Notes to Poem V

i. MS Text: The text of this poem occupies the whole of p. 63 of the MS, and about half of p. 64. Staining is evident in the margins of p. 63, and especially in the right hand margin, where certain line endings are now difficult to retrieve. Following the writing of the dúnadh and the formal conclusion of the poem, a further quatrain (q. 18) has been added, the significance of which has not been noted hitherto. The hand of this quatrain appears to be very similar to that of the rest of the poem, and it could have been appended shortly after the main part was written. It is possible that a second version of the poem became available to the scribe at some stage. The letter a is written in the left hand margin beside the additional quatrain, suggesting that the scribe wished to indicate its location in the main part of the text by means of a similar letter placed at an appropriate point. No such corresponding letter can now be traced in the earlier section, probably because of staining or fading, and for editorial purposes it has seemed best to retain the quatrain in its MS position.

ii. General background: Cast in the form of an Oisean/Patrick dialogue, the poem tells of a hunt undertaken by the Fian on Sliabh na mBan bhFionn (evidently Slievenamon, a mountain in Co. Tipperary). The description of the hunt is simple and generalised: Oisean, at Patrick’s request, lists the equipment of the hunters (qq. 5-7); eulogises Fionn (q. 8); and then tells how three thousand dogs were unleashed, each of which killed two deer (qq. 12-13), before ten hundred dogs were slain by as many boars (q. 14). The hunters kill the boars (q. 15).

The most striking feature of this poem is its word-picture of a hunting-party in the Gaelic world of the late Middle Ages. It provides most detail when portraying their equipment and attire, and here it shows a close correspondence with the hunting-scenes depicted on medieval monumental sculpture. A particularly fine example of such a scene is found on the tomb of Alasdair Crotach MacLeod of Dunvegan, who died c. 1547, and is buried at Rodel in Harris. Indeed, the present poem gives literary evidence for the fashions depicted on the Rodel panel. Alasdair Crotach is pictured wearing a bascinet, an aventail and hauberk of mail, and two long undergarments. He carries a claymore and a long-handled axe – and his whole appearance is that of the warrior (Steer and Bannerman, 186-7; Plate 32).  In the poem, the huntsmen wear a léine shróill or satin shirt (q. 5 d); a cotún or aketon (q. 6 a); a lúireach or coat of mail (q. 6 b); and a cinnbheirt, best regarded as a bascinet (q. 6 c). Each man is said to carry two sleagha or spears (q. 6 d), a sgiath or shield (q. 7 a), and a lann or sword (q. 7 b). Such clothes and equipment are normally associated with battle (see Harbison 1976, 173 f.), rather than the hunt, but they were probably customary on the latter occasion also. Like the gillies in the Rodel scene, the huntsmen in the poem each have a brace of dogs. The poem, however, makes no mention of gillies or assistants of any kind; its main interest is in the warrior (and aristocratic) class to which the Fian are assimilated.

The ballad describes the outcome of the hunt with noticeable pride and obvious detachment from the fate of the creatures concerned. The deer are regarded simply as a quarry, roused first by the gadhair (q. 10 c) and then killed by the coin (q. 12 c). The boars are of secondary importance, but they are shown to be destructive (q. 14). They are, however, killed themselves before any loss of human life (q. 15). This attitude to deer, and especially to boars, sets the poem apart from the normal treatment of such animals in heroic verse. Most frequently the hunt is the beginning of an adventure with Otherworld dimensions in which the deer (or more often the boar) has a key role. The present poem cannot therefore be compared directly with other descriptions of the hunt in Fianaigheacht. A prose tale entitled by Meyer (52-99) “The Chase of Síd na mBan Finn and the Death of Finn” has an opening section and a location which resemble the BDL poem, but there is little detailed correspondence between the two. The centrepiece of the tale is the hunting of the great boar of Formael.

