ap p endix 5.It should be noted that the constitutional text in both official languages is authentic. Article 25 p rovidesthat in case of conflict between the enrolled texts, the Irish language text p revails.In the course of the work of the committee it became obvious that a detailed study of the Irish textwas required. The committee engaged Michel Cearil to undertake the study. However, the committeedoes not accep t resp onsibility for the views exp ressed in the study.In my op inion there are three clear lessons to be drawn from this excellent study:1 The p resent Irish text of the Constitution illustrates the richness and antiquity of the language.Some of the terms emp loyed in the Constitution have a lineage that can be traced back to theeighth century. Other exp ressions used in the Constitution relate to the modern develop ment andadap tation of the language since the foundation of the State. The study discloses the wealth ofwritten sources in the Irish language available to us today. The study illustrates the continuousliterary tradition embodied in the modern language. On the eve of a new millennium we see thatthe Irish language sp oken today did not begin with the revival movement initiated in 1893. Thelanguage sp oken in the Gaeltacht in p articular and taught in schools is the p roud inheritance of asp oken tradition which has evolved over more than two millennia.2 This study will be of immense assistance to those who wish to interp ret the p rovisions of theConstitution. Since 1937 there has been a rich commentary in the English language on the provisionsof the Constitution. Much of this material has acquired a high scholarly rep utation. While p assingreference and consideration has been given to the Irish text, this is the first detailed, comprehensivestudy of the official text of the Constitution in the Irish language. This study will shed further lighton our Constitution and be a valuable help to those who interp ret, p rofess and study the law.3 The study illustrates certain anomalies in the texts of the Constitution. The author has identifieddifficulties relating to the scrip t, sp elling, grammar and vocabulary of the Irish text. It is my hop ethat this study will occasion a proper reconsideration of both texts with a view to their improvement.Brian Lenihan, TDChairman The All-Part y Oireacht as Commit t ee on t he Const it ut ionA study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 11INTRODUCTIONBUNREACHT NA hIREANNTEXT AND CONTEXTArticle 25.5.4o of the Constitution p rovides that, in the event of conflict with the English version, theIrish version of the Constitution will p revail:In case of conflict between the texts of any cop y of this Constitution enrolled under this section, thetext in the national language shall prevail. I gcs gan na tacsanna daon chip irithe den Bhunreachtseo a bheidh curtha isteach ina hiris faoin alt seo a bheith de rir a chile, is ag an tacs Gaeilge abheidh an forlmhas.Dep uty W.T. Cosgrave, former President of the Executive Council, commented on this as followsduring the Dil debate on the draft Constitution on 14 June 1937:The Irish text is being made op erative in cases of disp ute in a court of law. As a matter of fact the Irishtext is a mere translation of the English. The Constitution was thought out and framed in English bythe President [of the Executive Council, Mr. de Valera]. It is unheard of and contrary to commonsense that an imp erfect translation, such as the Irish text of the Constitution, should be made theauthoritative version for the courts.1This study seeks to establish that the Irish text is in fact no mere translation of the English and revealsthat almost every section of the Constitution contains divergences of some degree between the twotexts. The following study illustrates that, were an official direct translation into Irish to be made todayof the original English text of the Constitution, very few sections of such a translation would correspondto the existing Irish text of the Constitution, this by no means being due solely, nor even p rincip ally,to develop ments in the language which have taken p lace since 1937. In the commentary on theConstitution which follows, we shall see that while many of the p rovisions of the 1937 Constitutionare identical to p rovisions of the 1922 Constitution, the Irish text of which is an acknowledged directtranslation of the English, the corresp onding Irish text in the 1937 Constitution differs greatly, and onemust assume deliberately, from that of the 1922 Constitution, again this being in very few instancesdue to develop ments in the Irish language between 1922 and 1937.The Irish text of the 1937 Constitution was p rep ared as the Constitution was being drafted, asagainst the usual translation p rocess which commences with a definitive text. Sp eaking in the above-mentioned Dil debate of 14 June 1937, the President of the Executive Council, amon de Valera, saidthat p roviding an Irish version was no mere afterthought on his p art; neither was it a direct translationof the English. The drafting in Irish was p rogressing along with the English step by step , almost fromthe beginning when the main ideas which were accep ted were being p ut down in draft-form:I want to tell those who suggest that the Irish was only an afterthought, a mere translation of theEnglish, that the Irish drafting has gone on pari passu almost from the beginning, when the fundamentalideas that were accep ted for the Constitution were being p ut in draft form. It is true that, as far as theliteral drafting of the Constitution was concerned, it has been largely left to one p erson. But thisdoes not mean that the Draft was not criticised. It does not mean that that draft was not changed fromits original form to the form in which you have it now, finally. It was changed a number of times, butthe p rincip le was to get those changes always exp ressed and p ut in their final shap e as far asp ossible by the one hand. The Irish has gone side by side with that. We got the most comp etentp eop le we could for the Irish. This Constitution has been criticised and examined closely by languageexp erts, and we have not had, as far as the Irish language is concerned, any criticism that wasworth while.2In fact, as against Dep uty Cosgraves assertion above, it is claimed in the authorised Irish biograp hy ofamon de Valera by Pdraig Fiannachta and Toms Nill that to a certain extent the final Englishdraft derived from the Irish: 1 Dil Debates, 14 June 1937, vol. 68, col. 351, in J.M. Kelly, The Irish Constitution (third ed., 1994), p . 211. 2 Dil Debates, 14 June 1937, vol. 68, col. 413.2 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannNa drachta tosaigh den Bhunreacht a chuir Sen hEathrn ar fil ba iad ba bhonn do leaganGaeilge a rinne Mchel Grofa gan mhoill: bh meas ag de Valera ar Ghaeilge shoilir bheachtMhchl. Ba an leagan Gaeilge seo a bh ag de Valera as sin amach mar bhonn saothair. Ba air abunaodh an leagan Barla ina dhiaidh sin, i dtreo gur tiont n nGaeilge an Barla canna.3 (Theinitial drafts of the Constitution which John Hearne provided were the basis for an Irish version whichMchel Grobhtha made without delay: de Valera valued Mchels clear precise Irish. It was thisIrish version which de Valera had from then on as a basis for work. It was on this that the Englishversion was afterwards based, with the result that the English is a translation from the Irish.)This is in contrast to the Preamble, the Irish version of which, according to the authorised biograp hy,is a direct translation done by T.F. ORahilly:Fuair de Valera dracht de bhrollach ar dts n Athair amann Cathail, S.J., ach mheas s go raibhs rscaoilte. Ansin chuaigh s i gcomhairle leis an Athair Sen Mac Uaid, C.S.Sp ., i gColiste naCarraige Duibhe ina chngar, agus fuair dracht ssil uaidh. Rinne de Valera bhar leasaithe ar andracht agus ansin chuir Toms Rathile, an scolire ciliil, Gaeilge air.4 (De Valera initially got adraft of a preamble from Fr. amann Cathail, S.J., but considered that it was too loose. Then heconsulted Fr. Sen Mac Uaid, C.S.Sp., in Blackrock College near him, and got a satisfactory draft fromhim. De Valera made some amendment to the draft and then Toms Rathile, the famous scholar, putit into Irish.)Sp eaking in Seanad ireann on the Second Stage of the Irish Legal Terms Bill, 1945, to which Billwe will later return, Senator Hayes referred as follows to the translation of the Constitution:The Constitution was framed in English and translated into Irish. The only comp etent body was not,in fact, the body that did it. It was handed over to another body. I do not exactly know who theywere. The document on the face of it shows that they were not always in agreement. They p roducedwhat is a very unsatisfactory document. Then the extraordinary step was taken of making the Irish,which is really a translation, and not a very good translation, the document which was valid in law.When it was seen that the thing was not satisfactory, an effort was made to bring the translation staffto the rescue. That did not prove completely satisfactory either. Recently a new copy of the Constitutionhas been issued in Roman scrip t with a new standard sp elling.5It is noteworthy that the Irish text of the Constitution was not p rep ared by the Translation Section ofthe Houses of the