Oral and literary sources for BDL

The existence of the duanairí on the one hand, and of BDL on the other, demonstrates that literary expertise flourished in the Gaelic world.  Beyond these manuscripts, the evidence for the existence of a highly literate Gaelic class in the Middle Ages is incontrovertible.   At the same time, oral creativity and transmission were integral to Gaelic society.  BDL poses fascinating questions with regard to the oral and/or literary sources which may have been available to, and used by, its scribes. Opinions expressed hitherto have applied to specific genres within the MS, or even to individual items of verse.  The dangers of generalisation, or mere assumption, must therefore be emphasised in view of our knowledge to date and the intrinsic complexity of the MS.

The Gaelic ballad material in BDL was of considerable importance in determining scholarly attitudes to the compilation of the MS, especially since numerous collections of heroic verse had indeed been made from oral transmission in the Highlands in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  This, in part, may well have influenced Professor Donald MacKinnon to conclude that ‘the greater part, if not the whole, of the Gaelic verse must have been written to dictation or from memory’ (Catalogue, 229).   This general conclusion was inscribed in a preface to the MS which was added (presumably by Professor MacKinnon) when it was rebound in 1911.  MacKinnon was, however, prepared to admit that ‘the writers may have sometimes transcribed from MSS’ (Catalogue, 229), and he too noted the significance of the scribal note on the source of the pedigree on page 144 of the MS (ibid.).  It would seem, therefore, that he made a distinction between Gaelic verse items in the MS and other material.

Support for the view that BDL drew on oral sources was also derived from certain features of the MS itself.  Neil Ross argued in 1939 that ‘the reproduction of the spoken dialect, and the nature of the corrections, tend to show that the ballads were not transcribed from a written source’ (HP, xiv). More recently, the unusual orthography of the MS has been adduced as evidence of transcription from dictation or recitation (Ó Cuív, 14).

This view of the compilation of BDL has not received unqualified acceptance. In 1931, Professor Christiansen noted the close correspondence between certain of the ballad texts of BDL and versions in Irish MSS (Vikings, 40–6).  He concluded from a detailed scrutiny of one particular text that it was ‘legitimate’ to think that ‘the Dean copied this from some songbook, and did not write it down from what he heard recited’ (ibid., 42, n. 7).  In 1937, Professor Watson, referring to the bardic verse in the MS, wrote: ‘Whether the writers consulted MSS or depended mainly on oral sources is a difficult question’ (SV, xviii).

Textual research on sections of BDL undertaken by Professor William Gillies has similarly raised the possibility that the scribes had access to MSS, at least in certain cases.  Gillies has also suggested that, on occasion, they may have used exemplars in an orthography similar to that of BDL itself (Gillies, ‘Duncan Campbell’, 24, 31, 35, 41).  Yet, in the case of one poem, the same editor concludes that ‘there seems at least a possibility that ... [it] was at some stage written down from recitation or dictation by someone who did not recognise or comprehend all he heard’ (Gillies, ‘Religious Poem’, 83-4).

The evidence of the body of heroic ballads in the MS suggests that most of these items were probably transcribed from MSS, and not recorded from oral transmission as has generally been maintained.  Such a conclusion is by no means inconsistent with the methods of transmitting ballad verse, or with the nature of the medieval Gaelic world, which supported a vigorous scribal tradition alongside a flourishing oral culture.  At the same time, it does not deny the possibility that such verse could have been transmitted orally before it was placed in the exemplars which may have been used by the scribes of BDL.