Royal Irish Academy Number 2 Harp

This severely damaged instrument first came to notice when it was purchased for the museum of the Royal Irish Academy during the financial year 1st April 1847 to 31st March 1848. At the time it was simply described as an 'ancient harp' but over the subsequent years it has variously been labelled as having belonged to two known harpers, firstly Carolan then more recently Rose Mooney. In examining these claims, it is best to start with the latter as it is the most recent and easiest to discount.

The suggestion that it had been the harp of Rose Mooney first received greater currency after a picture of the harp was included in an article on 'The Early Irish Harp' which was published in the edition of 'Early Music' for November 2008. The caption to the picture stated that it was 'Rose Mooney's Harp (commonly known as the Carolan Harp), owned and played by Rose Mooney, (1740 - c 1798)'. Later in the article it was again referred to as the Rose Mooney harp with no other qualification and nowhere in the article does it indicate on what the attribution to her is based.

Chadwick, the author of that article is then on record through late 2017 continuing to maintain that it was Rose Mooney's harp despite having been given a detailed written explanation by Michael Billinge in 2008 why it did not fit the description of Rose Mooney's harp. Bizarrely in the letter acknowledging receipt of this explanation which was based on an extensive physical examination of the harp in the National Museum of Ireland's store undertaken by Billinge in 2007; Chadwick dismissed it in favour of his own opinion that it was Rose Mooney's as the description 'fits very well indeed', even though his opinion was only based on a hands off over-view. A fact conceded by that author in the recent publication which by elaborating the points first made by Billinge back in August 2008 now rejects the Rose Mooney attribution in favour of his new claim that it is the harp of Carolan. ^[1]

Since it now seems to be agreed that R.I.A. No. 2 harp is not Rose Mooney's it is possible to move on to considering the Carolan claim, while pointing to a discussion of the Rose Mooney harp elsewhere on this site and regretting that people are still likely to find and quote the original Early Music article without realising that it has been debunked by its own author.

To consider the claim of an association between the harp and Carolan in a logical fashion means starting at the beginning of the harp's known history when it was first purchased by the Royal Irish Academy. This has been a matter of public record since the accounts were printed in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy volume 4 covering 1847 to 1850. The entry reads 'Carlton P. Ancient Harp £6' ^[2] and differs only from the corresponding original written manuscript record by the initial P. moving from before the surname to after due to the printed names being listed alphabetically. It also lost an 'i' or 'e' from Carliton, possibly due to uncertainty of which letter it actually was and being in a period when spellings were still not standardised the omission would have made no difference to the name.

At that time and presumably having some responsibility for the way the entry was couched, the treasurer of the R.I.A. was Dr Robert Ball, ^[3] perhaps better known for his work in the field of science. He was also the Director of the Trinity College Museum and as such was behind the making of casts of the 'Brian Boru' harp, one of which was presented by the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College to the Royal Irish Academy in February 1846. His interest in this topic was further demonstrated by the making of a cast of the Dalway Harp fragments and in 1845 he had donated a manuscript of poems in Irish and English by Carolan to the Academy. ^[4] Therefore the fact that the notice of the harp bought by the R.I.A. while he was the treasurer lacks any suggestion of a connection to Carolan carries some weight.

When W. R. Wilde completed his catalogue of the R.I.A. Museum in 1857 the harp gained its name of R.I.A. Number 2 on the basis that it had been the second harp to be acquired by the museum. However here Wilde merely writes a few words noting the instrument's basic dimensions and gives no further information as to any possible history or ownership. This is in stark contrast to how he treats his other harp entries where for Number 1 he relates its former ownership by Major Sirr and that it was 'said to have belonged to a bard of the O'Neills' and for Number 3, the cast of the Trinity College harp, he not only mentions the 'Brian Boru' association but goes on to quote from Petrie and Fergusson on the subject and references the essay in Bunting's 'Ancient Music of Ireland' for further information. He also mentions that the harp that had belonged to the 'Bard' Moore was on display in the Library, even though that item was not part of the museum. Once again, this lack of provenance is significant as Wilde was certainly active and around the R.I.A. during the time when the harp was purchased and would have been aware of any claimed provenance if it had one. He was described in one biography as being an enthusiastic if not easy member but one who enhanced the standards and standing of much of the Academy's academic activities. ^[5] Certainly someone capable of sorting fact from fiction and if the former with the strength of will power to publish it.