Oireachtas, Ranng an Aistrichin, which section was resp onsible for translatingthe Acts of the Oireachtas from 1922 onwards. The original draft of the Irish text was made by Mchel Grobhtha, a native of Co. Clare chosen p ersonally by amon de Valera for this task. According tobiograp hers Diarmuid Breathnach and Mire N Mhurch, Mchel was a native bilingual; his p arentssp oke English to the children, but Irish was generally sp oken in the home and neighbourhood. Heacquired a sound general education. He sp ent five or six years teaching before becoming a Customsand Excise Officer, having achieved the second p lace in Britain and Ireland in a comp etition for suchofficers. He served in Belfast, Glasgow and Dublin. From 1922 on Mchel Grobhtha worked in theDep artment of Education, mostly in An Gm, the section resp onsible for the p ublication of Irishbooks. He p ublished stories and essays in various Irish magazines and journals and wrote a dozenbooks, including novels, short stories, p lays and translations among the books translated by him wasThe First Man in the Moon by H.G. Wells.6The background to the Irish version of the Constitution, and p articularly Mchel Grobhthascontribution, is the subject of a comprehensive article, published in the Irish magazine Feasta (October1988), by the Advisory Archivist of amon de Valeras Pap ers, Breandn Mac Giolla Choille. JohnHearne, a Legal Adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs, provided A Plan for a basic constitutional 3 Toms Nill agus Pdraig Fiannachta, De Valera, II (1970), p . 327. 4 Ibid, p . 328. 5 Seanad ireann Debates, 26 Ap ril 1945, vol. 29, col. 2382. 6 Diarmuid Breathnach agus Mire N Mhurch, Beathaisnis a hAon (1986, p . 76). See also Breandn MacGiolla Choille, I dtaobh an tsaothair sin na Gaeilge ar an mBunreacht, Feasta, October 1988, p .64:Clirneach a rugadh i gCathair Aeidh gar do Lios U Chathasaigh sa bhliain 1869, rud a dfhg 67 de bhliantabheith slnaithe aige nuair a ghlac s air fin obair a dhanfa faoi mhrbhr. Faoin am seo bh cl tugtha aigedon obair sa tseirbhs chustaim agus ml, obair breis agus 30 bliain, agus gabhil le scrobh agus leheagarthireacht Ghaeilge.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 3law and an Initial Version of a Draft on 20 August 1936. By the twelfth or the fourteenth of Octoberhe had a draft of headings ready containing four Basic Declarations and 78 Articles. It was exactly atthat time, according to Mac Giolla Choille, that it was decided to arrange to get an Irish version of thedraft Constitution done, Mchel Grobhtha (then 67 years of age) being chosen for that work. On19 October 1936, Mchel was seconded from the Dep artment of Education, having been working atthat time as an assistant to the chairman of the Terminology Comp 9ttee. He began work on the firstIrish draft of the Constitution in a room in Government Buildings, close to amon de Valera. He hadmade good p rogress by 11 November, the day Risterd Foghludha (Fiachra ilgeach) joined him aseditor (non-established), also on secondment from the same Dep artment, where he was an editor ofp ublications. Both worked together on the Irish version from then until the Dil accep ted the draftConstitution as a document to be p ut before the p eop le in a referendum.7Breandn Mac Giolla Choille outlines their modus operandi as follows:Is mar seo a doibrds: Mchel ag cadscrobh an tacs Ghaeilge mar aistri cruinnbheacht ar anfhoclaocht dlthiil sa leagan Bharla; Risteard ag danamh eagarthireacht, alt ar alt agus focal arfhocal, ar shaothar Mhchl chun a dhanamh nos soilite mar p hrs Gaeilge n chun a thabhairti gcngar na gnthchainte sa mid ab fhidir , gan baint de bhr an bhunleagain thaobh an dl de.Bh limh an-trom ag Risteard mar eagarthir agus n folir n bh foighne an naoimh ag Mchel. Taris na heagarthireachta ar an chad leagan, mar shamp la, bh na hathruithe chomh hiomadil singurbh igean do Mhchel cur chuige agus cip ghlan a scrobh amach a mbeadh ceart Risteairdistigh inti, sula bhfadfa tosa ar an dara drachtadh. As sin amach lean dracht ar dhracht i dtreoagus gur fhg an bheirt seo le huacht againn bailichn mr drachta, cuid iomln agus cuid ag baintle hairteagail ar leith. Bhodh orthu nuadhrachta a dhanamh freisin de rir mar athrut na leaganachaBarla a bh ndracht agus bhfeabhs sa chomhaimsir.8 (This is how they worked: Mchel firstwriting the Irish text as a precise and exact translation of the legal wording of the English version;Risteard editing Mchels work, section by section and word by word, to make it more legible as Irishprose, or to bring it closer to ordinary speech as far as possible, without diminishing the meaning of theoriginal version as regards law. Risteard had a very heavy hand as editor and Mchel must have hadthe patience of a saint. After the editing on the first version, for example, the alterations were sonumerous that Mchel had to sit down and write out a clear copy with Risteards corrections insertedin it, before they could start on the second drafting. From then on draft followed on draft so that thetwo of them bequeathed us a large collection of drafts, some complete and some relating to specificarticles. They had to make new drafts also according as the English versions, which were being draftedand improved simultaneously, were being changed.)This p rocess of editing the Irish text, of interp reting the English text, in p articular, both by Fiachrailgeach and others, as we shall see below, contributes to making the Irish version of the Constitutionmore than a mere translation. We see in the drafts contained in the Archives how, for examp le,crchda was altered to rdha,9 finally ap p earing as flannbhu, exp ressing orange, in Article 7 ofthe Constitution, where The national flag is the tricolour of green, white and orange is exp ressed inthe Irish text as An bhratach tr dhath .i. uaine, bn, agus flannbhu, an suaitheantas nisinta. It isestimated that six drafts can be identified on which Mchel Grobhtha and Risterd Foghludhaco-op erated between November 1936 and 30 Ap ril 1937, according to Breandn Mac Giolla Choille.Faoi 1936 bh naoi gcinn de shaothair leis, idir bhunscrobh agus aistrichin foilsithe. Ina theannta sin bh sag obair an uair d mar chntir do Chathaoirleach an Choiste Tarmaochta. Ar an 19 Deireadh Fmhair 1936tugadh ar iasacht n Roinn Oideachais agus is i seomra i bhFoirgnimh an Rialtais, gar damon de Valra, athosaigh s ar an chad leagan Gaeilge den bhunreacht a chur ar fil.(He was a Clare man who was born in Cathair Aeidh, near Lissycasey, in 1869 - which makes him 67 years oldwhen he undertook work which would be done under great pressure. By this time he had finished his work in thecustoms and excise service, work of over 30 years, and was engaged in Irish writing and editing.By 1936 nine works by him, between original writings and translations, had been published. He was alsoworking at that time as an assistant to the Chairman of the Terminology Committee. On the 19th of October 1936,he was seconded from the Department of Education and began providing the first Irish version of the constitutionin a room in Government Buildings, close to amon de Valera.) 7 Breandn Mac Giolla Choille, op . cit., p . 64. 8 Ibid, p . 64. The author is obliged to his colleague Sen Briain who read a draft of the translation of thearticle quoted here. 9 Ibid, p . 67. As the original word is crossed out, it is not very clear but at least one letter follows crch(saffron).4 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannThere followed in succession: the Final Draft; Draft F or the Comp lete Irish Text; and finally AComp lete Irish Cop y which the p rinters p rovided on 25 March 1937.Liam Rinn and Toms Page, both of the Translation Section of the Houses of the Oireachtas,were ap p ointed at the beginning of Ap ril 1937 to help them in the work and in p articular to bring thetext into conformity with the p ractice of that Section.10 In May a committee was set up , under thechairmanship of Professor Eoin Mac Nill, to make recommendations regarding changes that shouldbe made to the Irish sp elling in the draft Constitution in order to simp lify it, which subject andcommittee we shall return to later below. amon de Valera had the Irish version of the draft Constitutionsent to certain people, asking them to do anything possible to improve that version (inn a dhanamhgur fidir dfhonn feabhas do chur ar an leagan Gaeilge den Dracht-Bhunreacht). Among themwere Fr Pdraig de Brn, Toms Mille, Tadhg Donnchadha (Trna), amonn Donnchadha,Liam Rinn, Cormac Cadhlaigh and Gearid Murchadha. As Breandn Mac Giolla Choilleoutlines, some of the rep lies were full of p raise, others were severely critical. Fr Pdraig de Brn wrotethat the Irish of the Constitution saddens me and causes me desp air, that nobody could understandthe words do-shannta, dochumhscuighthe, uachtarcheannais without the English beside it. De Brncontinued:Without p utting a tooth in it the Irish of this scrip t is misshap en and it reminds me of a verse of Yeats(Gan fiacal a chur ann obair mhchumtha is ea Gaeilge na scrbhinne seo agus cuireann s bharsaas Yeats i gcuimhne dom) The wrong of unshap ely things is a wrong too great to be told / I hungerto build them anew and sit on a green knoll ap art / With the earth and the sky and the water remadeetc. etc. Ach n hionann fonn agus aithdhanamh.11 (But will and remaking