Notes to Poem II
i. MS Text: The text of this poem occurs on p. 25 of the MS. Staining has taken place on the inside and outside margins of the pages, but it affects the clarity of only one or two letters of the text. Otherwise the text is remarkably legible. One correction occurs in q. 4 d, but this seems to rectify a scribal error, and it does not suggest the availability of another version. A later hand, apparently that of Donald Mackintosh (Black, Draft Catalogue), has written “Ossianic” in the upper margin.
ii. General background: The poem takes the form of a discussion between members of the Clann Morna about the feasibility of obtaining the head of Goll from Fionn. Conán Maol mac Morna, with characteristic aggressiveness, is keen to mount an expedition for this purpose, but Garadh mac Morna urges some caution. Conán and Garadh are the only speakers who are identified as such in the poem, but the structure of the piece makes it difficult to know whether any others participate in the debate.
The death of Goll, which is presupposed by the BDL poem, is the theme of a number of tales and ballads in Ireland and Scotland (DF, III: 50-52; LF: 164–75). The tradition that he was decapitated, having been besieged for a lengthy period on a sea-girt rock, is found as early as Acallam na Senórach of c. 1175 (Stokes, IV, lines 1965 ff.). This situation is described in later prose and verse, but there are different explanations of the enmity between Goll and Fionn, and the final blow is attributed to different individuals (usually Muc Smáile or Muc Smolach mac Smáil in Ireland, and Oscar in Scotland) (DF, III: 52; LF: 180).
iii. Later versions: No later versions of this ballad are known.
iv. Metre: Deibhidhe
v. Line annotation
1 triallmaid: tryillmy<t> MS. Although final -t of the MS form appears to be on the same line as the preceding y, it is ligatured to the y in the same manner as other examples of -y in this text. The verb form would represent 1 pl. pres. indic. in standard E. Mod. Irish, and 1 pl. impv. in vernacular Sc. G. (cf. HP transl.). It seems possible that the form could also be regarded as technically 1 pl. pres. indic. but with future meaning, reflecting the fusion of pres. and fut. in vernacular Sc. G. (IDPP: 131–132). This last interpretation gains support from the use of similar verb forms elsewhere in the text: see 11.
2 <iodhalc fhear nach>: MS Igalk ernacht may reflect a scribal error of some kind. HP restores the line as iodhlacadh nach subhach linn, “an errand which brings us no joy”, which gives good general sense, but overlooks MS er-.
4 gcuirmis: gurmist MS. Final -t of the MS form could be an attempt to indicate palatalisation of -s. However, we should perhaps consider the 1 pl. impf. endings in -maist found in Northern Irish dialects (IDPP: 170-1). Cf. the MS forms of féadmais, 7; chuir[i]mis, 26.
é: The MS form aye is an unusual representation of the pron., since a final -e is not normally found.
go [a]: The MS form gai suggests that in the scribe’s dialect go coalesced with a following 3 sg. m. poss. pron. to give /g’e:/.
6-7 The significance of the two parallel clauses in these lines is not immediately transparent. In 5 part of the problem lies in the interpretation of MS g<a>r, the second letter of which is obscured by its running into the first. The transliteration <gáir> “shout, cry”, is very tentative. The verbs in both clauses would seem to be formally impf. indic., unless there is confusion with the conditional. If the tense in both instances is impf., the speaker seems to refer to the lack of any effective attempt to avenge Goll in the past: “since I did not hear a shout (?) [raised] about the head, and since we were unable to avenge it”. Otherwise, the reference would be to the planned expedition.
9 This line, as presently reconstructed, is hypermetric. The MS achieves correct length by dropping initial a of the interrogative. HP corrects by reading libh for leibhse (lusse MS).
liom féin: The MS represents féin as pen (i.e. péin), a vernacular Sc. G. feature which occurs most commonly when féin is preceded by a 2 pl. pers. or prep. pron. ending in -bh. The two homorganic spirants then give a plosive.
10 The line is hypermetric, and the problem would appear to lie in the vb. form adubhairt (Id durd MS). HP emends to dubhairt, but in the poet’s dialect area adubhairt was perhaps pronounced as if it were aduirt in keeping with the MS form.
