Notes to Poem XXII
i. MS Text: The text occupies the whole of pp. 232–235 and half of p. 236 in the MS. The writing is clear throughout, with a very small number of errors of omission, dittography and spelling. One MS line, which represents ll. 33–34 of the present edition, appears to have been added at a later stage. This is suggested by spacing and by the colour of ink. The precise significance of this insertion is arguable, and is discussed fully in the notes.
A feature of this text is the use of elongated round brackets in the right hand margin, evidently linking the first and last couplets in extended six-line quatrains. Such quatrains are attested in other MS versions of this poem, although their positions do not correspond fully with those in the BDL text. In some cases, the scribes of the other MSS indicate the additional couplets by means of pen marks. In the BDL text, the marks would seem to be the work of the original scribes, and not of later annotators.
The text does, however, contain words and phrases added by later hands. Beneath the ascription, one hand (possibly that of the Rev. John Smith) has written ‘Fingalian’, while another (evidently that of Donald Mackintosh) has inserted ‘Cath Ghabhra’, and added three glosses in the right hand margin of p. 232.
ii. General background: Because of the close literary and thematic relationship between this poem and the preceding item (BDL XXI), it is most convenient to treat them together. Both poems are concerned with the fateful Battle of Gabhair (or Gabhra), in which the Fian were traditionally thought to have been crushed by the Tara dynasty. The inclusion of both poems in BDL, and the ascription of BDL XXII to a non-legendary ‘ughdar’, suggest that the theme was popular and prestigious in the early sixteenth century. In later tradition in Ireland and Gaelic Scotland, the theme retained its importance, and both countries preserve versions of the BDL poems, although the surviving evidence indicates that BDL XXII was more popular in Ireland than in Gaelic Scotland. In addition, poems on this topic peculiar to one country or the other are attested. DF XXXIX (‘A Oisín cía in feart dona…’) is not known beyond Duanaire Finn, while Scotland possessed a ballad entitled ‘Bàs Oscair’ which is to be differentiated from BDL XXII, the latter being entitled ‘Caoidh Oisein air Oscar’ in Scottish tradition.
Common to all the ballads about Gabhair is the gallant last stand of Oscar son of Oisean, who was responsible for the death of the Tara king, Cairbre Lifeachair. This confrontation was known from at least the mid-twelfth century, since a poem which appears to have been a prototype of the later ballads occurs in the Book of Leinster. Oscar’s prowess is celebrated in ballads other than those about Gabhair, and the later Agallamh recounts the enormity of his wounds following the battle of Beinn Éadoir (Ní Shéaghdha, Agallamh, II, 184–5). BDL XXII similarly emphasises the extent of Oscar’s wounds, which on this occasion prove fatal.
It would seem that accounts of Gabhair were primarily in verse. Certainly, surviving prose descriptions of the battle are in the minority. A fleeting reference occurs in the early Acallam (Stokes, IT); the Annals of the Four Masters provide a brief entry s.a. 284, doubtless inserted by the seventeenth-century O’Clery scribes (O’Donovan, Annals of the Kingdoms, I, 120–1) and a single prose tale (TOS, I, 134–53) mixes the substance of BDL XXII with material of the type found in Gaelic Romances.
In addition to the accounts already cited, allusions to the Battle of Gabhair occur frequently in ballads on other subjects, since it provided an important terminal point in the popular view of the history of the Fian.
We may now examine how the circumstances of the battle are described in various accounts, both verse and prose.
(1) The circumstances of the Battle of Gabhair:
(a) Verse:
(i.) A version of the poem on the Battle of Cnucha preserved in the later Agallamh (Ní Shéaghdha, III, 177) contains a quatrain referring to Gabhair, and ascribing the tragedy to Cairbre Lifeachair’s jealousy of the Fian:
Cairbre Lifeachair nír lacc
gor ghabh risan
bhFéin formad,
go ttorchair i ccath
CCabhra glan
do láimh oirlaimh
āitheasaigh.
(ii.) DF XXXIX, a poem directly about Gabhair, accounts for it thus: Fionn was absent on a pilgrimage at a time when Cairbre Lifeachair was the ruler in Ireland. Oisean was left in charge of the Fian. While the Fian were drinking in Almhain one day, they received messengers from Cairbre demanding a gift of the hunting of Ireland from then until the Day of Judgement. This met with a negative response from Oscar, Mac Lughach, and the Fian generally, who decided to ‘lay a levy on the strong communities’ and fight Cairbre. Thereupon the king gathered his troops, including Leinstermen, the host of Cruachain, and the Ulstermen. Battle was joined forthwith.
(iii.) BDL XXII, and later Irish versions of this poem, explain that the battle followed a period in which the Fian had suppressed their hostility towards Clanna Cuinn. This period lasted until the time of Cairbre. Cairbre decided to exterminate the Fian for his own glory, and in retribution for their alleged treachery, their heavy taxation of all the Irish provinces, and their excessive pride. Up until this point the sovereignty of the Fian had extended from India to Ireland. When the battle occurred, Fionn was absent from Ireland, and he appeared only at the end of the slaughter.