The earliest mention of the harp and Carolan from an R.I.A. connected source was made by George Petrie in a letter to Eugene O'Curry, probably written around 1861-2 and subsequently published in 1873. In it Petrie emphatically disclaims the harps connection to Carolan and makes some forthright comments on the original seller.

The Academy also possesses another harp, which, if it had any just claim to the name it bears - 'Carolan's' - would be viewed by appreciators of musical genius with a deep interest. But, though it was sold to the Academy as such by a person who represented himself as the lineal descendent of the great minstrel, I have no doubt that he was a wretched imposter, whose statement was wholly unworthy of belief. We have trustworthy evidence that Carolan's harp was burnt by servants of MacDermot Roe at Alderford House, in which Carolan died. And even if such evidence were wanting, the character of the harp itself would belie the assertion; for it is of the rudest form and workmanship, and without any characteristic of Carolan's time. In short, I think it is a clumsy piece of work of the early part of the present century and wholly unworthy of a place in the great museum in which it is deposited.

As this emphatically negative statement has been selectively quoted in the recent article arguing that the harp in question did belong to Carolan, (the sentence starting 'We have trustworthy evidence' was not reproduced anywhere in the article), it is necessary to contextualise Petrie's comments against the wider background. At that period letters were the only indirect form of communication and in this case it was a letter between two friends and colleagues. It is not clear if Petrie was expecting Professor O'Curry to quote it verbatim during his lecture and as O'Curry unexpectedly died within a few weeks of the lecture (given on the 26 June 1862 and O'Curry died on the 30 July 1862), no evidence of how Petrie may have viewed it were noted. What Petrie would not have expected was that comments made by him and which clearly reflected what he knew and thought about that harp would be quoted verbally to a lecture audience and subsequently be fixed in print and published to the rest of the world.

Both Petrie and O'Curry were noted for their accuracy and attention to detail; in the case of the former his description in the letter of a harp he had briefly seen some 30 years before in a lawyer's office in Dublin was sufficient to identify a painting of it which appeared in 2013. Furthermore, O'Curry in his lecture included both his and Petrie's differing views on the background to the so called 'Brian Boru' harp; while having himself spent a considerable time working on manuscripts at the R.I.A. he would have been familiar enough with the Academy's harps to qualify Petrie's comment regarding 'Carolan' if he thought it wrong.

Petrie was also known for his strong moral code and kindness towards others as shown when despite being aware of some problems with Bunting's views he avoided criticising them until after the older man had died. Therefore, his vehement statement regarding the seller of the harp is out of character and probably reflected his frustration with someone in closer orbit and their responsibility for the harp being labelled 'Carolan's' in the 1853 Dublin Exhibition. The idea of having an 'Irish Antiquities Court' at the 'Great National and Industrial Exhibition', to give it the full title, was a late decision, so late that the 'Court' was still being built when the exhibition opened. The original intention was that the museum at the R.I.A. would also be open to the public for the duration of the exhibition, but at the last minute the R.I.A. had to close their museum to visitors for some necessary repairs. Therefore, as the museum contents needed to be moved it was decided to transfer some of them to the Antiquities Court so that they could remain open to public view. ^[6] It was though a hurried event which had not received any forethought and planning and appears to have been supervised by Mr Clibborn, an employee of the R.I.A. ^[7]

Petrie's frustration is understandable as the labelling of the harp as 'Carolan's' was an aberration having occurred while the collection was beyond the supervision of the Academy's senior members who from their records clearly did not regard the harp as having been that of Carolan. If the Academy seriously thought it had acquired a harp with connections to what at the time was Ireland's best known harper there surely would have been some mention of it, even if just some discussion on the accuracy of any such claim. In fact, other than the record of purchase of an 'ancient harp' there is no further notice of it in the published proceedings. Furthermore, the Academy held regular open meetings which were covered by the newspapers of the time in some detail. Apart from the various talks given to the members the general discussions which often included notices of additions to the museum, were also reported in the press. Once again there is no reference to the harp nor in the press coverage of the 1853 Exhibition is there any reference to Carolan's harp being in existence.