are not the same.)The Irish scholar Tadhg Donnchadha (Trna), on the other hand, wrote that the Irish version wasexcellent, that the sp eech was correct and exact and the meaning easily comp rehensible for ap erson who has exp erience of the Irish of our times. A remark made by Toms Mille is ofrelevance today, as regards amendments to the Constitution: he recommended on 28 May 1937leaving the translation into Irish of any changes which would be made in the Dil up to those whotranslated the rest of the text into Irish, commenting that without that, the two styles will not suit eachother and it will be a mess (Gan sin, n fheilfidh an d ns d chile agus beidh an scal inaphraiseach.12)Translating into IrishIrish and English being such utterly dissimilar languages, a literal translation from one to the other isimp ossible.13 So commences the General Notes on Grammar and Translation in Irish Composition bythe Christian Brothers (1907). The p iece for translation should be read through first, so as fully tograsp the meaning; the translation may then be attemp ted, care being taken to render the meaningrather than the individual words. This does not mean, of course, that individual words may beneglected, but that their force rather than their literal equivalent should be exp ressed in writing, Heknew his own mind, bh fhios aige fin go maith cad do bh uaidh being cited as an examp le. Thetranslator is instructed to break up any long and comp licated English sentence into simp le sentencesbefore attemp ting to translate it into Irish, The man having rep lied that he was a blacksmith, thefarmer asked him , dubhairt an fear gur ghabha 7 dfhiafruigh an feirmeoir de being cited forexamp le. Some of the above features are noted in the comp arisons which follow between the Irishand English texts of the Constitution, as is the next p oint made by the Christian Brothers, that is, thatrep etition of imp ortant words is useful in Irish, and no effort need be made to avoid such rep etition,as is done by certain stereotyp ed p hrases in English (do so, for the p urp ose, former, latter, etc.) the examp le cited in illustration of this p oint is Some of them must emigrate. If they do not do so ,N folir do chuid aca gluaiseacht. D mbadh rud nr ghluaiseadar . The translator is instructedto note well that the definite article, p ossessive adjectives, p rep ositions, and conjunctions must berep eated in Irish with each word or p hrase to which they belong, as in John, James and Peter,Seaghn agus Samus agus Peadar .14 10 Ibid, p . 64. 11 Ibid, p . 66. 12 Ibid, p . 66. 13 The Christian Brothers, Irish Composition (1907), p . 189. 14 Ibid, p . 189f.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 5According to Irish Composition, abstract modes of exp ression are not known in Irish, excep t intheir p rop er p lace, i.e., in abstract and p hilosop hical discussion. Hence, Irish is much more simp leand direct in style than contemp orary English. Among the examp les cited here are He saw thecondition in which it was, chonnaic s gach ndh mar a bh and favouritism and bribery, fabhar agusbreab. The general is sometimes used for the p articular, according to the Christian Brothers, citing thefollowing: skating is a healthful exercise, is deas an rud bheith ag sleamhnughadh ar an lic oidhir, agreat number of visitors resort there, tagann mr-chuid daoine ann and the native language, anGhaoluinn . Two nouns sometimes rep resent an English noun p lus adjective, etc. No trace of work ofany kind is translated as gan rian oibre n gntha, I am exceedingly ashamed is translated as tceist agus ceann-f orm and a terrible loathing as distin agus seirbhthean to illustrate that p oint.Attention is drawn to the op p osition in usage between Irish and English in the following: up anddown, sos (is) suas, backwards and forwards, anonn is anall, north-east wind, gaoth anoir adtuaidh,up side down, bun os cionn, from head to foot, bhun bthas, high or low, thos n thuas, good,bad, or indfferent, olc, maith, n donaidhe and, finally, for your life, ar do bhs .15The Rev. Gerald ONolans Studies in Modern Irish (1920) also gives a p articular view of theprocess of translation. At the very outset one must have a clear conception of what intelligent translationreally means, states ONolan, who continues:And here we must steer clear of the bogey of literal translation. A p assage of English p rose conveyscertain ideas, thoughts, images, set forth by the writer to p roduce the desired imp ression of thep ersonages, scenes or facts that are being described, or the p hilosop hical or ethical p rincip les that arebeing p roved or illustrated. The rendering of such a p assage into Irish must be consistent with thelaws of Irish thought and exp ression. In deference to the laws of Irish thought insertions, omissionsand other changes will take p lace, according to circumstances. In deference to the laws of Irishexp ression we must emancip ate ourselves from the English words, as such, grasp the kernel ofthought or emotion to be conveyed, and endeavour to clothe that kernel with the Irish words bestsuited to exp ress the essential inner meaning. Language is an index to the national character. Thefundamentals of the Irish character are, when all is said and done, very different to those of theEnglish character, in sp ite of strong Celtic elements transfused through the Saxon ground-work of thelatter. Hence a word-for-word translation is nearly always fatal.16Finally, we turn to one of the most influential p eop le in the early decades of this century, not only asregards Irish writing but on the form of the language itself, An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire. In anarticle headed Some hints as to how English literary matter should be translated into Irish, edited byThomas F. ORahilly in Papers on Irish Idiom by the late Canon Peter OLeary, PP (1929)17, the followinggeneral rule is laid down for all learners of Irish:It may be laid down as a general rule, such is the innate antagonism between the two languages inevery p hase, that so surely as a word is used figuratively in one it is certain to be taken literally in theother, and to exp ress outrageous nonsense.18The translator must focus on the sense of the English rather than the English words, advises Peadar UaLaoghaire:The translator must first find out the sense of what he wishes to translate. Then he must turn his backcomp letely up on the English words, think the thoughts out as they might be thought out in Irish, andthen exp ress the thoughts in Irish exactly as he would exp ress them if they were his own thoughtsand he knew no language but Irish.19The author concludes by advising the translator to rep roduce the English rather than translate it:Read over the English matter carefully. Take all the ideas into your mind. Squeeze the ideas cleanfrom all English froth. Be sure that you allow none of that oozy stuff to remain. English is full of it.You must also get rid of everything in the shap e of metap hor. Take instead of it the true idea which 15 Ibid, p . 191f. 16 Gerald Nolan, Studies in Modern Irish, Part II, Continuous Irish Prose (Dublin 1920), p . 1. 17 Note that this article was first p ublished in Finne an Lae, January 1899. 18 Thomas F. ORahilly, Papers on Irish Idiom by the late Canon Peter OLeary, PP, p . 90. 19 Ibid, p . 91.6 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannthe metap hor is intended to convey. When you have the ideas cleared comp letely of foreign matter,p ut them into the Irish side of your mind, and shap e them in the Irish language, just as you would ifthey had been your own ideas from the start.20As David Greene reminds us, the advice above is in the sp irit of the Irish tradition in that that traditionalways p referred adap tation to translation.21 It may be noted here that we have in Irish the earliestvernacular translations of classical texts in existence.22 Scla Alaxandair is a tenth-century translationof an account of the life of Alexander the Great and Togail Tro is a free and much-expanded translationof the Latin p rose narrative of the Trojan War, made in the late tenth century.23 In the twelfth centurythe Aeneid was translated into prose as Imtheachta Aeniosa, Lucans De Bello Civili as In Cath Catharda,and Statiuss Thebaid as Togail na Tebe.24In Translating Ireland (1996), Michael Cronin writes that, in the article referred to above, PeadarUa Laoghaire is, in fact, restating a p osition that has had a long history in translation theory andp ractice, namely, that the translator must p roduce the text as if s/ he were writing an original,contemp orary text in the language.25 Nonetheless, as Michael Cronin observes, in Ua Laoghairesobservations as in those of the Christian Brothers and of Nuallin inductive generalisations andmoral/ p olitical values are merged, there being a distinctive value judgement in the disp aragingreference to English froth above, for examp le.26 Professor Mirtn Murch comments as follows onthe above excerp ts from the Christian Brothers, Nuallin and Ua Laoghaire:There are, of course, various typ es of translation, according to various p urp oses. If, for examp le, theobject is to assist students in comp rehending foreign-language texts, a word-for-word translation maybe very useful. If, on the other hand, the object is, with comp arable effect, to