Notes to Poem XVI
ii. General context: At first sight, the present poem is one of the most puzzling in the BDL ballad corpus. Its overall theme would appear to be a quest, evidently for material to make some kind of object pertaining to dogs (quatrains 1-8). This quest is alleged to take place throughout Ireland, and in the course of it the nine participating Fian warriors encounter forces of Catheads and Dogheads, and a third mysterious battalion (qq. 9-10). They defeat the Catheads and Dogheads after unfurling their banners, which are named and described vividly in the poem (qq. 19-270. Thereafter they are able to conclude their search successfully (q. 30).
Professor Christiansen thought that the plot of the poem bore a resemblance to a prose-tale in the twelfth-century compendium of Fian-lore, Acallam na Senórach. The story relates how nine men of the Fian recaptured Fionn’s best dogs, which had been stolen by Artur mac Benne Brit, the son of the British king (Christiansen, pp.123-34). The principal link in Christiansen’s argument is the appearance of nine men, seven of whom are identical (Caoilte, Diarmaid, Goll, Oiséan, Osgar, Mac Lughach, and Raighne), in both the tale and the poem. Yet, as Christiansen himself was well aware, there is otherwise little detailed correspondence between the two. Their relationship is an allusive one which is difficult to confirm or deny, but the connection does seem tenuous.
It would seem, however, that the composer of the poem had no great interest in developing the plot, whatever its ultimate origin. The story-line is largely a frame accommodating four sequences of highly formulaic quatrains. The first of these sequences consists of qq. 1-8 and 30-31, and it provides the main narrative thread of the poem. Apart from the first verse, each quatrain contains (in the first couplet) the names of the places which were visited by the nine men in the course of their search. Although it is claimed that the warriors travel throughout Ireland, most of the places which are named in the sequence are in the southern half of Ireland, and they suggest a southern Irish origin for this part of the poem.
This sequence of quatrains belongs to a genre of ballad verse which describes itineraries by individual warriors or small warrior-bands from the Fian. Two ballads of this kind are attested in BDL. The first and longer of these, ‘Caoilte and the Animals’ (IX), tells how Caoilte, the fastest man in the Fian, attempted to free Fionn from Tara, where he was held captive by Cormac mac Airt. Having failed to free Fionn by means of his tricks, and having been recognized by Cormac, Caoilte agreed a bargain with the king whereby Fionn would be released if he (Caoilte) gathered a couple of all the wild animals in Ireland and brought them to Tara. The ballad provides a catalogue of more than eighty places where Caoilte collected pairs of animals, and thus fulfilled the terms of his impossible task (see Meek, ‘Development and Degeneration’). The second ballad narrates the exploits of a group of eight Fian warriors who, unlike Caoilte, travel beyond Ireland to Alba, England, Italy, France, Spain and Britain. In each country they assert their supremacy, and they are able to kill a sea-going monster. Although different in narrative detail, both poems have the assertion of warrior prowess as their common theme. This is also the theme of the present ballad, which, besides emphasizing the military superiority of the warriors (qq. 28-31), shares features of the other two poems, noticeably in the fulfilment of a difficult task and the conflict with strange creatures, represented in this poem by Catheads and Dogheads.
The appearance of the Catheads and Dogheads and the third battalion of unusual creatures (qq. 9-10) is followed by the second sequence of formulaic quatrains (qq. 11-13). These verses describe the casting of spears at Fionn, and emphasize the adroitness of Caoilte, who catches the spears in his shield. As we have already noted, Caoilte is shown as the liberator of Fionn in ‘Caoilte and the Animals’, where his tricks are also narrated in quatrains which consist of formulaic lines. Descriptions of spear-throwing are naturally not uncommon in literature relating to warriors.
In the course of his encounter, Caoilte emits a great shout which is heard in several of the most famous warrior-centres in Ireland (q. 14) (see Thompson, Motif-Index, III). By this means he obtains a response from other warriors who are presumed to come to the aid of the Fian. The response of these warriors is described in the third sequence (qq. 15-17). The enumeration of heroes who would come to the help of the Fian in times of difficulty or insult is found frequently in ballad verse, and is often formulaic in structure, Indeed, lines very similar to some of those in the present poem are attested in a ballad known as ‘Oisín agus an Chorr’ (Ní Shéaghdha, Agallamh, III). The purpose of such enumeration is to underline the authority of the Fian and the extent to which they can readily win support in circumstances of special hardship.
After the warriors have responded to Caoilte’s call, battle is joined, with more spear-throwing and clamour of warriors, and banners are unfurled in the wind (q. 18). This introduces the fourth sequence of formulaic quatrains, which focuses on the banners themselves (qq. 19-27). This is the climax of the poem, and it is clear that the banners are meant to be seen as powerful symbols of the strength and authority of the Fian warriors. The defeat of the Catheads, Dogheads, and their associates follows immediately after the raising of the banners (qq. 28-29). With the exception of q. 23, where three banners may be enumerated, each quatrain names and describe one banner and identifies its owner. As the banner quatrains form such an important part of the poem, and as they are the only part of the poem which has survived in later tradition (predominantly in Scotland), their background and development are worth examining in detail.
(i) Analogues of the banners in Germanic and other traditions:
The carrying of banners or other portable symbols by men of authority, whether political, religious, or military, has a long history and occurs widely. Often they seem to have some innate power and are not merely for identification. Such power may derive from early cultic or religious functions and related pageantry. In a Christian context, for example, banners occur frequently in association with the Cross. This is evident as early as 569, when the reception of a fragment of the True Cross into Poitiers inspired Fortunatus’ famous poem, ‘Vexilla regis prodeunt’ (‘The banners of the king advance’). The Cross appears often as a device on medieval banners, especially those associated with the Crusades. Beyond the religious sphere, the use of banners and their development can be illustrated with reference to Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman customs.
Anglo-Saxon banners: The Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf contains several references to banners, such as the ‘golden standard’ placed above Scyld at his burial, and the ‘gilded ensign, a decorated battle-banner’ given to Beowulf by Hrothgar after he had slain Grendel. The historian Bede, writing c. 731, confirms the use of banners by Anglo-Saxon royalty. Edwin of Northumbria, he notes, had banners (vexilla) carried before him in war and in peace, as a symbol of his majesty. Edwin employed a standard-bearer.