The question of incorrect names being attached to harps would certainly have been uppermost in Petrie's mind since he was one of the first to question the mythical connection of what is now known as the Trinity College harp to the Irish hero Brian Boru and aware of the difficulty, once a name has been given to an instrument, of correcting it. Even today when it is fully recognised that there was no such connection the harp is still often referred to as 'the Brian Boru Harp', including several occasions in the article arguing that R.I.A. No. 2 is Carolan's harp. That is in fact not the only harp to have been claimed for Carolan; a harp in the museum in Belfast suffered an albeit temporarily claim to have been Carolan's at one point and someone even calling themselves 'Young Carolan' was performing in Dublin in 1832.

Over the latter part of the 19th century a tendency to in some way link Carolan's name to R.I.A. No. 2 does seem to have occurred, although never with any real conviction. In fact there are no definitive statements that it was Carolan's harp. McIntyre North in 1881 in his text says it was 'called Carolan's harp' (in his actual drawing he does just label it Carolan's harp, but there was not enough space to add any qualifications). Wakeman in his 1894 catalogue uses the phrase 'said to have belonged to Carolan'. Neither of these comments are ringing endorsements and Wakeman's dubious comment is significant as he was the last of those people connected with the Royal Irish Academy at the time the harp was first acquired. ^[8]

When in 1945 Wakeman's statement was referenced in the National Museum of Ireland's acquisition register it was carelessly misquoted and casually given as 'stated to have originally belonged to Turlough O'Carolan, the Irish bard'. This was unfortunate as it incorrectly gives the impression that Wakeman had made a far more definitive statement and merely illustrates how vague suggestions over time can harden into fact. Therefore, with one exception, the views of those commentators who followed after Wakeman are really of little relevance to the argument; the exception being the major work, 'The Irish and The Highland Harps', published by R. B. Armstrong in 1904.

When in that work Armstrong deals with the 'Two Harps the Property of the Royal Irish Academy' he describes Harp No. 1 complete with its provenance from Major Sirr along with a description and measurements. Turning to the second harp he simply describes it as No. 2, which in fact is its provenance since there is no evidence prior to its acquisition by the R.I.A. Neither does Armstrong make any suggestion that it may have belonged to Carolan, a point which coming from such a substantive source as Armstrong creates a problem for Chadwick as it does not fit the narrative in his article attempting to argue that it was Carolan's. In endeavouring to extract himself from this problem in his article he suggests there was a conspiracy of silence regarding the origins due to Petrie's influence while on his website he 'wonders' if Armstrong 'did not see the harp in person but relied on a photograph and measurements sent him by someone in Dublin'. ^[9]

The idea of a conspiracy of silence is too ludicrous to contemplate while the suggestion that Armstrong did not see the harp in person made with no supporting evidence is typical of that author's approach to research. If that had been the case then Armstrong, who was meticulous in his work would have credited the 'someone' involved as he does with other such help, (unless the conspiracy of silence required the someone to remain incognito). Although his family came from an Ulster background Armstrong was born and raised in Dublin and retained strong links to that city and its institutions and for some time maintained a Dublin address. He was a friend of Dr Arthur Ball the grandson of Robert Ball the treasurer of the R.I.A. when the harp was first bought and was likely to have seen the harp on several occasions. He certainly saw it in person and made some drawings, now mostly lost.

The absence of any suggestion the harp had any connection to Carolan was more likely to reflect that at the time Armstrong saw it in preparation for inclusion in his work the harp's label made no such claim. The records show that in the period running up to 1900-01 and beyond, the fixing of new explanatory labels to the museum exhibits was in process under the direction of the curator Mr T. H. Longfield. The evidence from Mr Longfield's own published papers certainly suggest he was unlikely to have included any spurious material that lacked proof. In fact Armstrong in his own works mentions 'instruments in our National Museums which are or were incorrectly labelled' and again 'Labels in museums can be replaced, but incorrect statements or pictorial representations live and may be referred to hereafter as proof that the false is true. Is that desirable?'. ^[10]

