Notes to Poem XIV

i. MS Text:  The text of this poem occupies the whole of p. 164 of the MS, and concludes at the top of p. 165. It is clearly legible throughout, and there is no evidence of scribal emendation. From q. 4 onwards, each quatrain repeats the opening line of the poem as the final line, and the scribe generally writes only the initials of the words in these lines from q. 5 onwards. In q. 8, however, he writes the line out in full.

ii. General background:  This is an unambitious composition, making use of several set formulae to describe an expedition by eight men of the Fian.

iii. Later versions:  This ballad is found only occasionally in later tradition, but it occurs in both Ireland and Gaelic Scotland. On the Irish side, two versions are known, under the title “Laoidh an Ochtair”. The first of these, in RIA MS 24 L 15, is the shorter of the two; it runs to 11 quatrains, including the following attested in BDL: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, although the order does not correspond after q. 6. The two further quatrains in this text occur at the end of the poem; the one, q. 10, gives the extent of the ochtar’s authority “o Eirin go sliabh alp...o thoig mhanuis go fanuid”, while the other, q. 11, reveals the identity of Oisean and laments the passing of the Clann Baoisgne.

The second Irish version, in RIA MS 23 Q 18, has the following BDL quatrains in the BDL order: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11. Thereafter it differs from BDL, and from the other Irish version, in listing the characters killed by Goll, Diarmaid and Oscar. This catalogue extends to 9 quatrains, and would appear to be a late addition, summarising the principal attackers of the Fian. The last quatrain alludes to the wide authority of the ochtar in the manner of q. 10 of 24 L 15, but without its specific geographical references. In both Irish versions, there is evidence of the confusion and repetition of lines, and the break-down of the highly formulaic pattern apparent in the BDL text.

In Scotland, the poem occurs in only one later version, that of Pope. It is immediately apparent that Pope’s version approximates most closely to that in 24 L 15, not only in its overall format but in having a verse (q. 5) corresponding closely to q. 10 of the Irish text. Pope preserves the following BDL quatrains: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, with qq. 2 and 3 running together. Pope has a further verse (q. 7) not found in any other text describing the capture of Bale na Beirm (i.e. Baile na Beirbhe, or Bergen). The version rounds off with a brief address to Patrick, which is reminiscent of the spirit, but not the form, of BDL qq. 12-13.

iv. Metre:  Rannaigheacht Bheag

v. Line annotation

1 Cumha[in]: The MS form Coya has no sign of final n, which is found in Cowin (16, 32). The scribe may have misunderstood this word on its first occurrence, or the loss of final -n may be a dialectal feature; cf. VII, 2 n, and the opening of P O s’ cui liom Iomachd Ochdnar.

4 gion gor: gin gar MS. The normal form of this conj. in E. Mod. Ir. would be gion go (RIA Dict. s.v. cen IV). MS gar may be influenced by gur (go + pres. indic. of the copula).

6 fa moltar: fa moltyr MS. HP restores to fá molta, but both Irish versions support the MS reading; thus laoch go moltar (24 L 15), and láimh fa moltar (23 Q 18). The form moltar is a regular Mod. Ir. pres. indic. pass., and fa is probably to be taken as referring to a prior cause or reason (RIA Dict. s.v. fo II (m)). The phrase may perhaps be translated with reference to the aforementioned heroes: “on whose account praise is given”.

14 <fian sotal>: fane sottill MS. The proposed restoration seems likely, and gives good sense; transl. “a proud fian-band” (for sotal, see RIA Dict. s.v.).

17 Ghabhamar: The first r of the MS form ȝawirmir is probably accidental.

19 The line lacks a syllable as it stands. HP restores the article before rí, but suggests (p. 224) the alternative of reading do thuit. The first solution seems the more likely.

21 The sense requires that a causal conj. be understood to exist before the demonstrative rel. ar; transl. “Because of all the Saxon blood which we spilt”.

<Sagsan>: The MS form tasgsin would appear to represent a dialectal variant of the proposed restoration. Initial t- of the MS form may have derived from the article in the gen. sg., spreading from there to other cases. Could the scribe be thinking of a gen. sg. form in this instance? The appearance of the first s in the MS form is strange; in the MS it looks like a later insertion, since it comes hard up against the following g. It is conceivable that it is meant to replace the g with the scribe thinking in terms of mod. Sc. G. Sasunn. On the other hand, it may simply reflect confusion over the representation of the original -gs-.

27 cumha: Final e of the MS form Cowe could well represent -aidh in normal orthography; thus cumhaidh (HP). Similarly cumha or cumhaidh in 31.

30 <ōs ann>: o sann MS. It seems likely that we should regard this phrase as containing the conj. o with the pres. indic. of the copula, in a causal sense (RIA Dict. s.v., 2 ó II). os an do bhí gach dochar (24 L 15).

34 <tochairean>: The proposed restoration is advanced tentatively, but it would appear to be the only way of representing MS tochchiry’. It seems likely, however, that the MS form is itself based on a misunderstanding of an earlier reading; this is suggested by the metre, which requires a disyllable at this point. This earlier reading could well have been tocair, as restored in HP (from tacar, “(a) gathering, collecting, collection (b) levying, mustering (of troops)”, with a later meaning “plenty, a multitude, provision” (RIA Dict. s.v.)). The MS form may reflect confusion with tochradh (otherwise tochar in Sc. G.), “dowry”. The appearance of the Sc. G. pl. ending, both here and in the preceding noun, may suggest that the line has been modified mainly in a Sc. G. context.

37 Thug[am]ar: It seems that the scribe has either accidentally omitted part of the verb form, or that the superscript ir of the MS form is meant to represent -amar.

cath <a> Breatain: The MS form ca^tith is probably to be interpreted as containing the prep. a (“in”), which is required for line length, although this is an unusual method of representing this prep. in the MS.

41 Crom na Cairne: Croɱ ni carn̄e MS. All later versions give the name of this enemy as Crom na Cairge. That BDL is idiosyncratic is further suggested by DF XXIV, q. 53, which refers to Crom na Cairrgi, a sea monster associated with Greece.

42 air <thotail>: er ottill MS. The proposed restoration follows HP, but by no means with confidence. HP translates the line “as he weltered in the sea”, and further glosses totail as “act of splashing with water” (p. 296); cf. tot, “impact of water against object” (RIA Dict. s.v.). The main objection here is that th- in normal orthography would be expected to appear as h- in the MS; similarly with sh-, if we were to suppose that sotal (in the sense of “arrogance”?) may have figured in the text (cf. 14 n). The original word in normal orthography may thus have begun with a vowel; it is possibly significant in this respect that all the later versions introduce Osgar at this point: ar an bhfaruige le hosgar (24 L 15); air an bhfárruige le láimh Osgair (23 Q 18); Er in n Fhairge min le Oscar (P).

46 shochmain: The MS form hothmyn̄ would seem to represent a variant of sochma, “gentle, mild, genial” (RIA Dict. s.v. I sochma (b)).