Viking banners: Viking banners, not unnaturally, seem to have been particularly associated with war. Various versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 878, record the capture of ‘the banner which they called the Raven’ from a Danish host in Wessex. According to the Annals of St. Neots, this specimen took its name from a raven which used to appear on it, as if in flight when the army was about to win a battle, and drooping and immobile when the army was about to lose. A similar banner, bearing a raven, was owned by King Cnut, and by Earl Sigurður of the Orkneys, who died at Clontarf carrying his banner, a lethal weapon which killed its bearer and which nobody else would touch. Norwegian kings also carried distinctive banners. Harald the Hard-Ruler had one called Landeyðan, ‘The Land-Waster’, and King Sverri owned Sigrflugan, ‘The Victory-Fly’. It was evidently normal practice for banners such as these to be carried by a banner-bearer.
Norman banners: The Normans and the peoples with whom they came in contact in the course of the Middle Ages developed further the custom of banner-bearing. By the thirteenth century the rules and symbols of heraldry had been added to banners mainly for identification and the Banner proper was only one of a number of flags, ranking below the Standard and above the Pennon. It was borne only by the higher nobility, from kings to knights banneroll, and carried the coat of arms of its owner, Usually it signified the presence of its owner on the battlefield, and it was not shown until he was ready to give battle. The practice of naming banners (or other types of flags) is not well attested in a Norman context, except for the banners of particular groups, such as the Beau Sant of the Knights Templar (Gayre, Heraldic Standards, 21-35).
(ii) Banners in Irish tradition outside the Fian:
The function of the banner is so basic and so widespread that it would be reasonable to suppose that the tradition existed in Ireland from an early stage. Nevertheless, one of the commonest terms for a banner in Irish, meirge, appears to be a borrowing of Old Norse merki, meaning ‘banner’ or ‘standard’ (RIA Dict. s.v.). Viking influence is further suggested by the fullest prose description of banners in Irish, which occurs in Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh and is therefore to be dated to the first half of the twelfth century. The text describes the mergi orgranemail, ‘gold-spangled banner’, of Fergal Ua Ruairc, who assisted Mathgamain and Brian at Clontarf. This banner, which surpassed the seventy other banners of the company and survived their fall, had been victorious in seven previous battles. Banners also occur in the less overtly Viking context of the Bóroma, a prose tale no later than the mid-twelfth century. The advancing host of Aed son of Ainmere is recognized by its banners (merggi), described in verse by Brandub, the cleric: ‘mar bít eóin ar luamain, co ndeilb cach datha’ (‘as birds a-hovering, with shape of every hue’). This picture is reminiscent of the bird symbolism associated with Viking banners, although it could have arisen naturally enough.
Only one quatrain of Brandub’s poem survives. A longer poem, the language of which belongs firmly to the Early Modern period, confirms that verse about banners was fashionable in Ireland outside the context of the Fian (see O’Donovan, Banquet of Dun na nGedh, 226-31). Purporting to be spoken by Domnall son of Aed before the battle of Mag Rath, it describes the banners of Congal Claen’s host as it comes against him. More significantly, the poem demonstrates the influence of Anglo-Norman heraldry on the Irish banner tradition, since the insignia of the banners can be used to identify particular leaders and families, and the banner of Congal himself bears ‘leoman buide i srol uaine’ (‘a yellow lion on green satin’). While these banners are not given names, the custom was known from the Middle Irish period, since banners named after reliquaries are mentioned in texts of that time (see Nic Dhonnchadha, Aided Muirchertaig, 8, ll. 217-18).
(iii) Banners associated with the Fian:
The portrayal of the Fian warriors as banner-bearers is found outside BDL. A poem in the seventeenth-century Irish ballad collection Duanaire Finn describes the raising of sixteen súaitheantais, ‘emblems’, by the heroes. These are essentially satin banners carrying conspicuous heraldic devices, and they are displayed immediately before the Fian rout Cormac mac Airt of Tara and subjugate him. The devices on these banners are relatively undistinguished and merely identify their bearers (for example, a rowan tree for Osgar, q. 66; a branch of yew for Diarmaid, q. 67; a piper for Goll, q. 68) (poem LXVI, II, pp. 336-61).
The banners described in BDL, where each is called a bratach, are altogether more dramatic and destructive. Not only do they identify particular individuals, but they possess the innate power to attack the enemy (q. 19), and they can hack and maim (qq. 21 and 26). In this respect they are closest to Viking banners. They are also given specific names, again like the Viking banners, although it is to be noted that the naming of weapons is common in Celtic literature (e.g. swords are named in poem XXXVI, qq. 42-44, in Duanaire Finn, II, pp.14-115.)
The names of the BDL banners link them clearly with Hiberno-Norman heraldic tradition in spite of their resemblance to Viking types. The names of several seem to come directly from particular devices, which they were probably regarded as carrying. These are, in order:
(i) Dealbh Ghréine, ‘Image of the Sun’, q. 19: Fionn’s banner. This is comparable with a sun in splendour on sable on the coat of arms of the Macbrady’s of Cavan (Fig. 1). Similar but less striking suns occur on the coats of arms of the O’Beirnes of Connacht and the Martins of Galway.
(ii) Fulang Doghra, ‘Prop/Post of Lamentation’, q. 20: Goll’s banner. The description of the banner as crosach, ‘cross-bearing’ (line 79), suggests strongly that the ‘Prop’ referred to is the Cross, common on coats of arms (Fig. 3) and more widely.
(iii) Coinneal Chatha, ‘Torch of Battle’, q. 22: Faolán’s banner. This is comparable with the torch forming a crest on the coat of arms of the Redmonds of Wexford (Fig. 4).
(iv) Lámh Dhearg, ‘Red Hand’, q. 23: Mac Rónáin’s banner. This device is found very commonly on coats of arms of northern Irish families and is particularly associated with Ulster.