The later Scottish versions of McLagan and Turner do not have those quatrains which describe the background to the battle.
(iv.) The Scottish poem ‘Bàs Oscair’ explains the fight thus: Cairbre had seized the kingship of Ireland, and he sent an invitation to the Fian (evidently located in Albuinn, probably taken in popular tradition to be Scotland, although derived from Almhain). He requested them to come to Tara, and although the invitation was sinister, the Fian set out. There Oscar and Cairbre drank heavily for seven days and seven nights, and on the last day Cairbre demanded an exchange of spear-heads. ‘Oscar replied that it would be unfair to exchange spear-heads without also exchanging spear-shafts. The argument grows, and Cairbre says that the spear in question will be the cause of Oscar’s death. There follows, abruptly, a list of the people whom Oscar killed in the fight…’ (Thomson, Catalogue, 186).
It is worth noting that the poem in the Book of Leinster does not give any reasons for the battle, nor does BDL XXI.
(b) Prose:
(i.) The opening lines of the Acallam do not afford any direct explanation of the battle, but they place it alongside two other battles, those of Comur and Ollarba, which were associated with ‘díthugud na Féinne’ (‘the destruction of the Fian’).
(ii.) The entry in the Annals of the Four Masters s.a. 284 furnishes the following account: ‘After Cairbre Liffechair had been seventeen years in the sovereignty of Ireland, he fell in the battle of Gabhra-Aichle, by the hand of Semeon, son of Cearb, [one] of the Fotharta; Fearcerb, the son of Cormac Cas, having brought the Fiana with him against the king, to defend Leath-Mogha from him.’
(iii.) The prose tale describing the battle gives yet another account of its origin. According to the tale, Sgéimhsholas, the daughter of Cairbre, was sought in marriage by Maolseachlainn O’Faolain, lord of the Decies. When Fionn and the Fian heard this, they sent messengers to Cairbre reminding him to pay the tribute of twenty ounces (unga) of gold, or to allow Fionn ius primae noctis. Cairbre was infuriated, and when Fionn applied further pressure, he summoned his allies in Ulster, Leinster and Munster. He then recounted the oppression inflicted upon him by the Fian, and he and the nobles of Ireland agreed not to tolerate this situation. This precipitated the battle.
The explanations summarised above are in general agreement that the Battle of Gabhair involved conflict between Cairbre and the Fian. Beyond this, however, there is considerable divergence in detail and alleged motivation, perhaps reflecting the lack of an early determinant account. The verse descriptions make Cairbre the instigator of the battle, but the prose items seem more reluctant to do so.
(2) The literary and historical significance of the Battle of Gabhair:
The majority of accounts, both prose and verse, draw attention to the immensity of the slaughter at the Battle of Gabhair, not only on the side of the Fian but also on that of their opponents. Not all versions emphasise the misfortunes of the Fian to the same degree as BDL XXII, but a feeling of cataclysm is apparent in most. The importance of the battle is reflected in the number of literary items which are directly concerned with it, or make some reference to it. Given the prominence of the event, it is worth considering whether it has any basis in fact, or whether it is entirely a literary creation.
At first sight, the Battle of Gabhair may appear to have an historical foundation. Most of the accounts cited in the previous section attempt to present it in some sort of historical frame, and the ill feeling which is portrayed between Cairbre and the Fian could be interpreted as a residual memory of the hostility between the Uí Néill and the Laigin (Leinstermen) as the former enforced and extended their sovereignty from the fifth century onwards. Such a context seems to be assumed by the entry in the Annals of the Four Masters, where the slayer of Cairbre is identified with the Leinster tribe of the Fotharta (Byrne, Irish Kings, 131). Major battles involving the authority of the Uí Néill are certainly on record; two of these are Moira (fought in 637 between Domnall son of Aed and the Ulaid, with Scottish support) (MacNiocaill, Ireland before the Vikings, p. 96) and Allen (fought in 722 between Fergal son of Mael Dúin and the Laigin). Both battles – the former a victory for the Uí Néill and the latter a defeat – are celebrated in prose literature (O’Donovan, Banquet; O Riain, Cath Almhaine). It might therefore be supposed that Gabhair was another such battle, which was later projected backwards in time to the period ascribed by the pseudo-historians to Fionn and the Fian.
Yet there is little detailed evidence to support such a view. Apart from the entry in the Annals of the Four Masters the only annal reference to a battle at Gabhair occurs in the Annals of Tigernach s.a. 644 which note: ‘Cath Gabhra etir Laignib fein’ (Stokes, Annals of Tigernach, 187). If this is the same event, then the entry suggests that it may have been little more than a localised skirmish of fairly minor importance. The variety of reasons given for the battle in the descriptions cited in the previous section also tends to suggest that it was not of sufficient significance to be commemorated in a single early account. Indeed, one suspects that the elaboration of the story of Gabhair as we now have it cannot be much earlier than the twelfth century, and could be considerably later.