That Armstrong clearly had no reason to think the harp had any connection to Carolan led him into one of his rare mistakes as aware of Petrie's comments, Armstrong assumed that a different harp recently acquired by the museum was the one Petrie had in mind. Indeed, the brief section of his work in which it was mentioned was written in an uncharacteristically casual manner, where he notes three harps together as 'drawing room instruments. Many such were doubtless constructed towards the close of the eighteenth century, when ladies still played the Irish Harp'. They include the Charlemont Harp which, still being in private hands, he had not seen but was 'communicated by T. H. Longfield', a harp in the Belfast Museum he suggests had belonged to Edward Lindsay and claimed to have been that of Hempson, which claim he dismisses noting that he had already identified Hempson's harp being the one preserved at Downhill. The third harp which he mistakenly identifies as the one Petrie had dismissed as that of Carolan is probably the harp at one time briefly referred to as the 'Countryman's harp' which had recently been added to the museum collection. It would also fit with the statement that it was a 'drawing room instrument'.

Further confirmation that Armstrong did not connect Carolan to R.I.A. No. 2 comes from the fact that he includes the subject of Carolan's harp in his section entitled 'Specimens known to have been destroyed'. On comparing two claims, one that Carolan's son had carried it with him to London and the other that it had been preserved by the MacDermot Roe family until burned by the servants at Alderford, he states that there is no doubt that the latter is correct. In fact Armstrong's own enquiry evoked a response from the then MacDermot Roe that a near relative, when on a visit to Alderford early in life had been shown the charred remains of a Harp which was said to have belonged to Carolan. In a footnote he identifies the witness as 'Madame De Mamiel'. This was Sarah Emma, third daughter of Mulloy M'Dermot Esq of Tubberpatrick, who had married Captain H. H. De Mamiel in December 1856.

Apart from the lady reinforcing Petrie's statement regarding 'trustworthy evidence' relating to the fate of Carolan's harp, her family connections add further weight to that evidence. According to the chapter 'A Review of the authorities for Carolan's life' in Donal O'Sullivan's 'Carolan', the lady's father Mulloy MacDermot was one of the members of the MacDermott Roe family who was notable for providing useful information about the harper's life. He was also quoted as a contemporary witness to the saga of Carolan's skull, although that story is not relevant to the harper's instrument.

The rest of Armstrong's discussion of Carolan's missing harp involves an examination of the background to the portrait of Carolan which at that time could not be traced and so continued with discussion of the accuracy of the various engraved copies. Since the original circa 1720 portrait is now in the collections of the National Gallery of Ireland and a high definition scan is available on the Gallery's website, Armstrong's discussion of the copies no longer has further relevance. ^[11] The portrait is a competent work and though it only shows part of the harp its detail can be paralleled from other extant instruments and it is clearly not R.I.A. No. 2.

The alternative method of attempting to connect R.I.A. No. 2 to Carolan is through establishing a genealogical link. Since to date there is still nothing known about the seller of the harp to the R.I.A. other than his name, this route starts with Carolan and his son John. The usual two sources of Joseph Walker and Arthur O'Neill are quoted by Chadwick, that sometime after 1748 John went to London with another man's wife and then states that 'O'Neill also guessed that John died in London', before skipping to work by Sean Donnelly showing that there was a John Carolan listed as a bookseller in Dublin in 1766 x 1773 and a Francis Carolan bookbinder described as the grandson of Carolan in Dublin circa 1774 x 1786.

Unfortunately, Chadwick starts by introducing a degree of obfuscation; what O'Neill was actually recorded as saying was that '[Carolan's son] formed an acquaintance with another man's wife in Ballymahon in the County of Longford took her to London where I am informed he died in obscurity'. 'I am informed', is not the same as 'guessed' and carries a far greater weight of authority. O'Neill's words should have been accurately quoted and discussed with the evidence (if any) that O'Neill had been misinformed firmly stated as it has significant implications for everything which follows.

In the eighteenth-century harpers like O'Neill were part of a travelling countrywide network of news carriers, both receiving and giving. It would have been as part of this process that O'Neill had been informed of John Carolan's death in London, just as if in fact John Carolan had not died in London but had returned to a relatively high profile occupation as a bookseller in Dublin. The odds of that not being picked up on the news grapevine and reaching O'Neill's ears would have been quite low and leans the weight of the evidence towards O'Neill's original statement.