exp ress in one languagewhat has been written in another, then a word-for-word translation will not do and, as correctlyargued by Peadar Ua Laoghaire, the translator must first find out the sense of what he wishes totranslate. But this reasonable advice is mingled, by him and others, with a confusion of other assertionsabout the essential characteristics of Irish style. There are questionable notions of linguistic relativity,e.g. the national character, etc., and there is the determined p romotion of one subjective view of theop timal Irish p rose style. The actual fact is that Irish and English can equally, in their distinctive ways,have elaborate or succinct styles, literary or colloquial, conservative or modish; in the case of the Irishversion of the Constitution, there was no reason intrinsic to Irish why the Irish version could not havebeen as legalistic as the English, as the Irish 1922 text essentially was [as we shall see]. But thisconfusion of reasonable and questionable views about translation, and about the op timal Irish p rosestyle, which Peadar Ua Laoghaire had a central role in develop ing, was an inescap able p art of the1937 drafters literary formation and undoubtedly influenced the grammatical and lexical choiceswhich they made, and must in large p art exp lain the considerable stylistic divergence between theIrish 1937 text and its 1922 p redecessor.Caint na ndaoine, the sp eech of the p eop le, was for Peadar Ua Laoghaire of p aramount imp ortance:For a living language, the books and the sp eech of the p eop le should go hand in hand. What isp rinted in the books should be the exact rep resentation of what comes out of the p eop les mouths.27This emp hasis on the contemp orary sp oken vernacular had two obvious consequences for thesubsequent develop ment of translation in Irish, according to Michael Cronin:Firstly, the language of translation was to be the language of the people. The text would be naturalisedin translation, rendered in the idiom of the Gaeltacht sp eakers. Secondly, those who were mostfamiliar with caint na ndaoine were obviously native sp eakers themselves. Therefore, the questionof who was translating into Irish became more imp ortant.28 20 Ibid, p . 92. 21 David Greene, Writing in Irish to-day (1972), p . 16. 22 See Robert Welch, ed., The Companion to Irish Literature, 1996, p . 568. 23 Ibid, p . 562. 24 Ibid, p . 102. 25 Michael Cronin, Translating Ireland (1996), p . 147. 26 Ibid, p p . 147-8. 27 Thomas F. ORahilly, ed., op . cit., p . 86 (an article entitled The Irish of Keatings time). 28 Michael Cronin, op . cit., p . 148.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 7The new State recognised the need for translations into Irish. Five hundred p ounds was allocated bythe first Dil for the p rovision of reading material in Irish, the money to be sp ent in p ublicationsurgently required such as text books on all subjects and Irish translations of standard works.29 Atranslation scheme insp ired by existing Welsh and Flemish models, and run by the branch of theDep artment of Education set up in 1926 with resp onsibility for the p ublication of books in Irish, AnGm, had by 1937 commissioned the translation of 214 books (out of a total of 389 books p ublishedunder An Gm), 170 of which were translations of English books. Of the one hundred novels publishedby An Gm by 1937, eighty-two were translations.30 The Minister mainly resp onsible for that scheme,Earnn de Blaghd, wrote as follows on the need for translations into Irish:In the Galltacht there must be made available great masses of reading matter in Irish and readingmatter to suit all tastes. The quantity that is required can only be obtained in time by translation.Therefore, we must translate English novels and detective stories in much greater numbers than hadbeen thought of heretofore.31Translation was recommended by Cearbhall Dlaigh as a way of removing the rust from Irish:Molaim an t-aistrichn. Sciomram, sciomram agus sciomram gan sos. Nuair a bheidh an mheirgcaithte den Ghaedhilg againn, dar fiadh go ndanfar acht.32 (I recommend translation. Let us scrub,scrub and scrub unceasingly. When we have removed the rust from Irish, by Jove, great things will bedone).Sp eaking of the literary language, Cearbhall Dlaigh said that Irish had become rusty having beenin the op en under the bad weather (T meirg tris teacht ar an nGaedhilg bheith amuigh f spirle fada agus an droch-shon ann); ordinary affairs of learning had not been commented on in Irishfor a long time and Irish was now clumsy and crude (Is fada trchtadh ar ghnth-chrsa lighinnsa nGaedhilg, agus sin a bheir di bheith go ciotach agus go tuatach indiu).33 Translation could helpforge a new literary language in Irish as against caint na ndaoine. In an article p ublished in 1933,Liam Rinn of the Translation Section of the Houses of the Oireachtas wrote that there was nocountry in Europ e which did not have two typ es of exp ression, the typ e p ractised by the p eop le whentalking and doing business and the language in literature, which differed from each other as much as,for examp le, Ciceros Latin differed from the jargon of the Roman soldiers. So it was also in Ireland,until three or four hundred years ago, wrote Rinn:Nl aon tr san Eoraip iniu gan dh shaghas cainte inti, an saghas a chleachtann na daoine nuair a bhdag comhrdh n ag danamh gntha agus an chaint a bhonn sa litrocht, agus an oiread deifrochtaeatorra is bh in analld idir Laidin Chicero, cuir i gcs, agus barlagar na saighdiir Rmhnacha. Ismar sin a bh an scal in irinn, leis, go dt tr n ceathair de chadta blian shoin.34 Irish text elucidates meaning of the English textIt will be seen in p articular from a comp arison of the literal translation of the Irish text with the officialEnglish text of the Constitution in the study which follows, that p ractically every section of theConstitution contains divergences between the Irish and the English texts. Many of these divergencesare related to the linguistic resources of the languages themselves and could not be described assignificant. Other divergences are quite intentional. Take Article 28.8, for examp le:Every member of the Government shall have the right to attend and be heard in each House of theOireachtas. T s de cheart ag gach comhalta den Rialtas bheith i lthair agus labhairt i ngach Teachden Oireachtas. 29 Miontuairisc Dospireachta an Chad Dil 1919-1921, p . 273 see Michael Cronin, op . cit., p . 156. 30 See Roiberd Farachin, Regarding An Gm, Bonaventura, Summer 1937, p . 174. 31 Earnn de Blaghds Pap ers, P24/ 304(2), Archives, University College Dublin; p ublished by Mirtn MacNioclis, Sen Ruadhin: Saol agus Saothar (1991), p . 111. 32 The Nation, 29 November 1930 rep rinted by Mirtn Mac Nioclis, op . cit., p . 113. 33 Ibid, p . 113. 34 Fear Faire, Tugtar Cead a gCinn Do Lucht Ceap tha Ruda Nua, in The United Irishman, 13 May 1933,rep rinted by Mirtn Mac Nioclis, op . cit., p . 113.8 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannTo be heard could easily be translated more literally as isteacht a fhil (literally to get a hearing)rather than be exp ressed as labhairt (to sp eak). From the date is exp ressed as n l, literally fromthe day, in Articles 12.3.1o and 27.5.1oi, for examp le, with after the date being exp ressed as tar is anlae in Articles 25.2.1o and 26.3.3o. Again, this involved a deliberate decision not to use dta in theabove contexts in the Irish text.There is no doubt but that in some cases the Irish text exp resses the sense of the English muchmore naturally, as in Article 28.9.4o, for examp le, where his ap p ointment shall be terminated by thePresident is exp ressed in the Irish text as n folir don Uachtarn an comhalta sin a chur as oifig,literally, the President must p ut that member out of office. In his commentary on Article 25.5, J.M.Kelly, The Irish Constitution (1994), refers to a total of twenty-two Articles the Irish text of which thecourts have looked at in order to elucidate the meaning of the corresp onding English exp ressions.The Articles in question are Articles 11, 15.4.2o, 15.10, 15.12, 15.13, 16.2.3o, 28.4, 29.3, 29.5, 30.3,34.3.1o, 36.iii, 38.5, 40.1, 40.3.1o, 42.4, 43, 44.2.3o, 45, 45.2.i, 46.1 and 50.135 J.M. Kellys rep ort on thecomments made by the courts are included in the commentaries on those Articles which follow in thisstudy and only a coup le of examp les are highlighted here. With regard to Article 29.3, for examp le, inThe State (Sumers Jennings) v Furlong ([1966] IR 183), Justice Henchy said that the Irish versionmakes clear that Ireland accep ts the generally recognized p rincip les of international law as a guide(ina dtreoir) in its relations with other states i.e. merely as a guide, not as a rule op erating to restrictthe p owers of the Oireachtas.36 Article 29.3 reads as follows:Ireland accep ts the generally recognised p rincip les of international law as its rule of conduct in itsrelations with other States. Glacann ire le bunrialacha gnth-admhaithe an dl idirnisinta lebheith ina dtreoir dirinn ina caidreamh le Stit eile.Literally translated the Irish text reads:Ireland accep ts the generally acknowledged fundamental rules of international law to be a guide forIreland in her relations with other States.In the case of Article 40.3.1o, in McGee v Attorney General ([1974] IR 284) Justice Griffin p