(v) Sguab Ghábhaidh, ‘Terrible Sheaf’, q. 24: Osgar’s banner. This is to be compared with the sheaf or ‘garb’ found often on coats of arms such as that of the O’Friels (Fig. 3).
(vi) Craobh Fhuileach, ‘Bloody Tree’, q. 27: the banner of Mac Lughach’s family. An oak tree occurs commonly on Irish coats of Arms like that of O’Connor Faly (Fig. 2), but the ‘Bloody Tree’ could also be a reference to the Cross.
Four, and possibly five, other banner names remain to be discussed in the notes on individual lines; these present textual and other problems which make them less transparent then the examples listed above.
The correspondence between the recognizable banner names in the BDL poem and the devices on Hiberno-Norman coats of arms indicates that the quatrains must have originated in Ireland. Yet it is unlikely that the quatrains were composed with specific Irish families in mind, since the names represent some of the commonest of the devices. The ascription of the Dealbh Ghréine to Fionn may be meant to emphasize his absolute authority, since this is what the sun appears to have symbolized in heraldic tradition, but it is improbable that the poet intended to suggest a link between him and a particular Irish family such as the MacBradys of Cavan. The names of the banners carried by the other heroes are more difficult to regard as symbols which represent kindred affiliations, status, or qualities, and they may have been attributed to them largely at random.
(iv) The Banner Quatrains in later tradition:
Given the apparent Irish origin of the banner quatrains, it is remarkable to find that they have almost disappeared in Irish ballad tradition after BDL. By contrast, they are attested regularly in Scottish ballad collections of the eighteenth century, and one collection (McLagan) has four different versions of the quatrains. This pattern cannot easily be explained, and it is made all the more enigmatic by the comparatively late arrival of developed heraldry of the Anglo-Norman type in the Gaelic west (see Steer and Bannerman, 76, 167-87). To judge by the later form of the banner names, however, it would seem that heraldic associations had receded into the background by the eighteenth century, and that the popularity of the quatrains was due more to their dramatic and visual qualities. This may have been the case when the quatrains first entered Scottish tradition.
In later Scottish and Irish versions the banner quatrains almost invariably occur in a Viking context. This is of considerable interest in view of the possible Viking features which the banners themselves may preserve, but it differs noticeably from their setting in BDL. Only in McLagan MS 227, with its two quatrains, is there no reference to Vikings.
The quatrains are presented in either of two ways. The first of these, and the less usual, is found in the 1725 irish text of Laoidh Mhánuis (‘The Lay of Magnus’), the only poem known to me in Irish tradition which preserves any of the BDL banner quatrains (Christiansen, pp. 283-88). Here the banners of Fionn and Goll are unfurled after a formulaic description of the army about to meet Magnus, and immediately before battle is joined (qq. 34-35). A similar pattern, with more or fewer banners, is attested in Scottish versions (as in Stone and McLagan MS 9, with only Fionn’s banner; and Kennedy with three named banners (see Meek, ‘Banners of the Fian’, p. 39, n. 40)). The portrayal of the banner(s) in these instances is fairly direct, and resembles BDL. This is also true of the quatrains in McLagan MS 227. When the banner quatrains in Laoidh Mhánuis are examined, it is evident that some (such as q. 35 in the Irish version) preserve a poor form of deibhidhe metre in a poem which is otherwise in rannaigheacht mhór. This suggests that the quatrains may not have belonged originally to Laoidh Mhánuis.
The second method of presenting the banners of the Fian preserves the encounter with the Viking king, but it is stylistically much more elaborate. Indeed, it is not unlike a scene from a play, with its marked element of dialogue, and at times one feels that it is untypical of the heroic verse tradition, representing perhaps a late reworking of earlier material. In this portrayal a tribute is offered to the Viking king in an attempt to buy him off, but he refuses to accept it. In the version known as Cumha Fhinn (‘Fionn’s Tribute’, represented by McNicol, Hill, and McLagan MS 126), the tribute is given in formulaic quatrains beginning ‘Deich ceud cuilean, deich ceud cú…’ (‘Ten hundred pups, ten hundred dogs…’). Another version (represented by McLagan MSS 69 and 114, and essentially by Fletcher) begins usually from the time of refusal, at which point the king looks up and sees a banner approaching. It is identified for him by an informant, known either as Dibhuille Duibhne (McNicol, Hill, McLagan MS 126) or Fearghus (McLagan MS 69 and 114, Fletcher). The king himself is named Manus, or Maoineas in certain recensions (McLagan MS 69 and 114); otherwise he remains Righ Lochlainn. The dialogue between king and informant is in question-and-answer form, and includes each banner in turn, usually beginning with that of Diarmaid and leading up to that of Fionn, in the reverse order from BDL (and also from the first method of presentation outlined above). Thus the sequence is structured to make maximum impact on the Viking king, and the description of Fionn’s banner is suitably developed.
The more elaborate portrayal of the banners is often found as an independent piece (McLagan MSS 69, 14 and 126; McNicol and Hill), but it is also found as an inset in Viking ballads (as in Fletcher’s version of Teanntachd Mhór na Féinne (‘The Great Srait of the Fian’) and McRae’s composite poem. On balance, one senses that it was meant to function independently, or at least as an additional ornament to Viking ballads, rather than as an integral part of any particular poem.