In presenting their accounts of Gabhair, the composers of BDL XXI and XXII do not appear to have made much use of existing descriptions of the battles of Moira or Allen. The poems do, however, have much in common with traditions relating to the battles of Ventry and Mag Mucrama, and this in itself suggests that the inspiration behind Gabhair was literary rather than historical. The points of correspondence between the BDL poems and tales associated with Ventry and Mag Mucrama will now be examined in turn.
(a) The relationship between the BDL poems and ‘Cath Finntrágha (CF):
This may be seen at the following points:
(i.) The role of Fearghus File: In BDL XXI, Fearghus File brings Fionn news of the battle, and describes Oscar’s valour before dying. In CF Fearghus regularly reports to Fionn on the state of the battle, and he urges on the warriors (CFO ll. 500–4, 1218–35, CFM, ll. 350–60, 815–61). In CF he specifically reports on Oscar (CFO ll. 1125–38: CFM ll. 786–94).
(ii.) The portrayal of Oscar’s prowess: BDL XXI, which is primarily concerned with Oscar’s valour, is very similar in style and imagery to runs describing him in CF (especially CFO ll. 408–15; CFM ll. 287–92: see also CFO ll. 1153–65; CFM ll. 805–14). The prominence of Oscar in CF is noticeable; he is portrayed as the most devastating of the warriors. Two episodes are devoted to him (CFO ll. 408–56, 1125–66; CFM ll. 287–320, 786–814). In the first of these Oscar charges at the King of France in a manner reminiscent of his attack on Cairbre in BDL XXI.
(iii.) The striking of Cairbre’s son: In BDL XXI, after killing Cairbre Oscar struck Art mac Cairbre, who was wearing his royal diadem (q. 13). This seems to correspond closely to the slaying of the son of the King of the World in CF, which occurs after his father’s death (CFO ll. 1293–1306; CFM ll. 901–10). The diadem is given great prominence in CF. It must be noted, however, that in CF the king’s son is slain by the son of the King of Scotland, and not by Oscar.
(iv.) The hostility between the Fian and the Tara dynasty: This is apparent in CF, where Cormac and his son, Cairbre Lifeachair, appear in the course of the narrative. Although Cairbre Lifeachair fights on the side of the Fian in CF (CFO ll. 756–802; CFM ll. 529–60), he does so without consulting his father, who, when asked to help Fionn, refuses to do so because of the oppression of the Fian. The principal complaints of Cormac resemble those in BDL XXII (q. 6), and they relate to tributes demanded by the Fian (CFO ll. 740–55; CFM ll. 517–28). Earlier in the story, Glas mac Dremhuin is said to have betrayed Fionn to Cormac, and to have left Ireland for this reason (CFO ll. 78–87; CFM 11. 59–65).
(v.) The role of Caoilte mac Ronáin: In BDL XXII, Caoilte comes to see the dying Oscar. He asks Oscar how he is, and then examines his wounds. He faints as a result (qq. 29-33). This is reminiscent of, but not identical with, a passage in CF describing how Caoilte is sent to assist Oscar, who is in great difficulties. When he arrives, Oscar looks up and rebukes him for his cowardice at an earlier stage in the battle. This inspires Caoilte to braver deeds (CFO ll. 1131–52; CFM ll. 790–804).
So far we have been concerned mainly with similarities between the BDL poems and CF. There are, nevertheless, some substantial points of divergence, and these may now be outlined:
(vi.) The roles of the principal characters: Although Cairbre Lifeachair is portrayed as the ally of the Fian in CF, he is their destroyer in the BDL poems, and he himself is killed in the process. The BDL poems reflect the normal attitude of the Fian to the Tara dynasty, and CF seems unusual. The redactor of CF is, however, aware of the traditional enmity between the two parties. The more sympathetic approach to the Tara dynasty in CF is governed in part by the role of the invading host of the King of the World, and the concept of a common enemy. This common enemy includes the King of Lochlann and his three sons (CFO ll. 869–1040; CFM ll. 610–727). In BDL XXI, however, the son of the King of Lochlann is portrayed as an ally of the Fian (q. 5), while the possibility of an attack on Ireland by allmhuraigh is mentioned only briefly in BDL XXII (q. 13). The alliance found in BDL XXI is not without historical parallel, perhaps being matched most significantly at Clontarf by the pact between the Leinstermen and the Gaill (Goedheer, 19–21; Todd, Cogadh, 190–3).