11 marbh<mai[d]-n[e]>: Marmy' MS. In the light of a similar vb. form in 13 (varmon MS), the suspension mark in this instance seems to represent -n. A parallel form occurs in 23 (Tuttmy' MS). The reconstruction of these examples aims to show their possible origin, namely the addition of the emphatic enclitic -ne to the normal 1 pl. pres. indic., with the consequent attraction of /d'/ to /N'/ and the dropping of unstressed -e. The reconstructed form, with the full enclitic, makes 11 and 13 hypermetric; we could restore as marbhmain, mharbhmain. In 23 -e would disappear by elision; in other instances, -ne is required for line length, as in XX, 5. In this last instance, the vb. is 1 pl. pret., probably reflecting the extension of this development to the same person in other tenses. Note that while the vbs. in 11, 13, 23 appear to be formally pres. indic., they refer to the future. Cf. 1 n.
13 mharbh<mai[d]-n[e]>: See 11 n. HP mharbhfam is not supported by the MS.
<lám[h]maid>: The reconstruction is tentative and follows HP. On <t> of the MS form, cf. 1 n.
16 faghthar: The form is to be taken either as pres. indic. pass. with future reference, or as impv. pass. Cf. 20.
sinn: The scribe originally wrote sen, which normally represents a dialectal form of sin in the MS; this was cancelled and sinni written in superscript.
17 Marbh<aidh-se>: Marvesyt MS. In view of the use of marve in lines 18, 19 to represent marbhaidh, it is possible that the present form is 2 pl. impv. HP takes it as 2 sg. impv.
18-19 marbhaidh: The MS represents a vb form indistinguishable from the 3 sg. pres. indic. in E. Mod. Irish, but clearly future in its meaning in these lines. Cf. 1 n, 11 n.
20 faghthar: See 16 n.
21 The main difficulty with this line is the interpretation of MS Macht at the beginning. The very tentative reconstruction offered here suggests that it could be madh (má conj., “if”, plus the pres. subj. of the copula): “If I know what will happen...”. However, the use of the copula instead of the subst. in the idiom atá f[h]ios agam is not usual, although there may be confusion with another similar idiom is fios domh (RIA Dict. s.v. fis). HP, while not restoring the full line, seems inclined to interpret Macht as math: “Well I know...”.
bhios: The MS form ve<ii>s, with its probable doubling of i might suggest that the scribe intended the disyllabic form bhitheas, which would make the restored line hypermetric.
22 cha dtig: Here and in 24 there is clear evidence of the use of the pres. indic. conjunct as a future, as in modern Sc. G. Both instances also employ the characteristic Sc. G. negative cha.
23 tuit<mui[d]-n[el]>: See 11 n.
24 cha dtig: See 22 n.
25 The suggested restoration of this line is tentative, but makes good sense in the context: “Fionn’s bravery was [merely] half of his [i.e Goll's] strength...”. The main objection might be the form neart (MS nart), where the standard E. Mod. gen. sg. neirt would be expected. The latter makes poor rhyme with the next line (although, given the nature of the tradition, this would scarcely be a major obstacle). Two points may be noted: first, that a gen. sg. form neart is common in modern Sc. G.; and second, that a gen. sg. form nearta is attested in Carswell (FU, l. 2513 n.), from which the form neart could have come following the loss of unstressed -a.
26 do chuir[i]mis: dy<t> churmist MS. Formally the MS reading is identical with 1 pl. impf. indic., but the sense requires a conditional. The fact that the line lacks a syllable may suggest that a conditional was used originally.
leacht: This word follows normal Gaelic orthography in its MS form.
28 fíor: f<.>eir MS. The indistinct second letter of the MS reading appears originally to have been r, perhaps in erroneous anticipation of the final letter. The scribe evidently attempted to change the letter, perhaps to e, with little success. No formal cancellation is apparent.
<nach briathar>: nyt brair MS. HP restores as na briathra, and translates the line: “true are the words without reproach”. The present reconstruction would give the opposite meaning: “it is true that it is not a word without reproach”, i.e. the speaker is rebuking Garadh for his cowardice.
29 adéar-sa: This is formally 1 sg. fut., but the sense requires the pres. indic. Here we evidently have the opposite development to that found elsewhere in this poem (cf. 22 n., 18–19 n.), but it would seem natural enough at a time when the tenses were in confusion. A similar process is attested in Carswell (FU, Intro. E.5, pp. liii–liv).