The adventitious quatrain in the BDL text (q. 18) is of importance in demonstrating that, at some stage, the poem was thought to have a link with another boar hunt described in a ballad entitled “Seilg Sléibhe gCrot”. This ballad, which has survived only in Irish tradition, tells of a quarrel between Fionn and Aonghas an Bhrogha. As a result, Aonghas sends a herd of venomous boars to attack the Fian. The boars kill a large number of Fian warriors (ten hundred), but the Fian succeed in slaying the boars. In particular, Bran (Fionn’s dog) kills the leading boar, a grizly creature which turns out to be Aonghas’s own son in disguise. The other boars are similarly metamorphosed warriors (O Síochfhradha, 113-7). The BDL quatrain does not come from this ballad; it is, in fact, a summary of the slaughter inflicted on the Fian at Sliabh gCrot. It is of interest that Sliabh gCrot is to be equated with Mount Grud in Co. Tipperary, where Sliabh na mBan bhFionn is itself located.

iii. Later versions: The poem was known in later Irish and Scottish tradition, but it was not particularly common in either country. The Irish versions (such as that in RIA MS 23 A 47) are well represented by DF LVIII, to which they usually correspond in the number and order of their quatrains, although there are some verbal distinctions. The BDL text, excluding q. 18, is also close to DF, differing from it only in matters of wording. The BDL text occasionally lacks the clarity of the DF text (e.g. BDL qq. 3 ab, 6 c), and one suspects that this reflects misunderstanding on the part of the scribe.

Of the Scottish versions, the better preserved is that of Kennedy. This keeps the structure and order of the BDL text for the most part, but it omits several BDL couplets and quatrains (e.g. BDL qq. 3 ab, 10 cd, 11 ab, 16). More significantly, it includes a version of BDL q. 18 (K q. 16), as well as another additional quatrain describing how Bran killed a deer and other prey although still a puppy (K q. 11). Pope’s version, although badly dislocated, similarly preserves a quatrain corresponding to BDL q. 18. As the surviving Irish versions do not have any such quatrain, it would appear that its inclusion is a feature of the Scottish texts. From this we may conclude that the addition of q. 18 to the MS text, which is otherwise close to the Irish versions, reflects the emergence of a distinctive Scottish version of the poem by the early sixteenth century and suggests that the BDL scribes were tapping a Scottish source for their final text.

iv. Metre: Rannaigheacht Mhór

v. Line annotation

Ascription: Fading has now obscured the central part of the MS reading, but the full ascription may be restored with confidence, since it utilises a Latin formula found elsewhere in BDL.

3 mhaithibh: The form of the noun indicates that the prep. de (> /ə/ > 0) is assumed to be present, but its insertion would make the line hypermetric. ’mathaibh (DF); dho mhaithibh (23 A 47).

9-10 The restored text attempts only to represent the words which seem to be intended by the MS line. These words are hard to construe syntactically in any meaningful way as they stand, The obscurity may derive largely from miscomprehension, either on the part of the BDL scribe, or at an earlier stage in transmission. Of the Irish versions, the clearest reading is that of DF:

Budh mór na creacha dar slúagh
dar a ndeachaidh uaim ’s ní sbleadh
ar thuit ar Slíabh na mBan bhFionn
d’fiadhach ré Fionn na ffleadh

 (“Great spoils for our men (I swear it by all I have lost, and it is no exaggeration) was the prey that fell to festive Fionn on Sliabh na mBan bhFionn”)

 Cf. 23 A 47:

Budh mhór na creacha ler slóigh
an dechaidh uainn is ní spleadh...

and 23 L 8:

Bu mhór na creachadh re árr slóigh
A ndeachadh úainn is ní spleadh...

The DF version suggests that the original quatrain may have been highly rhetorical; the idea of “swearing by all I have lost” seems strained. The later Irish versions have dispensed with dar in this line, but this only makes it more difficult to accommodate the line meaningfully within the quatrain. BDL itself probably represents an unsuccessful attempt to clarify the couplet as a whole.

9 ácreacha arñ: The MS form crachamir could suggest that this was taken to be a verb, and confused with the 1 pl. pret.; otherwise it is hard to explain mir, unless as a dialectal form of (bh)ar, the 1 pl. poss. pron., which gives reasonable sense.

10 <air>: er MS. This may be a degraded form of dar, as in DF (from tar prep., used in asseveration); but ar was itself employed in this way (see RIA Dict. s.v. tar, V; ar, II (b)).

<nan>: ne i’ MS. This could be a fusing of E. Mod. Ir. an, the demonstrative rel., and the later Sc. G. form na; but it is difficult to be sure in view of the seemingly different use of ne i’ elsewhere in the line (see next note).

<ní 'n>: <ne i’>  MS. The MS form is difficult to retrieve because of staining; there is also a possibility that for ne we should read no. The Irish MSS encourage one to suppose that the negative may have been represented here; in BDL the negative ni is sometimes followed by the MS form i’ (standing for an or ’n ?), and this tendency could be shown in this instance.