ointed outthat the Irish version, Rthaonn an Stt gan cur isteach lena dhlithibh ar cheartaibh p earsanta aontsaornaigh, was a guarantee not to interfere with citizens p ersonal rights, thus adding dep th to theguarantee to resp ect them in the English version.37 Article 40.3.1o reads:The State guarantees in its laws to resp ect, and, as far as p racticable, by its laws to defend andvindicate the p ersonal rights of the citizen. Rthaonn an Stt gan cur isteach lena dhlthe ar cheartapearsanta aon saornaigh, agus rthaonn fs na cearta sin a chosaint is a shuomh lena dhlthe samhid gur fidir .A literal translation of the Irish text reads as follows:The State guarantees not to interfere by its laws with the p ersonal rights of any citizen, and it furtherguarantees to defend and assert those rights with its laws in so far as it is p ossible.Finally, as regards Article 42.4, in Crowley v Ireland ([1980] IR 102) Justice Kenny p ointed out that theIrish version n folir don Stt socr do dhanamh chun bunoideachas do bheith ar fil in aiscebrought out more clearly than the English the distinction between the duty to p rovide for freep rimary education, and a duty actually to p rovide it.38 Article 42.4 reads as follows:The State shall p rovide for free p rimary education and shall endeavour to sup p lement and givereasonable aid to p rivate and corp orate educational initiative, and, when the p ublic good requires it,p rovide other educational facilities or institutions . N folir don Stt socr a dhanamh chunbunoideachas a bheith ar fil in aisce, agus iarracht a dhanamh chun cabhr go rasnta aguschun cur le tionscnamh oideachais idir phrobhideach agus chumannta agus, nuair is riachtanaschun leasa an phobail , iseanna n fundireachta eile oideachais a chur ar fil.A literal translation of the Irish text reads: 35 J.M. Kelly, op . cit., p . 205ff. 36 Ibid, p . 207. 37 Ibid, p . 208. 38 Ibid, p p . 208-9.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 9The State must make p rovision for p rimary education to be available free, and endeavour to helpreasonably and to augment educational undertaking both private and common and, when it is necessaryfor the welfare of the p eop le, to p rovide other educational facilities or foundations.Before concluding on references to the Irish text in the courts, it may be noted that some of thecomments in the courts have taken individual Irish terms and p hrases in isolation and not in thecontext of the Constitution as a whole and p articularly without regard to the 1922 Constitution, wherethe terms involved are direct translations of English terms. In the work which follows, a literal Englishtranslation has been p rovided of each Article of the Constitution, p ointing out where it ap p ears thatdiscrep ancies exist between the English and the Irish texts. As, in accordance with Article 25.5.4o, theIrish text p revails in the case of conflict between the texts, in the context of a comp rehensive reviewof the Constitution, consideration must first be given to emending the English text to bring it intoconformity with the Irish. Taking two of the three Articles looked at above, for examp le, it wouldseem desirable to substitute guide for rule in the English text of Article 29.3 and not to interferewith for to resp ect in Article 40.3.1o.Looking at a few further examp les which have not yet been subject to comment by the courts inthis regard, designate in Article 6 (to designate the rulers of the State) has the sense both of ap p ointand nominate. The Irish text in exp ressing designate by ceap chooses ap p oint, which term mightperhaps be inserted in place of designate. In Article 28.6.3o, The Tnaiste shall act for the Taoiseachis exp ressed in the Irish text as N folir don Tnaiste gnomh thar ceann an Taoisigh, literallyon behalf of the Taoiseach, which English p hrase ap p ears more p recise than for in the officialEnglish text. The term cirigh exp resses constitute in Article 18.4.1oiii, where we find from p anelsof candidates constituted as hereinafter p rovided and, in the same context, exp resses form in Article18.7.1o, where we find five p anels of candidates shall be formed in the manner p rovided by law. TheEnglish text might, for the sake of consistency, be emended to read either as constituted or formedin both cases above. The voters might be emended to the number of voters, following the Irish text,in the final clause of Article 47.2.1o, which reads: and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third p er cent. of the voters on the register. agus nach l an mid vta a thugtaramhlaidh in aghaidh a acht ina dhl n cion tr trochad is trian faoin gcad de lon na dtoghthirat ar an rolla.Finally, Article 44.2.6o reads as follows:The p rop erty of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted savefor necessary works of p ublic utility and on p ayment of comp ensation. N cead maoin aon aicmecreidimh n aon fhundireachta oideachais a bhaint dobh ach amhin le haghaidh oibreachariachtanacha chun ise poibl, agus sin tar is citeamh a oc leo.The Attorney Generals Committee on the Constitution (1968) commented as follows on this Article:The word diverted is a eup hemism, and is neither a suitable word nor a good translation of the Irisha bhaint dobh, which is accurate and straightforward. Diversion ap p ears wider than taking from.The two texts are not seriously inconsistent, however, and conflict could arise only if the p rop ertywas clearly diverted for a necessary work of p ublic utility, but not taken from the institutionsconcerned. It is difficult to visualise any p ractical examp le of this conflict arising.39The Review Group on the Constitution (1996) agreed with that view exp ressed above to the effect thatthe word diverted in the English language version did not corresp ond with the words a bhaintdobh in the Irish language version, adding that in any event, the use of the word diverted in thiscontext is eup hemistic and unsuitable. The Review Group accordingly recommended that divertedbe rep laced by comp ulsorily acquired, stating that there was no need for a change in the Irishlanguage version.40 39 See the Report of the Constitution Review Group, May 1996, p . 376. 40 Ibid, p . 387.10 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannThe Constitution of the Irish Free State, 1922Reference was made above to Liam Rinn and Toms Page of the Translation Section of the Housesof the Oireachtas being ap p ointed in Ap ril 1937 to bring the text into conformity with the p ractice ofthat Section in p articular. In translating the Acts of the Oireachtas p recedence is of central imp ortance.The very first Act enacted by the Dil was the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstt ireann)Act, 1922, the First Schedule thereto containing the Constitution of the Irish Free State it is noteworthythat the text of the 1937 Constitution does not form the Schedule to an Act, although a draft of theConstitution was passed by the Dil. The Irish text of the 1922 Constitution provides the first occurrenceof many of the terms and p hrases found in the Acts to this day. That text, which is a direct translationof the English text, was p rep ared by a Committee which included the Minister for Education, Irishscholar and historian, Eoin Mac Nill; the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Pdraig Mille; the Clerk of theDil, Colm Murchadha; Piaras Basla; Liam Rinn and Professors Osborn Bergin and T.F. ORahilly.41That the Irish of this text for the most p art does not ap p ear in any way artificial or laboured todayboth belies the emp hasis sometimes p laced on the break in Irish tradition and testifies to theachievement of the translators. Commenting on attemp ts made in the early decades of this century toimpose the West Munster dialect (owing to the influence of An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire in particular)as the official standard, David Greene states that the Irish version of the constitution of the Irish FreeState is, indeed, an examp le of the use of this dialect for official p urp oses which showed clearly howadap table it was, and would have rejoiced the heart of OLeary himself.42 The following memorandumby Professor Eoin Mac Nill, on 23 January 1923, relating to a request for the sup p ly of English-Irishdictionaries for various Departments, gives us an insight into the difficulty of the task that was undertakenby that translation committee:The p ersons commissioned to draft the Irish version of the Treaty and Constitution had all availableDictionaries, both English-Irish and Irish-English. These p ersons were selected as exp erts (Colm Muchadha, Liam Rinn, Pdraic Mille, Professors Bergin & MacNeill). I think they will all testifythat for the purpose of introducing new technical terms they found the Dictionaries of small assistanceand that most of the new terms that ap p ear in the draft documents have no dictionary authority fortheir use in the technical senses for which the terms were adop ted. It follows that less exp eriencedp ersons would find the Dictionaries of still less assistance and might easily be misled by them intoadop ting very unsuitable terms.43As stated earlier, many of the provisions of the 1922 Constitution are again found in the 1937 Constitution,but with significant emendation of the Irish text. Single terms are changed in some cases, seachtar(seven p eop le) in Article 51 of the 1922 Constitution is exp ressed by the earlier and more regionalterm mrsheisear (literally great six) in Articles 28.1 and 31.3 of the 1937 Constitution, for examp le,this being the normal exp ression of the p ersonal number seven in the earlier language. Ar seirbhschogil, translating on active service in Article 71 of the 1922 Constitution, is exp ressed in Article38.4.2o of the 1937 Constitution as ar fianas, a term which carries echoes of early Irish history andsociety. Barla (the English language) becomes Sacs-Bharla in the 1937 Constitution, again a termwhich is much more than a mere literal translation of the term English. Viewed as a translation, withglactar leis having the literal sense of is accep ted, Article 8.2 is a classic examp le of translation astransformation44:The English language is recognised as a second official language. Glactar leis an Sacs-Bharla martheanga oifigiil eile.The influence of p olitics on the language, the 1937 Constitution being very much amon de Valerasand Fianna Fils Constitution as against the p ro-Treaty 1922 Constitution, must be borne in mind. Weshall see below how, as regards both scrip t and orthograp hy, there was a deliberate return to thep re-1922 p eriod and this ap p ears in some cases to be p aralleled in the language itself. 