To account for the development of the banner quatrains to the point represented by their more elaborate form is difficult. However, the following stages may be suggested: (1) the existence of a set (or sets) of banner quatrains, where the banners are modelled on Viking and Hiberno-Norman prototypes, for use in different poems as demonstrated by BDL; (2) the association of these quatrains with the coming of Magnus; (3) the elaboration of these quatrains in a new and more dramatic form, evidently in Gaelic Scotland. This elaboration included the introduction of an informant or watchman (in the manner of Brandub in the Bóroma), and a more ornate description of Fionn’s banner and its surpassing qualities (rather like that of Fergal Ua Ruairc in Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh).
iv. Metre: With the exception of the banner quatrains, the metre of the poem is deibhidhe with end-rhymes which are generally good. The banner quatrains, however, employ both deibhidhe metre (qq. 21, 22, and 25-27) and forms of rannaigheacht. In qq. 19, 20 and 24, the metre is a type of rannaigheacht in which the lines of the first couplet have a disyllabic end-rhyme which connects with the final word of the last line of the quatrain (the scheme of end-rhymes thus being a, b, d). The final word of the third line rhymes internally with a word in the fourth line, in the manner of rannaigheacht bheag (Murphy, Metrics, 53; Knott, Syllabic Poetry, 15). As the first couplet of these quatrains resembles deibhidhe ghuilbneach (Murphy, 68-9), it could be thought that the versification is of mixed deibhidhe/rannaigheacht type, but the consistency of the pattern in the final couplet suggests strongly that it is intentionally a kind of rannaigheacht. Similar, though not identical, forms of rannaigheacht are on record, such as rannaigheacht chetharchubaid gairit recomarcach, in which the first line has only three syllables (Murphy, 55, no. 24). The metre of the remaining quatrain of the sequence, q. 23, resembles the rannaigheacht metre of the other quatrains, but it does not appear to preserve the end-rhyme found in the first couplet. If this rhyme was not originally found in the first line of the quatrain, it may have been an example of rannaigheacht bheag, and it is to be noted that this quatrain is stylistically different from the others, in that it describes at least two, and possibly, three banners.
The metrical form of the poem can thus be seen to be hybrid, with at least two different kinds of syllabic metre in evidence within it. Hybrid metrical structures which appear to be integral to the original forms of ballads are attested in the later phase of ballad composition, and such a structure should not necessarily surprise us in this instance. However, this poem does appear to be distinctive in containing a number of quatrains which are in a metre different from that of the greater part of the poem, and, as these are found in a particular thematic sequence, they raise the possibility that they derive from a verse sequence which did not originally belong to it. We have already noted that the poem consists of four formulaic sequences. The metrical pattern of the banner quatrains would tend to support the hypothesis that the poem is a composite piece, constructed from prefabricated units of verse representing common genres within the tradition. At the same time, the fact that the banner quatrains, which contain the unusual rannaigheacht verses, also include verses in deibhidhe does suggest that this sequence itself is of a composite nature, and that it has possibly been expanded with the passage of time. It is noticeable, and conceivably significant, that the banners of the more important Fian warriors (Fionn, Goll, Oiséan, Caoilte mac Rónáin, and Osgar) are described in the rannaigheacht quatrains (with the exception of Diarmaid’s banner), while the banners of the lesser warriors are described in the deibhidhe quatrains. This may be indicative of a developing catalogue of warriors’ banners.
v. Line annotation:
1 chuadhm<ar>: The final letters of the MS form are now indistinct, but it seems likely that the scribe originally wrote quhymor, perhaps with the o sharing the last minim of the preceding m.
2 <cho[n]lainn>: Forms of this word recur in lines 3, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 120. It is represented regularly in MS as cholin (see line 8, n.) or occasionally cholyŋ (line 20), but its restoration is problematical. HP’s restoration, coiléan (and various forms), with the meaning ‘pup’, is unacceptable metrically and makes poor sense in the context . The following interpretations are possible:
(a) The scribe may have omitted the backward-curving flourish after -o-; this flourish (see p. above) would have indicated the presence of -n- or -m-; cf. déa[n]maois, line 8, n. The rhyme of the couplets suggests that we need to restore a form which ends in -ann or -ainn as required. Compounds of lann are therefore possible as restored forms, the two principal contenders being comhlann and conlann. None of the senses given for comhlann (RIA Dict., s.v. comlann, possibly deriving originally from con + lán) suits the context. On the other hand, lann itself can mean ‘house, building’ (ibid., s.v. 2 lann (b)), and this at least raises the possibility that the original word may have referred to a kennel of some kind. We may therefore be justified in restoring conlann (from cú ‘dog’ + lann), perhaps with the meaning ‘kennel, dog-house’, although this word does not seem to be attested elsewhere. On this interpretation, MS maddyt, maddit, or maddi (lines 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 120) should be restored to maide in the sense ‘timber’ (ibid., s.v. (b)), and the warriors would be engaged in a search for the proper kind of timber to build the house, perhaps specifically for its roof, ceann (lines 2-3; for meaning, see ibid., s.v. cenn I, 9). While this restoration makes reasonable sense and satisfies the rhyme-scheme, it is not clear why the timber for the kennel should have entailed a search throughout Ireland. Presumably a rare kind of wood was required.
(b) Assuming the loss of the scribal abbreviation discussed in (a), and the absence of any representation in MS of -gh- through dialectal pronunciation, we could consider that MS cholin or cholyn̄ should be restored to conghlann or conghlainn as required. This word has two meanings of possible relevance (see ibid., s.v. conchlann):
(1) ‘a pair’ (e.g. of hounds). In this case we should restore MS maddyt, maddit, or maddi as madadh, ‘dog’ (ibid., s.v. matad). The warriors might then have been looking for a dog to make up one (ceann) of a pair of hounds. This interpretation is, however, difficult to reconcile with the use of buain (perhaps ‘cull’?) in lines 2-3, and déan (perhaps ‘make up’?) in lines 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 120.
(2) ‘a chain or tether’ (e.g. for hounds). To accommodate this interpretation we need to restore MS maddyt and its variants as suggested in (a), but with the meaning of ‘withy’ or ‘bar of wood’ to make the end (ceann) of a tether. This ‘end’ could have been the part which went round the hound’s neck, or the part which was held by the handler. However, I know of no other examples of maide used in the senses which the context of dog-handling would require.
Of the interpretations which have been set out in (a) and (b), the least probable is (b) (1). It is difficult to choose decisively between the other two possibilities; I have restored the text tentatively in acordance with (a).
5 Magh Léana: The level country north of Tullamore, Co. Offaly; a heath called Moleen in the townland of Ballynasrah may preserve the name (Jackson, Cath Maighe Léna, 88; Hogan, Onomasticon, 523).
6 Gleann Freithnich: Possibly near Magh Léana (see line 5, n.), but other locations are suggested in the area of the Fews Mountains, or of Clogher, Co. Tyrone, or of Abington, Co. Limerick (ibid., p. 443).