(vii.) The outcome of the battle: The BDL poems and CF describe a slaughter of the Fian which is of vast proportions, but they differ in their enumeration of the heroes who were killed. In CF the carnage is almost total, and extends to Fionn himself, although the redactor adds ‘acht gé dhó éirig arís’ (CFO ll. 1321–38; CFM ll. 921–33). Oscar too is badly wounded in CF, and his death is suggested, although not described in detail (CFO ll. 482–7; CFM ll. 336–41). Although BDL XXI refers to the death of Mac Lughach and his six sons (q. 4), the main emphasis in both poems is on the death of Oscar, and Fionn is clearly a survivor.
The divergences noted in sub-sections (vi.) and (vii.) above could suggest that the redactor of CF borrowed material from the Gabhair poems and refashioned it for his story. It is indeed evident that the redactor of CF did borrow material, but he could have obtained these specific items from other specimens of Fianaigheacht, and not necessarily from the poems in question. That the direction of borrowing may have been from CF to the Gabhair poems is more likely, particularly in view of the function of Fearghus File in BDL XXI, where he usurps the normal role of Oisean, and so closely resembles the Fearghus of CF. BDL XXII, on the other hand, is cast in the traditional mould of an Oisean/Patrick dialogue, and it is possibly significant that it contains the least amount of material directly comparable with CF. It does, however, show the clear influence of another group of tales, and to these we now turn.
(b) The relationship between the BDL poems and ‘Cath Maighe Mucrama’ (CMM):
Four tales are normally associated with events leading up to, and resulting from, the Battle of Mag Mucrama. We may refer to the battle itself as CMM, but the tales may be distinguished by their titles for the sake of clarity – ‘Cath Maige Mucrama’, ‘Scéla Éogain’, ‘Scéla Mosauluim’ and ‘Cath Cinn Abrad’. Their latest editor summarises the content of these tales as follows: ‘Very briefly, the theme of these four stories is the conflict between Mac Con, heir to the kingship of Corco Loígde, a branch of the Érainn of Munster, on the one hand, and Ailill Ólomm, king of the Deirgthene or Southern Goidels and his son Éogan on the other. Mac Con is defeated and wounded in the battle of Cend Abrat, spends seven years in exile [in Scotland] and returns to defeat the combined forces of Éogan and the king of Tara, Art mac Cuinn [at the Battle of Mag Mucrama]. He then seizes the kingship of Tara and reigns for thirty years. He returns to Munster [following the restoration of Cormac mac Airt, and is slain by Ferches mac Commoin at the behest of Ailill’ (CMM, 2). She continues: ‘I believe that the story in its original form had nothing to do with Cormac mac Airt or Tara, and that it was a purely Munster tale which originated among the Corco Loígde and was later altered and added to by the partisans of the Connachta in order to lend support to the claim of the race of Conn to the kingship of Tara; and that Mac Con, after the battle of Mag Mucrama, assumed not the kingship of Tara but that of Munster or perhaps a part of Munster (ibid., 3-4). The tales are dated to the ninth century although ‘Cath Maige Mucrama’, ‘Scéla Éogain’ and ‘Scéla Mosauluim’ may draw on sources as early as 700 (CMM, 18). ‘Cath Maige Mucrama’ itself retained its popularity throughout the Middle Ages, and a later romanticised text is known’ (ibid., 2).
In bringing traditions associated with CMM into the orbit of Fionn and the Fian, the all-important figure is that of Mac Con, who was regarded from an early stage as the leader of a fian band (Meyer, Fianaigecht, v, xiii). In ‘Scéla Mosauluim’ Fionn is, in fact, portrayed as Mac Con’s champion, and he sets out to avenge Mac Con’s death (CMM, 85). Fionn’s relationship with Mac Con may also be crucial in explaining, in part at any rate, the rivalry between Fionn and the Tara dynasty in subsequent literature. Certainly it would seem that Fionn assumes the earlier role of Mac Con, and the claim to the tribute of Ireland ascribed to Fionn can scarcely imply less than a claim to the Tara kingship, similar to that of Mac Con himself.
The influence of the CMM tales on the BDL poems is apparent in the following ways:
(i.) Direct references to CMM: These occur in BDL XXII, where the battle is named, and the ill-fated Art is mentioned (q. 5). Responsibility for the disaster is evidently ascribed to the Fian, and not to Mac Con. Gabhair is therefore regarded partly as vengeance for CMM.
(ii.) A reference to a son of Mac Con: BDL XXII, qq. 13-16, refer to the state of Ireland after the Battle of Gabhair. Oisean relates how the survivors of the Fian sent a messenger east to Fathadh [Canann] mac Mhic Con, asking him to take over the kingship of Ireland (q. 16). This would suggest that Fathadh Canann (see Meyer, Fianaigecht, 1-21) was in exile, perhaps like his father in Scotland. The request to Fathadh Canann, made in spite of the fact that Fionn is still alive and could presumably assume the kingship, probably reflects the subservient role of Fionn with respect to Mac Con.