41 See Samas Daltn, Scal Ranng an Aistrichin, in Teangeolas xvii, Winter 1983, p . 15. Note incidentallythat the five Articles which comp rise the Constitution of Dil ireann, 1919, are given in Irish alone in theMinutes of Proceedings of the First Session, 21 January 1919. 42 David Greene, op . cit., p . 27. 43 From the files of Ranng an Aistrichin. 44 Professor Mirtn Murch remarks on the above that one could p ossibly refer to this as an examp le oftranslation not simp ly as transformation but as p rop aganda.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 11Much more than individual terms of the 1922 Constitution were emended, the wording of comp letesections in the Irish text being emended in some cases. The English text of Article 15.12 of the 1937Constitution, for examp le, closely follows Article 19 of the 1922 Constitution but the corresp ondingIrish text has been significantly altered. Article 19 reads:All official rep orts and p ublications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof shall be p rivileged,and utterances made in either House wherever p ublished shall be p rivileged. Beidh gach tuairiscagus foillsichn oifigiil den Oireachtas no daon Tigh de f phrbhlid agus beidh gach n adarfarin aon Tigh de f phrbhlid is cuma c bhfoillsefar .The enrolled text of Article 15.12 of the 1937 Constitution reads as follows:All official rep orts and p ublications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances madein either House wherever p ublished shall be p rivileged. Gach tuarascbhil agus foillseachnoifigeamhail n Oireachtas agus gach Tigh de, maille le caint ar bith d ndantar i n-aon Tighdobh, tid saor ar chrsabh dlighidh cib it a bhfoillsighthear.Note above how tid saor ar chrsabh dlighidh rep laces the more literal translation beidh (siad) fp hrbhlid of the 1922 Constitution. We shall see in the commentary on that Article how on the onehand this p hrase saor ar is found in commentaries on early Irish law-tracts and on the other handhow faoi p hribhlid rep laces saor ar in the Acts of the Oireachtas. Note also the more conservativesynthetic third p erson p lural, p resent tense, form of the substantive verb, tid, as against beidh ofthe 1922 Constitution the more conservative sp elling of the later text will be dealt with below.We shall see in the commentary on various Articles in the study which follows that sometimes inthe Acts which follow directly on and give effect to p rovisions of the 1937 Constitution the languageof the Constitution was not followed in the direct Irish translation of those Acts. Polling is exp ressedas vtil, literally voting, in Article 16.4.1o (which reads Polling at every general election for Dilireann shall as far as p racticable take p lace on the same day throughout the country, An vtil dogach olltoghchn ar leith do Dhil ireann n folir a dhanamh, sa mhid gur fidir , an t-aon lamhin ar fud na diche uile ), for examp le, yet we find the direct translation vtaocht in section10(1) of the Referendum Act, 1942 , where ap p oint by order the day (in this Act also referred to as thep olling day) up on which the p olling at such referendum shall take p lace is translated as an l (dngairmtear an l vtaochta freisin san Acht so) a danfar an vtaocht sa reifreann do cheap adh lehord. It is significant in this regard that some of the emendations made by the Second Amendmentof the Constitution Act, 1941, involved emending the Irish text alone. The substitution of cos forfaghltas, exp ressing revenue in Article 11, was the very first emendation in the 1941 Amendment ofthe Constitution, for examp le, no corresp onding emendation being made to the English text.45 As weshall also see below, divergences between the Constitution and the Acts have been comp ounded bythe Irish Legal Terms Orders p ublished between 1947 and 1956, under the Irish Legal Terms Act, 1945.DivergencesIn his 1988 Thomas Davis Lecture, John Kelly exp ressed the op inion that the Sup reme Court had insome cases gone much too far in its over-literal interp retation of a document not originally intendedto be so minutely p arsed and scrutinised.46 He continued as follows:Indeed, in one case the court p ut itself in the really unsustainable p osition of deciding a p oint on theground that the Irish verb used to render an English p hrase was in the future rather than in thep resent tense, while the English p hrase was op en to either a p resent or a future construction, and thatthe future sense of the Irish must therefore p revail, although p lenty of other examp les showed thatthe p resent construction was the one that accorded with actual known p ractice.47 45 The amendment of Article 34.5.2o, to give another examp le, involved the deletion of the words is neasasinsearacht d a bheas ar faghil de bhreitheamhnaibh na Cirte Uachtaraighe a dhanfaidh and theinsertion in their place of the words den Chirt Uachtaraigh is sinsearaighe d mbeidh ar faghil a dhanfaidhgach breitheamh eile den Chirt Uachtaraigh, the original Irish text not including all other judges of theSup reme Court making the declaration before the Chief Justice, as in the 1937 English text. 46 John Kelly, TD, Fundamental Rights and the Constitution, in Brian Farrell, ed., De Valeras Constitution andOurs (1988), p . 170. 47 Ibid, p . 170f.12 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannArticle 30.3 was the Article in question, which reads as follows:All crimes and offences p rosecuted in any court constituted under Article 34 of this Constitution otherthan a court of summary jurisdiction shall be p rosecuted in the name of the Peop le and at the suit ofthe Attorney General or some other p erson authorised in accordance with law to act for that p urp ose.I gcs gach coir agus cion d dtugtar in aon chirt a bhunatear faoi Airteagal 34 den Bhunreachtseo, ach amhin cirt dlnse achomaire, is in ainm an Phobail agus ar agra an Ard-Aighne, n aragra dhuine igin eile a daratear ina chomhair sin de rir dl, a dhanfar an ciseamh.In his work, The Irish Constitution, John Kelly rep orts as follows on the reference made to this sectionin the courts:In The State (Ennis) v Farrell ([1966] IR 107), where what was in issue was the question whether theright of a common informer had survived the constitutional p rovision restricting the bringing ofp rosecutions to the Attorney General or some other p erson authorised in accordance with law to actfor that p urp ose, Dlaigh CJ (with whom the rest of the Sup reme Court agreed) p ointed out thatthe Irish counterp art of authorised, namely a daratear was:quite exp ress as a p resent autonomous form in negativing the idea of the authorisation requiredbeing such only as might be made in the future.He contrasted Article 34.4.3 (on the right of ap p eal to the Sup reme Court from High Court decisions),where the clear future form of the Irish verb ordfar p ut the future sense of the p hrase as may bep rescribed beyond doubt. On the word p rosecuted in the same section, he said this was to beunderstood in its widest sense; this was confirmed by the Irish text, where the equivalent used wastugtar = brought.48In the context of the significance p laced by the courts on the divergence of tenses of the verb above,the various ways in which shall and may are exp ressed in the Constitution are noteworthy. May isexp ressed as is dleathach do (literally, it is lawful for) in the Irish text of Article 14.3, for examp le,which reads as follows:The Commission may act by any two of their number and may act notwithstanding a vacancy in theirmembership. Is dleathach don Choimisin gnomh tr bheirt ar bith d lon agus gnomh dainneoinfolntais ina gcomhaltas.In Article 28.3.1o, War shall not be declared and the State shall not p articip ate in any war save with theassent of Dil ireann is exp ressed as N dleathach cogadh a fhgairt n p irt a bheith ag an Stt inaon chogadh ach amhin le haont Dhil ireann, literally It is not legal to declare a war or for theState to have a p art in any war excep t with the assent of Dil ireann. Indeed, the