<spleadh>: This word is written above, and to the left of, <ne i’> in the MS, indicating that the scribe had run out of space. Clarity is affected by staining and by the interference of downstrokes from the line above, but we may feel reasonably confident in reading it thus. Pen-marks may be attested to the right of <ne i’>.

11 do thuit: If the verb is to be regarded as relative, an antecedent cannot be found readily in the BDL text; if this is a main clause, a subject is equally hard to find. ar thuit (DF); Thuit sin (K).

14 <do>: MS a is probably a reduced form of 2 sg. poss. pron. do; such a reduction occurs commonly in vernacular Sc. G. ar do bhéal (DF)

15 The line lacks a syllable as it stands; similarly DF; libh na arm (23 A 47); oruibh no arm (23 L 8).

<éideadh>: It is difficult to be certain whether MS eaddi represents éideadh or possibly éadach. The most common word for armour in general is certainly éideadh (Harbison, “Native Irish Arms”, p. 180), and this is the reading of the Irish MSS. Cf. 17.

20 <gan léinidh>: The MS form leynich may preserve the acc. sg. after gan; similarly, though less confidently, lúirigh (22) and cheinnbheirt (23). Eclipsis of the adj. in Gan sgiath n-uaine (25) indicates that sgiath was felt to be acc. For the significance of the technical terms in these phrases and others (21, 24, 26), see Section ii above.

<is ii choin>: Extreme staining obscures this part of the MS line, but ultra-violet light retrieves most of the letters. Note the retention of the n-stem dual.

21 The line lacks a syllable as it stands; similarly DF, 23 A 47, 23 L 8; Gan cotún a’s síoda séimh (TOS).

22 sparrtha: sparri MS. It is hard to be sure what the MS form is meant to convey. The tentative reconstruction follows HP, which translates as “clinched”, evidently deriving sparrtha (as a past part.?) from sparr (otherwise sparra, spairre), “spar, beam, rafter”, or “stake, spike, nail” (RIA Dict. s.v.). Given the nature of a lúireach (Harbison, “Native Irish Arms”, pp. 186-187), this makes very good sense. Technically less convincing is DF lúireach bharraidh, if the second word is to be equated with barrach, “tow”, as Murphy suggests (transl. and OF, III, p. 229 s.v.); barrghéir (23 A 47), and similarly other Irish MSS.

23 <c[h]loch[dha] da chóir>: cloot di chorrit MS. If this has been restored correctly, the MS line would seem to mean: “without a bascinet of [precious] stones in his proximity”. There is, however, the possibility that the MS reading is based on a scribal misunderstanding; cf. clochorrdha chorr (DF), “upstanding jewelled and gilded”; chlochordha chóir (23 A 47), and similarly other Irish MSS.  With the apparent development of a final syllable in MS chorri, cf. I, 9 n.

25 Gan sgiath n-uaine: See 2 n.

27 <[d]a n-iarrtha>: a nearryt MS. The restored form assumes that MS a is a reduced form of dan followed by the appropriate part of the vb., but perhaps the MS could convey a n-iarradh, “in the seeking of”; da sirthea (DF); dha síorthuighe  (23 A 47); da siorrtaighe (23 L 8).

<fá>: fa<y>n MS. The third letter of the MS form is indistinct, but seems likely to be y. This is an unusual representation of fa, which is required by the sense and attested in Irish MSS: fa seach (DF etc.). Perhaps it reflects a dialectal peculiarity; or it could conceivably derive from scribal error, but cf. BDL XIX, 86 n.

28 <ní>: The scribe has made a correction at this point. His original attempt may have been ree, perhaps in anticipation of the following word. The first two letters of the original reading are then altered by what appear to be two large minims linked by a cross-bar, the bar possibly deriving from a cancellation stroke. The present restoration assumes that the scribe is trying to write ne; the sense requires the negative particle.

roibhe: royet MS. raibhe (DF). Because of this form, both the MS line and DF are hypermetric; the metre demands the more modern, monosyllabic form; thus raibh (23 A 47, TOS).

32 <ga[n]>: The MS form gi omits any sign of final -n, possibly in error. The sense demands gan; thus DF, 23 A 47.