(iii.) The charmed spear of Cairbre: BDL XXI makes it clear that the spear with which Cairbre killed Oscar was charmed (q. 11), and BDL XXII emphasises the enormity of the wounds caused by it (qq. 31-2). In ‘Scéla Mosauluim’, the death of Mac Con is also brought about by a charmed spear, hurled by Ferchess (CMM, 85). The spear, called Rindcne, originally belonged to Ailill Ólomm, king of the Deirgthene, and it was said to have wounded Mac Con previously at the battle of Cend Abrat (ibid., 15-16). Before hurling it, Ferchess chants a spell over the spear. While the tradition of a particularly vicious weapon is known in other contexts (e.g. Cú Chulainn’s gai bolga) and one cannot therefore be absolutely certain of borrowing from the CMM tales, it is at least of interest that the spears in question are not only charmed, but owned by kings.
The evidence considered so far would tend to support the view that the portrayal of the Battle of Gabhair in the BDL poems owes more to literary borrowing than to historical fact. This does not invalidate the possibility that the sources used by the composers of the poems preserve echoes of earlier feuds and hegemonic aspirations, particularly in the case of CMM. Linguistically, both BDL poems appear to be fairly late, and the extent of likely borrowing from CF in BDL XXI may indicate that it is the later of the two, composed perhaps in the second half of the fifteenth century (cf. CFO, x), but there is little evidence to make a clear chronological distinction. The existence of the poem on Gabhair in the Book of Leinster shows that the theme was known in the mid-twelfth century, and that the BDL poems are therefore a re-casting of the topic, with apparent amplification from the sources which have been defined in this section.
(3) Some further literary aspects of the BDL poems:
The BDL poems show different approaches to the death of Oscar. BDL XXI is a spirited celebration of his prowess, while BDL XXII is very much concerned with his wounding and the grief of the occasion. In this way the poems form a contrasting pair, and it is understandable that they should occur together in BDL and in other collections.
Yet, while the poems complement one another, it must be noted that within the mass of verse associated with Fionn and the Fian, BDL XXII is distinctive for its remarkable attention to the wounds of the hero, and the grief of his comrades. Heroic poems on the death of Ulster warriors such as BDL XXIII (Conlaoch) and BDL XXVII (Fraoch), do not give a comparable description of the final moments of the hero’s life and the sorrow of his companions. In BDL XXII, Oscar spouts blood (q. 24), and when Caoilte examines him (by putting his hand into the wounds), he finds that his intestines are cut in half, and that his back is broken by the spear (qq. 31-2). Only his face has escaped wounding (q. 37). All those who survive cry (caoin) for Oscar (q. 39), and then when Fionn returns he too weeps for him (q. 50).
Although it is difficult to find precise parallels for the details of Oscar’s death, gruesome descriptions of the hero’s wounds and final moments are not unusual in heroic literature. The locus classicus is the slaying of Hector by Achilles in Homer's Iliad (see Rieu, Homer, 397-411). The general atmosphere of the scene, the grief of Priam, the wounds inflicted on Hector, and the lamentations of the Trojan, are reminiscent of the portrayal of Oscar’s death in BDL XXII, and it is not impossible that the composer of the poem had the earlier model in mind. Similarly, the slaying of Cú Chulainn is accompanied by gory wounds and general lamentation. More specifically, Cú Chulainn examines his own heart by handling it (Van Hamel, Compert, 110-5).
Oscar’s attitude of calm resignation in the face of death (of a particularly painful kind) suggests that the composer of BDL XXII intended to provide an illustration of how to die well in heroic terms. It is of considerable interest in this respect that Oscar tells Caoilte that he is going ‘in the way of Adam’s seed’, and that he is suitably prepared (q. 30). While there are no further references to Biblical characters or events, it is possible that Oscar is intended to exemplify not merely the bravery of the pagan warrior, but that of the miles Christianus.
iii. Later versions: Before looking closely at the later texts of BDL XXI and XXII, we may note a general principle which affects the presentation and content of poems about Gabhair, certainly in Irish tradition and probably also on the Scottish side. The preceding analysis of the BDL poems suggests that they have utilised to a considerable extent material which was originally unrelated to the Gabhair story. This would appear to reflect the growing status of Gabhair in the later Middle Ages, and its importance is clear in the subsequent period. Indeed, Gabhair seems to have acted like a magnet, drawing to itself poems which made only a passing reference to the event, and leading to the confusion and conflation of ballads on the subject. Elaboration of the story (such as that in DF XXXIX, where Oscar first fights with Oscar mac Garaidh) was evidently common.
Such a process accounts for a remarkable conglomeration of verse about Gabhair found regularly in Irish MSS under the heading, ‘Tuarasgabhail Chatha Gabhra’ (see TOS, I, and cf. RIA MS 23 M 2). This usually begins with part of BDL X, ‘Truagh liom Tulach na Féine…’; it continues with ‘Innis sin dúinn a Oisin...’, which recounts the bravest men of the Fian; thereafter follows ‘Innis dúinn a Oisín…’, a poem which owes its inspiration, its metre and several of its quatrains to BDL XXI; then comes part of BDL XI, ‘Innis dúinn, a Phádruig…’ and a further poem of debate between Oisean and Patrick. The sequence may round off with a version of BDL XXII, or another piece, ‘Rosg Catha Oscuir mhic Oisín’, may be added.