8 déa[n]maois: Confusion over the number of minims may account for the apparent loss of n in MS damis; or, alternatively, the scribe may have forgotten to insert the contraction mark indicating the presence of n; this mark is regularly represented in other MS forms of this word (lines 12, 16, 20, 24,28, 32, and 120.
<co[n]lann>: The initial of the MS form here and in other subsequent occurrences in MS is invariably ch-, but it seems unlikely that we should regard this as representing ch- in conventional Gaelic orthography. Rather, there is some evidence to suggest the ch- and c- are confused in BDL orthography, perhaps because /x/ was sometimes pronounced /k/ in the scribes’ dialect. Cf. MS cho’che’nit (line 38), chru’choŋ (line 52), and cho’chinni (line 114).
9 Gleann Dorcha: Probably Glendorragha in the parish of Addergoole, Co. Mayo (Hogan, 442).
10 Gleann gharbh Ghearaidh: Possibly the same as Gleann Garaidh on the south side of the Galty Mountains (ibid., p. 443). Note that gleann, normally masculine, is regarded as feminine in the instance. Such ambivalence is explained by its having been neuter in Old Irish (DIL, s.v. glenn).
’s: MS is to be read as ’s for line length; see also lines 6 and 56.
Gl[eann] <Cliabh[ach]>: So far unidentified.
13 Síodhán Dhroma <Cléibh>: Probably at Drumcliff, north of Sligo (Hogan, pp. 360 and 597). The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP reads Síodh for Síodhán.
14 Fionnmhagh Life: The plain of the Liffey (Hogan, p. 422 and 489).
17 Durlas bhFear bhFáil: Several examples of the place-name Durlas are recorded; ‘Durlas of the Men of Ireland’ is difficult to identify, but it may be Thurles, Co. Tipperary (ibid., p. 390). The eclipsis in bhFear bhFáil is likely to be petrified; bhFáil is eclipsed rightly after the genitive plural form bhFear, but the eclipsis of bhFear is probably seconary and influenced by bhFáil.
18 Teamhair Bhreagh: Tara in Co. Meath (ibid., p. 630); also line 26.
Dún Ghabhráin: So far unidentified, but cf. Dún Garbháin, Dungarvan, Co. Waterford (ibid., p. 384).
21 Gleann <Ō Ruachtaigh>: The second letter of MS o<r>oychtyt is difficult to establish. It seems that the scribe first wrote c: this was then stroked through by a vertical line, with what could be read as r to the right of the letter. The vertical line and the potential r could, however, be taken together as the letter k. If the present restoration is correct, the place is probably to be identified with Gleann Ó Ruachta, a region in West Munster extending as far as the Shannon (ibid., p. 445).
25 Fionnmhagh Máighe: The plain of the Maigue, a river which flows by Bruree, Co. Limerick (ibid., p. 532-33).
26 Ceann tSáile: Probably Kinsale, Co. Cork, or possibly Kinsaley, Co. Dublin (ibid., p. 227).
33, 34, 36 All three lines contain metrical difficulties as they stand; lines 33 and 34 lack a syllable, which HP supplies by reading Fá gairid in the former, and sinn féine in the latter. Line 36 is hypermetric, and HP emends to nár chlann.
37-8 Cath Caitcheannach…c[ath] Coincheannach: Both Catheads and Dogheads appear in the host of invaders of Ireland in the prose-tale Cath Finntrágha, the former under their king Caitchenn and the latter under their king Comur Croimgeann (Cath Finntrágha, edited by Cecile O’Rahilly, MMIS, 20 (Dublin, 1962), p. 1), but there are several earlier references to them in Irish literature. Cairbre Cinn Cait is mentioned in Cóir Anmann, evidently belonging to the twelfth century in its present form, and he is portrayed as the cat-headed king of Ireland in another text (O’Rahilly, Cath Finntrágha, p. 1); (see O’ Rahilly, ‘Cairbre Cattchenn’, in Ryan, pp. 101-10; Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain, pp. 135-36). Coinchind appear as early as the eighth century in an historical tract from Cín Dromma Snechta. For further references to the latter and discussion of their relationship to the cynocephali of classical writers, see Myles Dillon, ‘Notes on Irish Words: 1. conchend’, Language, 17 (1941), 249-51. On the apparent Otherworld connection of a female called Coindchend (Ó Cathasaigh, Heroic Biography, p. 36)
39 <Drumfháinneach>: The identity of these creatures is difficult to establish, and I can find no parallel forms of their name beyond this text. I take MS dru’ma’nit as representing a compound of druim, ‘back,’ surface, ridge’, and fáinneach ‘ringleted, curling’ (DIL, s.vv. druim and fáinnech); thus ‘Curly Backs’. The word might also be a compound of druim and fionn ‘white’ (ibid., s.v. finn), with the suffix -ach. See also line 115.
<an déidh a ndéidh>: HP is probably correct in supposing that MS i’ dey i’ ney is based on the phrase diaidh i ndiaidh, ‘one after another, in continuous succession’ (ibid., s.v. dead II (d)). But what did the MS reading mean to the scribe? Would he have thought in terms of an déidh an fhéidh, ‘after the deer’? The line as it stands is hypermetric, but may be restored, as HP suggests, by omitting the first instance of the prep. iN, here restored as an.
40 The original form of this line may have been donn ar chomhair Droma Léith. The article may have been inserted before Droma to compensate for the loss of the final syllable of this word. As here restored, the line is hypermetric.
<Drom[a] Léith>: Druim Léith is an attested alternative for Liath Druim, a name for Tara (Hogan, p. 365).
42 Because of friction and fading on the lower corner of the BDL page, lines 42 and 44 are not easily legible under normal light. Ultra-violet light clarifies line 42, and the restoration can be offered with reasonable confidence.
44 < >: Ultra-violet light distinguishes an insufficient number of letters to allow restoration of this part of the line; HP supplies i gcéadáir (‘forthwith’), which may be right; cf. line 48, n.