<fir>: f<e>rri MS. The second letter of the MS form could be either e or a; in the MS fear is usually represented by fer or far, and the doubling of r followed by i suggests that a palatal final consonant is represented in this instance; fir also provides satisfactory aicill with ghil in the preceding line. If fir is the correct reading, it is probably to be regarded as an original nom. pl., which by this stage has taken over the role of both acc. and dat. pl. Or should we read fior, as a survival of the original dat. sg. of fear? na ccuan ngeal ...ar fear...(DF), and similarly other Irish MSS.

35 The line is hypermetric as it stands. The problem seems to be caused by oid[e], which is redundant. The same word appears in 54, and it is also hypermetric. In 54 the removal of oid[e] improves line length; here its removal, and the insertion of the vocative particle, corrects the line. It seems likely that oid[e] derives from a MS gloss, or an alternative reading, which has slipped into the line.

38 The use of the ampersand here and in 40, 41 and 51 corresponds exactly to its use in 23 A 47, and is therefore strongly suggestive of a link in MS transmission. DF does not have an ampersand in 38, but employs it in 40, 41, 51, as well as in 7, and 17.

41 The line lacks a syllable as it stands; similarly DF. 7 Bran (23 A 47); Do bhí Fionn flaithfeinneadh 7 bran (23 L 8); Do bhí Fionn fèin agus Bran (TOS).

45 The line is hypermetric as it stands; similarly 23 A 47, TOS; but Léigiomar (DF), which gives correct line length.

46 bh<a> : w<a> MS. The second letter of the MS form is indistinct, and could be i rather than a.

47 In contrast to the Irish versions, the MS does not attest the preverb, but maintains line length by the inclusion of sin, thus nodding in the direction of the later Scottish versions: ’S mharbh gach cú dhiu sin da fhiadh (K).

48 <sul>: soll < > MS. Following the legible letters of the MS form, there are apparently two indistinct strokes which, under ultra-violet light, appear to represent it.

deach<aidh>: deach < > MS. Only faint traces of the final letter(s) of the MS form now remain. sul do cuireadh (DF), and similarly other Irish MSS; Seal mu ’n deachaidh (K).

53 In the left hand margin, immediately preceding and following this quatrain, two horizontal strokes are apparently inserted, but their significance is not clear.

b'<é>: It is possible that MS bee contains the f. pron., and this might indicate that, to the scribe, deireadh (generally m. in modern Ir. and Sc. G.) was felt to be f. Such ambivalence may derive from the fact that deireadh was originally n. (RIA Dict. s.v. deired).

54 See 35 n. To restore line length exactly, MS is may be regarded as ’s.

56 <shróin>: <r>on̄e MS. The initial of the MS form may originally have been n, a reading of interest in view of the Irish versions’ um nóin (DF) but difficult to construe meaningfully here. The initial appears to be altered to r, and not to l as HP supposes, in restoring to fá león. faidheoidh (K).

58 a rinne: a roynit MS. This form of the vb. makes the line hypermetric. do roinneadh (23 A 47); do rinn (TOS); rinne (DF); do ghníodh (23 L 8).

59 mura bheith: Mir a weyg MS. E. Mod. muna (originally leniting) has hecome mura in both Irish and Scottish dialects (IDPP, pp. 46-8), so that the present form need not be due to Scottish influence.

lanna: Thus 23 A 47, 23 L 8, TOS; but luinn (DF).

60 do bhéardaois: The conditional is required for sense, but the MS form di verdeis could equally represent 3 pl. impf. indic. chuirfidis (DF); do chuirfidís (TOS); do dhéanfeadis (23 L 8).

63-64 Irish versions generally represent these lines as follows:

sealg énlaoi ar Fhíanuibh Finn
re mo linn budh mó ina soin (DF)

The BDL text therefore appears to be idiosyncratic at this point, and metrical difficulties suggest that dislocation may have taken place at some stage in its transmission: 63 lacks a syllable as it stands, and this may be corrected by reading ré do for réd, but 64 is hypermetric with no obvious solution. The Irish versions preserve correct line length.

67-68 These lines, as they stand, seem to form a retort by Patrick to Oisean. In the Irish versions, however, they are spoken by Oisean who contrasts Patrick’s bells with the preferable sound of the hunt. Thus:

na gáir cheolán isin chill
do budh binne liom in lá  (DF)

67 gáir : G< > ar MS. The indistinct letter of the MS form seems likely to have been a.

69 For discussion of this quatrain, see Sections i-iii above.