Turning to the evidence advanced by Donnelly, the appearance of a Dublin bookseller called John Carolan followed a little later by a book-binder called Francis Carolan does look like more than a coincidence. But, at a period when wider family connections were usually employed for advancement and an entry into the book-binding trade would have been a desirable apprenticeship, then the connection may have been through the collateral family rather than father to son. Certainly, more likely if Arthur O'Neill's information was correct. It is though Francis Carolan, described in 1774 as 'grandson of the famous poet Carolan' and in 1786 as 'the only descendent, now living, of the truly celebrated ancient bard of that name', who poses the most questions.

The 'famous poet Carolan' would seem to have followed conventional naming practices when naming his son 'John' after the harper's own father. However, following that practice John should have named his son Turlough/Terence after his father. The forename Francis was certainly used by the collateral family lines and of course we do not know for certain if John Carolan was married before his claimed departure to London with another man's wife, or if Francis had an elder brother who was by then deceased who might have been called after his grandfather. Indeed, we know so little about Francis Carolan that another possibility which would still fit the descriptions has to at least be contemplated. According to Joseph Walker the harper had one son and six daughters, (and as a granddaughter of the harper was one of his informants, likely to be correct). If one of the daughters had married a cousin or given birth to an illegitimate son then the descriptions of Francis Carolan in the references cited above would also fit and possibly also explain the breaking of the naming patterns. Figures for illegitimacy in eighteenth century Ireland are by the nature of the event hard to find, though it seems to be agreed that it was lower than the comparable figures in England, but still suggested to be around 3 to 4 % of births which set against 6 daughters means the possibility cannot be dismissed.

Genealogical research is full of pitfalls even before the gaps in the sources are taken into account, especially with the substantial loss of Irish records. Although it would be time-consuming it could be argued that if indeed John Carolan died in London there is a greater chance of finding him in the English records than in Ireland. There certainly seems to have been an interest in Carolan there as the November 1774 entries from The Hibernian Journal and Faulkner's Dublin Journal cited by Donnelly was deemed interesting enough to be copied on the 3 December by the London published Craftsman or Say's Weekley Journal. It should be emphasised that none of this discussion of Carolan's descendants is meant to be definitive but simply to demonstrate, to part quote a former US Vice President, some of the 'known unknowns'.

That of course is the easy part but moving on from Francis Carolan is more problematic. It is clear from the two references to him that he had married twice, the second reference being a note of his second marriage. It can therefore be assumed that his first wife had probably died rather than divorced but to date there is no further record of any children to either marriage. Something which is implied by the statement that Francis was 'the only descendent now living'. This makes for quite a leap in the dark when trying to connect from 1786 to 1847, a gap of at least two generations based on the modern calculation of 33.2 years per generation. ^[12] That same period also roughly coincides with that from 1792 and the Belfast Harp Festival, to 1840 with the publication of Bunting's volume of that year when interest in the harp and by association Carolan would have been increasing. It is therefore surprising that if a descendant of Carolan was still around and possessed the iconic musician's harp it would not have been noticed.

Which raises the most important 'known unknown' of all, which is the identity of the person who sold the harp to the R.I.A. in the first place. To date, despite considerable searching an answer is still no further forward and Chadwick's article adds nothing which has not already been in the public domain for some years. Carliton/Carlton ^[13] are simply written variants of the more usual Anglo-Irish name Carleton ^[14] and although that name has on occasion been used as a more easily written, especially for non-Gaelic speakers, equivalent for Ó Cairealláin or Ó Cearbhalláin it does not seem to have been that common especially as the Anglicised version of Carolan became established. According to MacLysaght both Gaelic forms are derived from obsolete personal names and O'Sullivan in discussing the form of his name used by the harper suggests that further change had occurred, and the harper himself had dropped the 'O' and used either Cearbhallan or in English 'Carolan'. ^[15]

Over the course of the eighteenth century 'Carolan' became the established non-Gaelic form and was used by the blind harper's descendants and collateral family; along with others using that Gaelic derived surname. For example, at the time of the 1853 exhibition one of the Dublin civic councillors who attended the opening function was called Carolan. It is therefore somewhat surprising if one of the harper's later descendants had dropped 'Carolan' to instead adopt the by then rare former equivalent of 'Carleton'. What is even more surprising is that someone called Carleton, who if they genuinely were a descendant of Carolan, and were trying to sell a harp claimed to have been his would not have reverted their name to Carolan.