47 air lár: The scribe first wrote In no<y>cht, representing a n-uacht-, in MS, and subsequently cancelled it. His eye probably slipped back to line 43.
48 an gc[éadóir]: MS represents only the initial of the final word of the line. My restoration follows HP.
50 <fhaobhraigh>: The rhyme-scheme requires that -ao- in the restored form should be pronounced /i:/. This pronunciation is well attested in modern Irish dialects.
54 chualas <a> nAlmhain: The MS reading e nalwin may imply that this part of the line should be restored as chualas e [a] nAlmhain. The line is hypermetric without any obvious solution.
56 Dún Raoileann: Probably in the area of Mullach Reilenn, near Athy and Kilkea in Co. Kildare (Hogan, p. 388; Measgra Dánta, edited by Thomas O’Rahilly, 2 vols (Dublin, 1927), I, 115, s.n. Raoile).
57 Fhreagair é: The 3 sg. m. object pronoun é is superfluous, since the noun object a ghlaodh is expressed in line 59. The pronoun may have been inserted to compensate for the loss of the preverb do, and also to bring the object closer to the verb. The same may have happened in lines 61 and 65. HP restores to Do fhreagair in the three lines.
58 ceannard Cronnmhón[a]: The circumstances of the battle of Crunnmhóin, fought between Fionn and Goll, are narrated in Poem IV in Duanaire Finn, i, 10-14.
59 <ghlaodh is>: The MS form ȝleyis, in which the noun and conjunction are joined together, may sugest that the scribe had difficulty in understanding the syntax of this quatrain: see line 57, n.
60 Boirinn: Probably the Burren area of Co. Clare (Hogan, p. 60).
61 <Mainbhe Bric>: The MS form ma’woe breik might be expected to contain a personal name as its first element, but it is difficult to restore it with confidence. With a disyllable such as Mainbhe, the line becomes hypermetric. There may be some confusion, perhaps involving o noyebrek in the next line. Lines 61-62 do, in fact, seem to be a variant version of the following lines in ‘Oisín agus an Chorr’ (Agallamh, edited by Ní Shéaghdha, III, 95): ‘ceithre mic Mhaine mheic Bhric, / 7 dá mhac ui Eibhric’ (‘the four sons of Maine son of Breac, and the two sons of the grandson of Eibhreac’).
62 The proposed restoration is tentative; MS mcelle may contain a personal name.
67 <a[n] ghruaidh ghrinn>: HP reconstructs MS a croych ȝrinne as an chrotha ghrinn, ‘of comely form’,which is certainly possible. The digraph -oy- is, however, commonly used in BDL to represent /wə/. The phrase might also be interpreted as a Cruaich Ghrinn, ‘from Cruach Ghrinn’.
68 <aifrinn>: This restoration of MS Iywrin is tentative. It does, however, give good sense; Caol Cródha, as a pagan warrior, would have no time for Christian ritual.
69-72 These lines are sometimes found in Irish versions of the long, composite poem Tuarasgabháil Chatha Gabhra (‘Account of the Battle of Gabhair’); see, for example, O’ Kearney, TOS, 1, 126, where they form lines cd and ab of qq.4 and 5 on that page. Surviving versions of this poem do not, however, contain a banner sequence; cf. the text in Royal Irish Academy, MS 24 P 29.
69 <sian[a]mhran>: The present restoration of MS schenwraŋ would mean ‘humming/ whistling song’. but it is possible that the original word was sianorgán, which is used of a supernatural sound or singing (DIL, s.v. 2 sian (e)). On the other hand, the MS form could represent sianbhrann[adh], a compound of sian whose second element is not immediately transparent; cf. the reading seabhrannach in RIA, MS 24 P 29, which may be connected with siabhránacht, ‘state of raving, droning’, and seabhrán, ‘hiss or whizz, a rushing noise’ (Dinneen, s.vv.).
70 monghar: The MS form mo’wir could represent monmhar ‘murmuring’ (DIL, s.v. monmar), but this seems inappropriate in the context; a more probable restoration is monghar ‘loud continuous noise, din’ (ibid., s.v. mongar), with /v-/ and /ɣ/ falling together in the scribe’s dialect. RIA, MS 24 P 29 reads mongur, which supports this interpretation.
73 Dealbh Ghréine: This banner name and others in lines 77, 85, 91, 93, and 105 are discussed above.
75 <iomdha uair>: The restoration follows the scribe’s first attempt E meoyr. He later deleted meoyr and wrote oyir in superscript, perhaps because he was dissatisfied with his first rendering of uair. The m- of his original form is not as heavily scored as the rest of the word, and he may have intended it to stand with the superscript.
deannāl: From earlier tendál, meaning ‘(a) fire, flame, blaze (b) bonfire, beacon-fire’ (DIL, s.v.). The line could also be translated ‘<on many occasions> it created a blaze round…’. See also line 76, n.
76 Conán of Ceann Sléibhe is known as Fionn’s entertainer and questioner in the prose-tale Feis Tighe Chonáin Chinn Shléibe (‘The Feast in the House of Conán of Ceann Slébhe), edited by O’Kearney, TOS, 2, and later by Joynt, MMIS, 7. His voyaging as far as Greece is mentioned in a poem beginning ‘Mo-chean do theacht, a sgádain’ (O’Rahilly, Measgra Dánta, I, 1-2). The form Canán (MS cha’na’) is unusual and is probably a late variant of Conán; the rhyme required with deannál in line 75 may suggest the restoration Ceannán. If Conán was the form used originally in this line, this might suggest that donál ‘cry, wailing’ (DIL, s.v.) may have preceded deannal as the final word of line 75.