In Scotland this sequence does not occur, but the principle of conflation and recomposition may well be attested in ‘Bás Oscair’, which is found only on the Scottish side. This includes quatrains which are very close to certain ones in both BDL XXI and XXII, but the poem as a whole is distinctively different from the BDL items, in spite of a broad similarity.
In contrast to the Scottish pattern, versions of BDL XXII occur commonly in later Irish MSS. In general, these retain a close overall resemblance to the BDL text, with the following differences. Certain versions incorporate a list of the tributes and privileges which Fionn has had to forfeit as a consequence of his defeat, and this list normally follows the quatrain corresponding to BDL q. 44. Most Irish versions also round off with quatrains describing the burial of Oscar and of other warriors. The order of quatrains usually differs from that of BDL.
In spite of the quantity and overall similarity of the Irish texts, it is possible to isolate versions which share features of the BDL text to varying degrees. In measuring the proximity of the Irish versions to BDL, a useful guide is provided by the extended six-line quatrains which appear so conspicuously in BDL, and which are signalled by elongated round brackets.
Verse paragraphs of this sort are to be found in several texts, of which three – MOL, Egerton MS 209, and RIA MS 24 P 29 – have been studied closely. MOL contains two six-line verse units, which appear in this fashion:
Cuirimídne
teachta siar
go mac mhic Con mic
maicniadh
is cuirimídne teachta
soir
go Fatha mhic an
Airrsoidh
go ttigid chuguinn
gan feall,
do ghabhail righe
nEireann (MOL, p. 112)
and:
Fuaradar a miann fó
riar
laochra Fódla air
aoinrian
do thuitsiad tré
fhala an Rígh
deich catha fithchiod
fíorlaoich is
dá chéad ríoghdhamhna
dair linn
dar dhuail
áirdríoghacht Eireann (MOL, p. 113)
As shown, the scribe indicates the existence of the additional couplet by means of a bracket in each case. The first example corresponds to BDL q. 16, which is not an extended quatrain in BDL; and the second example represents a quatrain found in the Egerton text (q. 17) without extension, but absent from BDL. It will thus be apparent that while MOL shares the principle of extended quatrains in this text, MOL and BDL do not have a close relationship.
Turning to the text represented by Egerton MS 209, we find that it contains three extended quatrains (HP, 271-80). The first of these (Egerton q. 8 and q. 9 as edited) corresponds to BDL qq. 7 cd and á8ñ. The BDL scribe has indicated a paragraph at this point, although its precise nature is difficult to determine. The second instance (Egerton q. 28 and q. 29 as edited) corresponds directly to BDL q. 24. The third example (Egerton q. 70 and q. 71 as edited) cannot be matched in BDL, although the content of the quatrains is represented in BDL. Although the correspondence is not precise, it will be clear from this that a relationship exists between the Egerton and BDL texts.
Of the texts consulted so far, BDL has most similarity to RIA MS 24 P 29. This text contains three extended units corresponding closely to BDL qq. 4, 24, and 35. These are as follows:
[BDL q. 4] Do rinne
comhoirle ré a shluaigh sdob í an comhairle cruaidh
gur
bhfearr leis tuitiom san muagh 7 an fhian re cele
na
righacht an beath mhir agus an fhian bheith na mbeathadh
[BDL q. 24] Do fuair mise
mo mhac fein, na luidhe ar a uilinn clí
a
scíath laimh leis ar lar, 7 a lann na dheasláimh
agus
e ag cur fhola dhe, ar blogaibh a luirighe
[BDL q. 35] Fithchead c
duinne ann sin idir og 7 arsaigh
nior
raibh en neach slan ann ach fear 9 gona go nimh
is
se fa lugha do crechtaibh
While there are differences in wording between the corresponding units in both texts, the general resemblance is striking. This resemblance is made all the more significant by the fact that 24 P 29 does not have the list of tributes forfeited by Fionn (found in MOL and Egerton), and by the attestation in 24 P 29 of the unusual second line (q. 1 b) of the BDL text. It would seem, therefore, that the BDL text is most closely related to the type contained in this composite MS with Co. Clare associations.
It may be noted, finally, that no text so far consulted has as great a number of extended quatrains as BDL. This may be due in part to the acquisition of further couplets by the later versions, thereby turning existing couplets into full quatrains and making structural similarity to BDL XXII more difficult to detect.