multip licity of waysin which shall and may is exp ressed in the Constitution is one of the features which illustrate thatthe Irish text is not simp ly a mere literal translation of the English text. The simp le future tense of theverb, or the future tense of dan followed by the verbal noun, is generally found in the Acts translatingshall, with may generally translated by the verb fad, with the Northern exp ression, tig le, alsobeing found, as it is in some Articles of the Constitution. Note that we find the future tense in Article49 of the 1922 Constitution, which p rovision is substantially rep roduced in Article 28.3.1o above,Article 49 of the earlier Constitution reading as follows: the Irish Free State (Saorstt ireann) shall not be committed to active p articip ation in any warwithout the assent of the Oireachtas. N cuirfear Saorstt ireann f oibleagid pirt ghnomhach dothgaint in aon choga gan aont an Oireachtais.Note also that the general p ractice of the Acts as regards the translation of shall and may is followedin the amendments to the Constitution, rather than emp loying p hrases with dleathach, cead or nfolir as in the original text of the Constitution. The p hrase n cead, literally it is not p ermitted,exp resses shall not in a number of Articles Article 40.5, for examp le, reads:The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance withlaw. Is sln do gach saornach a ionad cnaithe, agus n cead dul isteach ann go forigneach ach derir dl. 48 J.M. Kelly, The Irish Constitution, p . 207.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 13Note that shall in the same English text (with each and excep t resp ectively in p lace of every andsave above) is translated by the simp le future tense of the verb in Article 7 of the 1922 Constitution:Is sln do gach saornach a rus comhnuithe agus n raghfar isteach ann le firneart ach do rir dl.The p hrase n folir, generally rendering must in Irish, as it does in Article 28.7.1o, exp resses shallin many Articles. Article 16.4.2o, for examp le, reads as follows:Dil ireann shall meet within thirty days from that p olling day. N folir do Dhil ireann teacht lechile taobh istigh de throcha l n l vtla sin.Note again that the simp le future tense translates shall in the corresp onding Acticle 28 of the 1922Constitution, where Dil ireann shall meet within one month of such day is translated as TiocfaidhDil ireann le chile f cheann m n l sin. We find n dleathach and n cead exp ressing may notin some Articles: in Article 28.7.2o, for examp le, but not more than two may be members of Seanadireann is exp ressed as ach n dleathach thar beirt acu a bheith ina gcomhalta de Sheanad ireannand No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship , in Article 9.1.3o, is expressedas N cead nisintacht agus saornacht ireann a cheilt ar dhuine ar bith in the Irish text. As againstthe many Articles where shall is exp ressed either by p hrases involving dleathach, cead or n folir,it shall not be obligatory on the President is exp resssed simp ly as n bheidh ar an Uachtarn (literallythe President will not have to) in the Irish text of Article 27.4.2o. Finally, The Government shall beresp onsible to Dil ireann is exp ressed as T an Rialtas freagrach do Dhil ireann (literally TheGovernment is resp onsible to Dil ireann) in Article 28.4.1o and The head of the Government ...shall be called ... the Taoiseach is exp ressed as An Taoiseach is teideal do cheann an Rialtais(literally, The Taoiseach is the title of the head of Government) in Article 28.5.1o.In a monograp h entitled Dchas na Gaeilge (1996), Maolmhaodhg Ruairc, a translator with theEurop ean Union in Brussels, in drawing attention in p articular to the many ways may and shall aretranslated in the Irish version of the Constitution, exp resses the op inion that the translators were notthe last to leave their mark on the Irish text (nrbh iad na haistritheoir ba dheireana a leag a rianar an tacs Gaeilge49). As against Maolmhaodhg Ruaircs view, the author of this study wouldinterp ret many of the divergences between the two texts as being due more to a deliberate effort onthe p art of the drafters of the Irish text to make that text read indep endently of the English text and top rovide a text in natural Irish, comp lying with the general usage of the language rather than sacrificingthe language to achieve exact corresp ondence with the English text. The following note in The KingsEnglish, by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, is instructive as regards the exp ressions we have seen aboveof shall in the Irish text of the Constitution:In our usage of the shall and will forms, as seen in p rincip al sentences, there are elements belongingto three systems. The first of these, in which each form retains its full original meaning, and the twoare not used to give different p ersons of the same tense, we shall call the p ure system: the other two,both hybrids, will be called, one the coloured-future, the other the p lain-future system. In Old Englishthere was no sep arate future; p resent and future were one. Shall and will were the p resents of twoverbs, to which belong also the p asts should and would, the conditionals should and would, and thep ast conditionals should have and would have. Shall had the meaning of command or obligation, andwill of wish. But as commands and wishes are concerned mainly with the future, it was natural thata future tense auxiliary should be develop ed out of these two verbs. The coloured future results fromthe ap p lication to future time of those forms that were p ractically useful in the p ure system; theyconsequently retain in the coloured future, with some modifications, the ideas of command and wishproper to the original verbs. The plain future results from the taking of those forms that were practicallyout of work in the p ure system to make what had not before existed, a simp le future tense; thesehave accordingly not retained the ideas of command and wish.50a 49 Maolmhaodhg Ruairc, Dchas na Gaeilge (1996) p . 213. 50a H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, The Kings English (Oxford 1934 [1906]), p p . 142-3. Note incidentally that twoof the sections in the five Articles contained in the Constitution of the First Dil ireann 1919 commencewith the p hrase Is igean (It is necessary) as stated earlier, an Irish text alone of that Constitution isp ublished in the Official Record of the Minutes of Proceedings of the First Parliament of the Republic ofIreland, 1919-1921. Section 3 of Article 2 (An Dara hAlt), for examp le, reads as follows:Is igean do gach Aireach bheith n-a Theachta san Dil agus beidh s freagarthach i gcomhnuidhe don Dil.14 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannWhich were the p ractically useful and which the sup erfluous forms in the p ure system is exp lained asfollows:Thou shalt not steal is the typ e of shall in the p ure system. We do not ordinarily issue commands toourselves; consequently I shall is hardly required; but we often ask for orders, and therefore shall I?is required. The form of the shall p resent in the p ure system is accordingly:Shall I? You shall. He shall. Shall we? They shall.As to the p ast tense, orders cannot be given, but may be asked about, so that, for instance, Whatshould I do? (i.e., What was I to do?) can be done all through interrogatively.In the conditionals, both statement and question can be done all through. I can give orders to myimaginary, though not to my actual self. I cannot say (as a command) I shall do it; but I can say, as aconditional command, I should do it.I shall and we shall are accordingly the sup erfluous forms of the p resent shall in the p ure system.Again, with will, I will meaning it is my will, it is obvious that we can generally state this only ofourselves; we do not know the inside of other p eop les minds, but we can ask about it. The p resentruns, then,I will. Will you? Will he? We will. Will they?The p ast tense can here be done all through, both p ositively and interrogatively. For though wecannot tell other p eop les p resent will, we can often infer their p ast will from their actions. So (I wasasked, but) I would not, and Why would I do it?all through. And similarly in the conditionals, I wouldnot (if I could), &c.The sp are forms sup p lied by the p resent will, then are you will, he will, they will; and these, withI shall, we shall, are ready, when the simp le future is required, to construct it out of.50bIn the study which follows, we shall note, for examp le, much less emp hasis on consistency in theexp ression of the terms of the English text than one would find in a translated work in general.Affirm in the op ening clause of Article 1, for examp le, is exp ressed by deimhnigh (that Articlereading The Irish nation hereby affirms its right to , Deimhnonn nisin na hireann leis seoa gceart chun ), which verb is the Irish legal term for both certify and vouch. Affirm in theop ening section of the Article dealing with International Relations, Article 29.1, echoes Article 1:Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of p eace amongst nations; affirm is exp ressed in thisinstance by dearbhaigh, the Irish legal term for declare (Dearbhaonn ire gur mian li sochin a bheith ar bun idir nisiin an domhain). We shall also see how the very same English p hrase isexp