77 The line is hypermetric as it stands, with no obvious solution.
79 <minic bhíodh>: The MS form Menkich (cf. MS me’keit, line 96) may represent the comparative of minic, namely mionca, perhaps with emphatic or exclamatory force, ‘how frequently’. The following word in MS, weg<a>t, is difficult to restore with certainty. It is disyllabic, and this makes the line hypermetric. HP restores to bhí gath, i.e. the 3 sg. past indicative of the substantive verb, followed by gath, ‘shaft’, with reference to the shaft of the banner. I have very tentatively restored the 3 sg. imperfect indicative of the substantive (with the MS form perhaps reflecting the disyllable bhitheadh?). Both restorations require the insertion of the preposition ‘in’ in the next line. A further possibility (which would not necessarily require the emendation of the next line) is that weg<a>t represents bhíodhgadh, the 3 sg. imperfect indicative of bíodhgaim, ‘I start, rouse, startle’, which is generally used intransitively but can also be used transitively (Dinneen, s.v.; DIL, s.v. bidgaid). If we take this verb as transitive, the couplet might mean: ‘how frequently the cross-bearing satin banner would rouse/ stimulate the beginning and end of an attack’. If we take the verb as intransitive and emend the next line, the meaning might be: ‘how frequently the cross-bearing satin banner would leap at the beginning and end of an attack’. Line 79 would, however, remain hypermetric.
an t-sróll chrosach: sróll is normally masculine (ibid., s.v.), but here it appears to be feminine, perhaps because of the influence of bratach (lines 74 and 78), which is feminine, and which is referred to by the 3 sg. f. pronoun (line 75). The probability that we should regard MS i’ troyle as nominative rather than genitive singular is corroborated by the requirement that chrosach (rather than chrosaich) be restored to provide rhyme with tosach in the next line. HP’s restoration of MS chroissit as chruaidh-se is unacceptable for metrical and contextual reasons. Cf. the form of lines 79-80 in the Irish 1725 version of Laoidh Mhánuis (Christiansen, 286): ‘is minic a fhuair an srol crosach / tús agus deireadh fiormhaiseach’ (‘frequently did the cross-bearing satin banner receive a truly beautiful beginning and ending’).
81 an Onchoin Oir: MS ni’chenit appears to represent onchoineach, an oblique form of onchú, with an additional final syllable -each. Onchú, f., ‘otter’, has a range of meanings, including, ‘lynx, leopard, wolf, wolf-dog; a standard or ensign’ (Dinneen). More strictly, the meaning ‘standard or ensign’ derives from the animal device commonly carried on coats of arms (and presumably on standards), usually called an ‘enfield’ (see Williams, ‘Of Beasts and Men’, JRSAI, 119 (1989), 62-78). This represents a taloned, griffin-like creature. The omission of the final syllable restores line length.
83 goinfidhe: The MS form gi’fee clearly represents the conditional passive form of the verb, while the metre and sense of the line require the imperfect passive, gointí; see p. 51 above.
84 lēig[d]ís: MS legkeis is best understood as a 3 pl. imperfect verb-form; the absence of -d- in the ending in the MS representation may reflect the levelling and confusion of verb-endings in Scottish Gaelic, if it is not a scribal error.
85 The line is hypermetric as it stands, with no obvious solution.
86 <d’áiridhe>: Although this restoration of MS dairre does not give particularly good rhyme with the preceding line, it makes sense in the context; Faolán, as the son of Fionn, would have some claim to be singled out from the other warriors with the same name. See DIL, s.v. áirithe III, for the use of this phrase.
87 na bhFéin: The nom. sg. form fian is sometimes replaced in the later language by the dat. sg. féin: thus an Fhéinn as nom. sg. in modern Scottish Gaelic. This development is attested in an Fhéin (MS in nane) in line 107, and probably also in line 99 (MS i’ neanich). In the present instance, the gen. pl. form in MS waynit is evidently based on the later nom, sg.; cf. MS ni wane, line 112. Cf. Murphy, Duanaire Finn, III, 264, s.v. fian. The use of an oblique case as nom. sg. is probably attested in troim[gh]léidh in line 88; see DIL s.v. gleo.
89 <Dún Aobhdha>: The number of possible transliterations of MS down̄ neiwe illustrates some of the basic difficulties in our understanding of BDL texts. The digraph ow in BDL can represent /u/, /u:/, or /ɔu/, while the digraph ei can represent /i/, /i:/, or /ə:/. In words which follow one another, there can sometimes be uncertainty about the interpretation of the final consonant of the first word and the initial consonant of the second word as written in the manuscript, paraticularly if these consonants are the same, as in this instance. It is possible that one of the consonants is a projection of the other, or that both are to be realized in the transliteration. Thus MS down̄ neiwe can be interpreted as follows: Dún Naomhtha (‘Sacred Citadel’), Dún Neimhidh (‘Citadel of [the] Sacred Place’), Dún Aobhdha (‘Joyful or Comely Citadel’), Donn Neimhe (‘Brown One of Venom’), or Dubh Neimhe (‘Black One of Venom’). The evidence of the later Scottish versions favours the last interpetation, but we cannot be sure that these versions are not based on misunderstanding of an earlier form of the name. With words in final position in a line, metre can often help to fix a form, but in this case the metrical pattern of the couplet (lines 89-90) is difficult to determine. If the quatrain is in rannaigheacht bheag, any of the above suggestions might be acceptable; if it is in the form of rannaigheacht attested in qq. 19, 20, and 24, we would require a form to provide rhyme with <goire> (line 90), and none of these suggestions would be suitable! I have chosen the restoration Dún Aobhdha with considerable uncertainty, but favouring it over Dún Naomhtha because of its simplicity. Why should a citadel be naomhtha, unless this is an attempt to parallel the idea of the ‘holy city’? My inclination to accept MS down̄ as dún ‘fort, castle, citadel’ is based on the frequent occurrence of this device on Hiberno-Norman coats of arms (see Fig. 4), but this may be misleading.
92 The transliteration of this line is tentative. I am uncertain whether MS oarnay is to be interpreted as Órshnáth (‘Golden Thread’), i.e. another banner name, or perhaps as órshnáith (‘of golden thread’), which would perhaps be a description of the Lámh Dhearg banner mentioned in line 91. In the latter case we should read MS is as as, the pres. rel. form of the copula, and translate the line, ‘which is [made] of golden thread on the other side’. This interpretation gains some support from the pattern of banner descriptions elsewhere in the sequence, since other banner names are not given without identifying their owners.