The coming together of different poems about Gabhair is attested in BDL itself in the case of the two ballads under discussion. To find them together in later tradition is, however, fairly rare. In Scotland, they occur together in Turner’s collection (in the same order as BDL); in Ireland, outside ‘Tuarasgabhail Chatha Gabhra’, they appear side by side only (it would seem) in RIA MS 24 P 29 (in the reverse order to BDL). The texts in RIA MS 24 P 29 are of particular significance in relation to BDL. We may now examine the later versions of the poems in turn.
(a) BDL XXI: Scottish versions of this poem (Turner and Kennedy (1)) do not preserve the entirety of the BDL text. The following quatrains are found in Turner: BDL 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Kennedy’s version, although interlaced with fabrication, appears to have a similar core of genuine material.
The version in RIA MS 24 P 29, on the other hand, contains all of the quatrains found in BDL, as well as an additional quatrain (q. 13 in the Irish text). There are some verbal differences between the two texts, but on the whole the correspondence is close.
(b) BDL XXII: Only two versions of this poem appear to exist in Scottish sources – those of Turner and McLagan MS 69. These versions are closely related; Turner’s text is influenced by Early Modern (Classical) Gaelic, whereas McLagan’s text is largely vernacular Scottish Gaelic, but beyond this there is little substantial divergence. Both texts appear to have lost quatrains attested in BDL. The most conspicuous departure from the BDL text is the absence of BDL qq. 2-9 which give the reasons for the Battle of Gabhair. At the same time, they do not include the list of tributes which Fionn lost as a result of the battle – a list which is often found in later Irish versions, but not in the BDL text.
iv. Metre: The metre of this poem is formally Deibhidhe, but as indicated above in Sections i and iii, it contains several examples of six-line verses. These occur at BDL qq. 4, 24, 32, 33, 35, and 41, and their existence is signalled in the MS by elongated round brackets in the right hand margin. Such units may have been created in the course of the poem’s transmission, by the addition of a further couplet to an earlier quatrain, but, as they are found regularly in other versions, although not precisely as in BDL, it seems probable that this was a feature of the poem as composed. Deibhidhe units of six lines are, in fact, found outside the ballad tradition.
v. Line annotation
Ascription: Staining and trimming now obscure the opening section of the formula, but the name of the character to whom the poem is ascribed is still legible with the help of ultra-violet light. The character concerned, Ailéin mac Ruaidhrí, is also said to be the úghdar of BDL XIII, q.v. The possibility that the present poem is of Scottish origin cannot be argued on linguistic or onomastic grounds as in BDL XIII, and there is therefore no circumstantial evidence from other quarters to support the view that Ailein mac Ruaidhrí could have composed the poem. The pre-eminent Irish interest of the poem, as well as the reference to the dispatching of a messenger soir (‘eastwards’) to Fathadh Canann (63-4), would suggest strongly that the poem was, in fact, composed in Ireland. If this is so, we must consider the possibility that by úghdar in this instance, the BDL scribe may have meant ‘source, authority, transmitter’ rather than ‘composer, author’.
2 atá dham réir: This appears to indicate that Oisean has control over Patrick, and HP rejects the reading as ‘contrary to sense’. The BDL reading is supported by 24 P 29, a Phadiricc ataoí dom réir; cf. noch taei dam réir (23 M 2). Other Irish versions have cia taim dod réir (Eg., and similarly TOS).
8 <roimh>: This interpretation of the MS form roytht gives good sense in the context, although it is unusual to find -tht in the MS orthography representing -mh in normal orthography.
b[h]iodhbhaidh: The MS form boe would appear to represent mod. Sc. G. biùthaidh (Dw. s.v.), without lenition of the initial which would be normal after roimh. Transl. the line: ‘and without terror before a foe’.
9 C[h]eilseam: The verb form is 1 pl. pret., but without the preverb do which would make the line hypermetric. As do would normally cause lenition of the following initial, this is represented in the restored form, although MS kailsvm has no sign of such lenition. Later Irish versions generally have Do chongbhamur, as in Eg.
<fholadh>: As gach does not normally lenite a following initial, it is difficult to be sure that the scribe was thinking in terms of fola, fala, ‘resentment, grievance, grudge’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 2 fola) when he wrote MS ollit although this is supported by the Irish versions which nevertheless omit gach. Did the scribe intend to convey ulaidh, ‘treasure’ (< folud, ‘substance, property wealth’, RIA Dict. s.v. 1 folud (c)), perhaps with reference to the burial of treasure prior to the hostilities?
fám thuinn: fame hwnni MS. This phrase presents two difficulties. First, the 1 sg. poss. pron. in fám is at variance with the person of the verb, unless we suppose that the verb is to be regarded as 1 sg. in sense (see C[h]eilseam above). HP therefore emends to fá. Second, tonn can mean ‘surface’ with reference to land, or it may mean ‘skin’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 1 tonn II). Accepting the emendation in HP, the line could mean ‘we concealed every resentment under the surface (i.e. under our skin)’; or possibly ‘we concealed every treasure under the earth’. The former interpretation seems closer to what the poet may have tried to convey originally. Most Irish versions follow Eg., tar tuinn, ‘over the wave’, meaning that grudges were kept out of Ireland.