At that period within the geographical 'British Isles', with one caveat, you could legally call yourself by any name you choose. That is still the case today although in the modern world it makes life easier if your name change is also registered. ^[16] The only caveat is that it is illegal to change your name for purposes of committing fraud. Which given the severity of nineteenth century punishments for what would be a relatively minor offence today, might explain why the person who sold the harp to the R.I.A. avoided actually using the name 'Carolan'. A fact that even at this distance in time provides some additional justification for George Petrie describing him as 'a wretched imposter'.

The Harp

Apart from its re-writing of the harps background to drop the Rose Mooney connection, the stated intent of Chadwick's research was to create an accurate reproduction of the instrument using modern measurement techniques. Given the number of serious breakages this instrument has received during its life 'restoration' rather than 'reproduction' might have been a better description to use. However, this leads to the suggestion that laser scanning can resolve a perceived problem with accurately measuring and making copies of old harps. Here, not for the first time, Chadwick is being somewhat disingenuous when citing papers by Paul Dooley and Michael Billinge to support his argument. Both Dooley and Billinge are serious researchers and makers of historical harps and were referring to specific examples of inaccurate measuring by another maker and neither subscribe to the belief that it is not possible to measure and make accurate copies of historic instruments using conventional measurements. ^[17]

Apart from scanning R.I.A. No 2. harp with a laser, two other technical processes were also employed, X-rays and stereo photographs, but in this case his application of both these methods is open to a degree of criticism. The use of stereo photogrammetry is a legitimate survey method but to obtain suitable results requires accurately positioned control points and/or a precise camera 'eye-base' to be established first. Despite this Chadwick has attempted to use his photographs to estimate the displacement of the broken projecting block. Trying to utilise this approach to obtain the size of this displacement seems a little perverse, especially when this displacement can be easily and more accurately obtained using direct 'linear measurement' with a tape or scale (which Billinge was able to do when he first examined the harp back in 2007).

Where technology can play an important role is by providing information on those areas of the instrument hidden from view. Since the National Museum of Ireland now has the ability to obtain X-rays Chadwick was able to take advantage of this option but it is again surprising that he chose not to request an X-ray of the neck to pillar joint. Obtaining information on the size and form of the mortice and tenon used at this junction would be of significant interest and the iron plates that he suggests would have obscured the detail only partially cover the mortice/tenon area. Likewise, had he attempted to X-ray the area of the base of the harp, now hidden under canvas, it might have produced a more accurate representation of the original form than that seen on the actual physical 'reproduction' he had made. ^[18]

'Modern' tends to be equated with better and using laser scanning techniques for musical instruments certainly falls under 'modern', but whether it is 'better' rather than simply a different option for measuring them compared to conventional methods is debatable. It certainly produces impressive computer active visualisations, although similar work from computer processed multicamera scans has the additional advantage of real-life colour. Even the 'laser scan' of R.I.A. No. 2 does not answer the question as apart from the scan the harp was also given a close physical examination by Chadwick and the harp maker Pedro Ferreira. The project also benefited from earlier conventional measurements undertaken by the harp maker Natalie Surina which was funded by a Music Network grant to make copies of the 'Rose Mooney' harp, (as it was then being called).

What is not clear is if any controls were undertaken, a simple process that would just require a few parameters on the harp to be measured by someone who can accurately measure musical instruments then compared with those extracted from the scan by a different person to avoid unconscious bias. In any case when measurements obtained from a scan are used to make a harp they are still going to be applied to the 'raw' wood using conventional measuring techniques. A further quirk is that the accuracy claimed for the scanning process exceeds the tolerances to which the artisans who originally made the harps would have been working. The ultimate paradox is that none of those old harps still retain their original dimensions, the wood having shrunk and twisted as it aged. In the case of the R.I.A. No. 2, the harp today is extremely contorted and far displaced from its original form. Therefore measuring these harps today does not reflect the original dimensions, no matter the accuracy of the measuring technique, and there is a danger that in emphasising aspects of accuracy one may only be deluding oneself as to the true value of the results.