94 a n-<ármhaigh>: Note the unusual double f of the MS form Nairffee, where one might have expected -w- or -v-.
95 na <gcléithe>: I interpret MS na glaee as containing the gen. pl. article followed by a late gen. pl. form of cliath in the sense ‘battle rank’ (DIL, s.v. clíath (d)). It is possible that the original form of the line had cléithe as a gen. sg. (correctly).
96 <minic>: See line 79, n.
97 <Lóch Luinneach>: I transliterate MS loichlynich as two words, lóch, perhaps to be be understood as ‘light, splendour’ (ibid., s.v.), and luinneach ‘eager’ (ibid., s.v. 2 lainnech); the second element may originally have been luinne ‘fierceness, anger, vehemence’ (ibid., s.v.), thus providing better rhyme with Duibhne (line 98), and giving the meaning ‘Blaze of Fire/ Anger’ to the banner name. The MS form -lynich appears to foreshadow the development of the adjectival forms with -(e)ach in the later Scottish versions.
The line is hypermetric as it stands, and can be corrected only be removing the article. Spacing suggests that the article was inserted in the MS text at a later stage, perhaps in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the banner name.
100 Scribal problems are apparent in the MS form of this line. The scribe appears to have had dificulty in representing ághasach in his orthography, and MS contains three attempts at spelling the word. The srcibe ran out of space, cancelled the entire line with the exception of the third attempt at speling ághasach, and wrote the line afresh in superscript to the left of the original.
101 <Bearn [n] Réabgain>: MS barne a reybgin is difficult to construe. MS barne may contain a variant of bearn ‘gap, breach.’ (DIL, s.v. bern), or be(a)rn n, ‘gapped thing’, sometimes used of a saint’s bell (DIL and Dinneen, s.v.). MS reybgin may represent a form of réabadh ‘act of tearing or rending’ (ibid., s.v. répad) influenced by Scottish Gaelic reubainn ‘robbery, plundering’ (Dwelly, s.v.). The name might thus mean ‘Notched One of Ripping’. The suggested restoration of the MS form makes the line hypermetric, however. It is possible that the original form of the banner name was Bearn Réabtha, which would give the same meaning, but would preserve line length. The ‘gap of ripping’ could be a reference to the saw-like indented lines (^^^^^^^^) sometimes found on coats of arms.
102 <séanadh>: This restoration of MS schanit is suggested partly by the need to provide rhyme with <Réabgain> (? earlier Réabtha) in line 101. The verb means ‘marks with a sign, signs (with the cross), blesses (in the Christian sense), puts a spell on’ (DIL, s.v. 2 sénaid). The aim is to express the warrior’s antipathy to Christianity; cf. line 68, n.
103 dana: This restoration of MS danit makes the line hypermetric. Line length is corrected by reading dan.
comhainm: The MS form coyharme shows -n- being represented as -r- by the scribe, and suggests that ainm was pronounced /ar«m/ in his dialect.
106 <bháirr-> mhic: It is difficult to know how to interpret MS var in this line, the more so since it appears to make the line hypermetric. It may represent a form of barr in the sense ‘surpassing, pre-eminent’ (cf. ibid., s.v 1 barr (j)), or mear in the sense ‘spirited, lively’ (ibid., s.v. mer); or it could be a scribal error for vor representing mhóir, from mór ‘great’.
107 an Fhéin: See line 87, n.
111 The line lacks a syllable as it stands. Perhaps sul ‘before, lest’ (ibid., s.v.), occurred at the beginning of the original form of the line (for sul má, see Dinneen, s.v. sara). In modern Scottish Gaelic, ma on its own can mean ‘lest’, and sul may have been considered pleonastic in a Scottish context.
112 na bhFéin: See line 87, n.
113 Marbhais: HP restores MS Marweis as Marbhas and translates the form as a past passive. A past passive best suits the context, but the form of the verb is unusual. Cf. the past passives of certain irregular verbs (e.g. chualas ‘was heard’; chunnacas ‘was seen’), and also Middle Irish 3 pl. past passives in /-id'/ (written -it). If the present form derives from the latter, -s may have replaced -d by analogy with the former, or by a process similar to the confusion of the Early Modern Irish verb-endings -mis and -mid in Scottish Gaelic (e.g. do-chímis for do-chímid in BDL; see Meek, ‘Heroic Corpus’, p. 370, line 30).
114 The line is hypermetric as it stands, but can be restored by reading is for agus.
117 Muine B[h]eag: It seems likely that this phrase, meaning ‘little wood’, is to be taken as a place-name. This is the name of Bagenalstown, Co. Carlow (Killanin and Duignan, 252; Hogan, 545).
deasa: HP emends MS dassi to neasa, an adjective used as a comparative of (f)ocus ‘near’ (DIL, s.v. 1 nes(s)a), but deasa may be regarded as a variant of deise, comparative or superlative of deas in the sense of ‘convenient’ (ibid., s.v. dess (d)).
118 Inbhear Bhrugh[a] <Dhá Dhúin>: Not so far identified, but possibly a district in Co. Kilkenny. See line 117, n.
119 The line lacks a syllable, without any obvious solution, unless ‘relative’ do (> a > Ø) was originally present before fuaramar.
123 nocha d’fhuaramar: To restore line length, HP emends to ní fuaramar. The MS reading reflects the Scottish Gaelic use of do after a dependent particle (see O’Rahilly, ‘Some Verbal Forms’, pp. 114 and 122), which suggests that nocha could have been substituted for ní in a Scottish context, although nocha was common more generally.
124 a dhearbhadh naoinear: a ȝarwe nen< > [neno<ur>] MS. HP reads do dhearbh an naonbhar (?). The scribe could well have regarded ȝarwe as a conditional. The article is normally indicated by i’ in the manuscript, but this is not attested in this case.
Naoinear a chuadhma<r>: The final letter of MS quhymo< > is not legible; cf. line 1, n. The following letters Ne<n> in MS would appear to be an attempt at writing Naoinear, which could represent a false start when appending this phrase following the dúnadh (formal ‘closing’ of the poem). The scribe may have been too near the edge of the page on the first occasion.