Beware internet faux-"history", full of opinion and romantic fancy masquerading as fact but lacking any historical references. I know the source he is referring to, which is merely a verbal description and does not constitute an "authority". If he's going to cite "every authority on early Celtic" (early Celtic what??) then he needs to name and quote them. He's basing a whole hypothesis on his own interpretation of one word.

The strongest evidence of all is the depictions: just take a look at the harpers' hands in the many engravings and drawings that exist. When do you ever see the palms facing away from the strings?

And, crucially, how do you play any sort of complex melody in this style? Irish harpers had a foremost reputation, both as players and composers of delicate, intricate music. That technique simply doesn't suit it. Take a look at the opening arpeggios in the "Try If It Be In Tune" prelude in the Bunting collection. How could you "frail" those?

There is also extensive description of the old harpers' individual-finger damping technique, used to stop the long sustain of certain strings while allowing others to ring on (metal strings act differently from gut in this regard) to avoid a tonal clash. This argues against the percussive "frailing" technique, which would not have been string-specific in the first place, so the damping – quite a complicated art to master – would not have been needed, hence would never have developed.

His history is no more convincing. Why the pre- and post-Cromwell division? The year 1658 is of no particular consequence in harp history. Far more significant is the break in the tradition which occurred in the years following the Belfast Harp Gathering (1792), of which he seems unaware. If he is measuring periods according to individual lives, he would do far better to cite Carolan or Hempson. Belfast is a major milestone, but he never mentions it. Does he even know about it?   

At Belfast there was only one harper, Denis Hempson (1695-1807) (yes, 112 years) who still played with nails, which were described as "long and crooked" (there are references to crooked nails elsewhere, and this shape would affect the plucking of the string, not the hitting of it). No one else by that time was still playing with nails – Hempson was regarded as something of an oddity and an anachronism by the other harpers at the festival – and there is a whole period when wire-strung harps were played either with flesh or the nails. This too argues against the strings being hit. The famous picture of Hempson given in Bunting clearly shows him plucking the strings. Likewise Carolan, O'Neill, Byrne, Quin, and others.

He writes: "After Cromwell's death, efforts were made to revive the playing tradition, but it came back as a drawing room tradition and an occupation for the blind." Wrong: It's after BELFAST that the efforts were made – the harp didn't need reviving in 1658. And playing it had always been a good occupation for the blind.

"Pre-Cromwell" is equally meaningless, as whole social structures flourished and fell in those centuries, each with its own characteristics: you can't generalise them down into one category. He seems utterly unaware of the position of harper in the ancient Gaelic civilisation, which was not itinerant at all. The chieftains had their own harpers and poets whose social standing was high and noble – and stable. They were excused all other work except to compose and perform their art, and it was only after this old order was destroyed that the harpers became more transient. But he seems to think they were always wandering minstrels. His statement that they "travelled between locations by foot, alone" is dodgy anyway: many of the harpers were blind and had guides in addition to horses, as is well attested. This is his imagination talking, not historical fact. How on earth can he state whether they were "alone" or not??   (Was it snowing too?)

And: "Hang all the harpers" started with Elizabeth I, not Cromwell. And no one managed to "kill them ALL off" (my emphasis).

The business about small "minstrel-style" harps (whatever and whenever those are) is plain mystifying. What instruments, what period? Why the arbitrary mention of Welsh harps? WHY the silly statement that there were no curved forepillers? Has he never seen the numerous McFall harps, to name but just one maker?

There's more, but you get the idea. Frail an Irish harp if you want to (better use metal strings, though, not gut or nylon) but don't delude yourself that it's "authentic" or that this website is any kind of authority.