The dimensions of R.I.A. No. 2 harp as it currently exists clearly suffer from several major displacements due to previous breakages and repairs. Therefore, it follows that as the owner at the time of those breaks was happy to have the instrument repaired that they accepted the changes in string lengths resulting from the repaired instrument's new dimensions (not that they really had much choice). However, measurement of the string lengths of its current form is of dubious guidance and clearly not applicable to the harp in its original state. Furthermore, as it has now been accepted that R.I.A. No. 2 is not Rose Mooney's harp the details given in Dr MacDonnell's letter including the placement of the 'Sisters' (two neighboring strings tuned to the same pitch) is not relevant. It is generally recognised that if there are no contemporary records indicating that a particular harp was tuned with the 'sisters' that fact can not be determined from the structure of the harp itself. Indeed, it is quite possible that the position of the 'sisters' was not fixed and depended on the instrument's owner. ^[19]

Since the original string lengths can only be determined from a reconstruction of the harp as it was first made no information is provided in Chadwick's article on how the adjustments from the current measurements were calculated and the possible range of error. Indeed in another case of selective quoting he mentions the mid eighteenth century comments on a harp by William MacMurchy as additional evidence for the presence of the sisters. But, he then ignores the rest of MacMurchy's comments when after stating that 'the use of locally made wire seems less likely given the evidence for a thriving international trade in brass music wire', he continues to argue a justification for using harpsichord wire for his reconstruction. ^[20]

Given the current state of the harp and the potential problems it presents in actually arriving at an accurate restoration, the question arises as to why, if you wanted a copy of an eighteenth century harp to play the music from that period, you would choose this one over a number of better surviving examples? ^[21] Even when new, R.I.A. No 2 was not a very well-made harp. The alignment of the tuning pins is a mess and the copper alloy pins themselves along with the string shoes are clearly recycled from other instruments. The rest of the metalwork is ferrous, (including the strap which Chadwick forgot to test along with other areas which he failed to notice ^[22]), and mostly crudely made. There is little about the harp which would suggest an experienced profession harp maker, or even a competent woodworker with an understanding of the finer points of harp construction. ^[23] This in turn also raises the crucial question of when it was made, a point not really explored in the article.

Among the surviving Irish Harps one apparently unique aspect of R.I.A. No. 2 is that it is made of Sycamore ^[24] which is not a native species and it has been suggested that all the Irish trees are descendants of cultivated origin. ^[25] That it was a late introduction into Ireland (the Irish Gaelic name is just a phonetically Gaelicised version of sycamore), and would only have spread slowly through deliberate planting probably explains the fact that it seems to have taken a while to gain recognition for specific uses. In Irish legislation for 1723 it is specified that 'butter casks shall be made of good seasoned Oak, Ash or Sicamore'. However only Oak and Ash were permitted by similar legislation in 1715. ^[26] That would suggest that as a stock timber sycamore was only starting to become more widely used during the early eighteenth century.

That relatively late date taken together with the lack of any evidence that the R.I.A. No. 2 harp was made by a skilled harp maker, suggests it was made at a time when makers with the appropriate experience and knowledge were becoming rare. In addition, the re-use of pins and string-shoes from other harps may point towards a period after older instruments were being de-commissioned and only the recyclable parts retained. In the case of this harp some of those re-used string shoes are in fact most closely paralleled in the early eighteenth century harps made by Cormac O'Kelly. A point also made by Armstrong when he reproduced his drawings of the string-shoes and as they would have been salvaged at the end of an O'Kelly harp's life, something more likely to have occurred during the mid to late eighteenth century. In other words, a good case can be made to suggest that R.I.A. No. 2 was not even a product of Carolan's lifetime but was made much later in the eighteenth century. ^[27]

In conclusion we can only repeat the words of R.B. Armstrong that;-
It is unfortunate, but true, that incorrect names, representations, or statements, when they occur in published works, are sure to be repeated. Labels in museums can be replaced, but incorrect statements or pictorial representations live and may be referred to hereafter as proof that the false is true. Is that desirable?