ressed in different ways in the Irish text. Article 12.2.2o, for examp le, reads:Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dil ireann shall have the rightto vote at an election for President. Gach saornach ag a bhfuil ceart vtla i dtoghchn do chomhaltade Dhil ireann, beidh ceart vtla aige i dtoghchn don Uachtarn.Comp are this Irish text with that of Article 47.3:Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dil ireann shall have the rightto vote at a Referendum. Gach saornach ag a bhfuil s de cheart vtil i dtoghchn do chomhaltade Dhil ireann t s de cheart aige vtil i Reifreann.Emending the Irish textNotwithstanding the merits of having an Irish text which reads as natural as p ossible and indep endentof any other text, there are cases where it would ap p ear advisable to emend the Irish text to bring itinto greater conformity with the English text, before the conflicts p erhap s surface in litigation. Onlythree such examp les will be highlighted here, the author acknowledging that legal exp erts may attachgreater significance to other divergences outlined in the study. Article 43 concerns Private Prop erty,Article 43.1.2o containing a guarantee by the State to p ass no law attemp ting to abolish the right top rivate ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit p rop erty. This is qualified asfollows by Article 43.2.2o: 50b H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, op . cit., p p . 143-4. The author is obliged to Jim ODonnell for drawing thissource to his attention. This subject is discussed further in the study which follows.A study of the Irish text Staidar ar an tacs Gaeilge 15The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with aview to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.By law, however, is not sp ecifically exp ressed in the Irish text, which reads as follows:Uime sin, tig leis an Stt, de rir mar a bheas riachtanach, teorainn a chur le hoibri na gceartramhrite dfhonn an t-oibri sin agus leas an p hobail a thabhairt d chile.This literally translates as follows:For that reason, the State may, as will be necessary, p ut a limit to the op eration of the afore-mentionedrights in order to bring that op eration and the welfare of the p eop le into alignment.The significance of this divergence is comp ounded by the relationship between Article 43 and Article40.3.2o, which reads as follows:The State shall, in p articular, by its laws p rotect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case ofinjustice done, vindicate the p rop erty rights of every citizen. Danfaidh an Stt, go sonrach, lenadhlthe maoinchearta an uile shaornaigh a chosaint ar ionsa agrach chomh fada lena chumas,agus iad a shuomh i gcs agra.Sp ecific reference is made to the State in its laws in both texts of Article 40.3.1o, in its laws beingexp ressed as lena dhlthe:The State guarantees in its laws to resp ect, and, as far as p racticable, by its laws to defend andvindicate the p ersonal rights of the citizen. Rthaonn an Stt gan cur isteach lena dhlthe ar cheartapearsanta aon saornaigh, agus rthaonn fs na cearta sin a chosaint is a shuomh lena dhlthe samhid gur feidir .The second divergence to be highlighted here concerns Article 24.3. Article 24.1 p rovides that the timefor the consideration by Seanad ireann of Bills certified by the Taoiseach to be urgent and immediatelynecessary for the preservation of the public peace and security be abridged to such period as specifiedin a resolution of Dil ireann. Article 24.3 p rovides that a Bill the time for the consideration of whichby Seanad ireann is abridged shall only remain in force for ninety days from the date of its enactmentunless, before the exp iration of that p eriod, both Houses shall have agreed that such law shall remainin force for a longer p eriod and the longer p eriod so agreed up on shall have been sp ecified inresolutions p assed by both Houses. In the Irish text, however, p assed is not sp ecifically exp ressed,resolutions p assed by both Houses being exp ressed simp ly as rin n d Theach, i.e. resolutionsfrom both Houses, the Irish text corresp onding to the English text quoted above reading as follows:mura n-aontad dh Theach an Oireachtais roimh dheireadh na trimhse sin an dl sin a fhanacht ibhfeidhm ar feadh trimhse is sia n sin, agus go luaitear i rin n d Theach an trimhse a aontatearamhlaidh.Finally, the English text of Article 12.4.4o p rovides that former or retiring Presidents may becomecandidates for re-election on their own nomination Former or retiring Presidents may becomecandidates on their own nomination. The term candidate is not sp ecifically exp ressed in the Irishtext of that Article: Tig le haon duine at n a bh ina Uachtarn fin a ainmni doifig an Uachtarin.This translates literally as Any p erson who is or who was a President may nominate himself for theoffice of (the) President or It is op en to any p erson who is or who was a President to nominatehimself for the office of (the) President. According to this Irish text, Presidents may nominate themselvesfor the office of President rather than as candidates for the office of President or for election to theoffice of President. Accordingly, if a President nominates himself or herself, it imp lies that there wouldbe no election.51Post-1937 developments in IrishSome of the changes made to the Irish text of the 1922 Constitution in the 1937 Constitution are dueto the remarkable develop ment of the language in the decade and a half following the establishmentof the Irish Free State. As Daniel Corkery states in the concluding p aragrap hs to his monograp h TheFortunes of the Irish Language: 51 Professor Mirtn Murch remarks that this may well p reserve the intention of an earlier draft, theemendation of which was overlooked in the Irish text.16 The Constitution of Ireland Bunreacht na hireannIn the light of the fact that the Gaelic League, or shall we say its idea, has p rovided the nation with asovereign state, its other achievements are not worth mention its founding of a modern literature inIrish, its forcing of the language into schools, colleges, and the National University, its vast p ublicationscheme carried out without assistance from any government. These and kindred achievements aretrifles if weighed against the setting-up of a sovereign state, for surely it has been noticed thatlanguages die only when their fostering state is broken. For the first time since 1169, the Irishlanguage has a state behind it. To say this is equivalent to saying that everything has changed for it,just as everything has changed for the languages of India, Pakistan, Palestine and indeed for thewhole world.52The Acts of the Oireachtas p assed between 1922 and 1937 were translated into Irish and accessible tothe drafters of the Irish version of the 1937 Constitution. It would ap p ear that the Constitution itselfintroduced new terms to the language in the commentary we shall see, for example, that referendumwas simp ly rendered as referendum in Irish translations of Acts up until 1937, the term Reifreannbeing introduced to the Acts following the Constitution. The Attorney-General was styled an tArd-Aighnein the 1937 Constitution as against the earlier an trd-Atrnae and an Promh-Atrnae, Ard-Aighnenow being the Irish legal term for Attorney-General. Tras rep laces the earlier trasan in the 1937Constitution and is followed in subsequent Acts.By the end of the thirties, according to David Greene, Irish p rose was a medium in which anytheme of modern life could be handled.53 The develop ment of the written language continued ap aceafter 1937, the early 1940s being recognised as a p eriod of great develop ment of modern Irish writing,with the re-establishment of the Oireachtas literary competitions in 1939, the founding by an associationof Irish-sp eaking university graduates of the Irish monthly journal Comhar in 1942, the founding ofthe p ublishing house of Sirsal agus Dill in 1945 and, in p articular, the ap p earance of works by thethree giants of twentieth-century Irish literature, Mirtn Direin, Sen Rordin and Mirtn Cadhain. The Second World War was, according to Gearid S. Mac Eoin, a watershed in Irishliterary history.54In the concluding p aragrap hs of Gaelic Literature Surveyed (1929), Aodh de Blcam wrote thatThere are signs of the coming of a school of writers who will p ossess the full vision of the Gaelic p ast,and will be armed with the new learning: to them we look to fulfil the p oetic hop e Beidh ant-ath-aoibhneas againn .55 Eoghan Hanluain takes this up in the op ening p aragrap h of the chap teradded to the 1973 edition of that work:While it would be misleading to suggest that the renaissance an t-athaoibhneas looked forwardto by de Blcam has come about, nevertheless, the develop ment of writing in Irish must surely bebeyond even his enthusiastic hopes: he could scarcely have conceived for instance of the authoritativetone of Mirtn Direin, of the modern note of anguish and the vivid imagery of Sen Rordinor the vigour and range of Mirtn Cadhains p rose.56Eoghan Hanluain attributes the quickening of literary activity in the early forties to some extent tothe teaching of Irish and Irish literature in the schools and the consequent emergence of a generationwho took literature in Irish for granted. It was, however, the fact that Mirtn Direin, Sen Rordin and Mire Mhac an