11 gus a’ bhaidhbh: It would seem that badhbh, the name of a war-goddess and the form of her appearance before battle, i.e. ‘skald-crow’, is here virtually equivalent to cath; thus the Irish versions follow Eg., gus an ccaith sin.
17-18 Note that this couplet extends, and clarifies, the sense of the preceding couplet. It cannot be related comfortably to the next quatrain, and this confirms the existence of the six-line unit at this point.
17 ríoghradh: Here and in 66, ríoghradh seems to mean ‘sovereignty’, although it normally means ‘kings, chiefs, princes’ or ‘a line (family) of kings’ (RIA Dict. s.v. rígrad). The meaning ‘kings, chiefs, princes’ is, however, appropriate in 37.
Note that with the insertion of the article before bheatha, the line becomes hypermetric, although its presence is clearly implied by the form of the noun. Some Irish versions agree with Eg. in reading ná ríoghacht, which maintains correct length; but others, such as 23 O 32 and MOL, have ina ríoghacht, with a hypermetric line.
18 The line is hypermetric as it stands, but may be corrected by reading is (to be regarded as ’s) for agus at the beginning of the line.
19 Do chan: The line lacks a syllable as it stands; most Irish versions read Adubhairt with Eg., which gives correct length.
Barran: A character called Barrán mac Milidh don moigh was slain by Oscar at Gabhair, according to DF XXXIX, q. 81; Parrán (TOS), but Cairbre (Eg., and most other Irish versions).
23 cruadha: The lenition apparently attested in the MS form chroye is to be ignored in restoration; cf. coilean, XVI, 8 n.
25 roibh aon: Both words appear to be run together in the MS form royin.
26 Note that with the formal insertion of the prep. a (< do), the line becomes hypermetric; HP restores the prep., but omits ach.
31-2 An elongated round bracket connects this couplet in the MS with 27-28, thereby indicating that a six-line unit probably existed at this point at one stage. This is further suggested by syntax. See the following note.
33-34 In the MS this couplet appears to be a later insertion into the text of the original draft, as the spacing is awkward and the ink is lighter than that of the rest of the poem. This could indicate that the scribe had access to a second version of the poem. It is possible, though less likely, that the two quatrains were written together in the scribe’s exemplar as an eight-line sense unit, and that he omitted the last couplet by accident. The use of the bracket (see 31-2 n) favours the first explanation. Most Irish versions have a quatrain corresponding to 31-4. The sense of 33-4 is not immediately transparent in any version; in BDL they would appear to imply that the Fian are to be attacked when they are not together as one group.
33 <[go] bhfaighdís>: It is difficult to be certain what the MS form weadeis intends to convey; the present restoration follows HP, which supposes that the conj. go has been omitted. dá bhfuighdís bás ionna ndiaigh (Eg., and similarly MOL, 23 0 32); O do gheibhim bás fa dheoidh (TOS).
34 The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP omits an at the beginning of the line. gion go mbeithdis a n-aoinghliadh (Eg.); gion go mbeidís air aoinrian (MOL); gion go mbeidis anamm ghath (23 O 32); fuilngiom tuitim a n-aon ghleo (TOS).
38 uaisle: The MS has the metathesised form olsa Cf. 86.
40 <iartha[r]>: The MS form earra has no final r, and this could suggest that the scribe has construed the word as simply a variant of iar with a final a. go finniarthar an domhain (MOL, and similarly Eg., 23 O 32); go fonn iartharach an domhain (TOS)
41 The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP omits aon, in keeping with the Irish versions.
44 <ghabhadh ruinne>: ȝoive rwneni MS. The MS form ȝoive could also represent gheobhadh; cf. ȝoyve for this form in 60. The second element, MS rwneni, is hard to explain with this verb, if the prep. is indeed originally ri. It is possible that in the scribe’s dialect le and ri were confused; thus HP restores níor gabhadh linn, meaning ‘there has not been taken by us’. With MS rwneni evidently representing ruinne, cf. ȝane’ni, evidently for dhéanadh, XXVII, 3 n. Here, the emphatic form of the prep. pron. makes the line hypermetric.
45 cuibhreann: The MS form keit(s)⎡rwn⎤ reflects the scribe’s writing cíos originally, evidently under the influence of the preceding line.
49 <fonnadhaich>: The MS form fonyeit is clear enough, but less clear is what it represents. The present restoration suggests a connection with fonnadh, ‘moving rapidly, quick irregular movement (?). In concrete sense, a wanderer, vagrant (?)’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 2 fonnad). This could be a reference to the wandering life of the fiana. Another possibility is that the scribe has created a ghost word by writing -o- for -e- as the second letter; thus féinneadhaigh, as in HP, could be considered. féineadhaig (Eg.); féinnicc (MOL, and similarly 23 O 32).
50 Dā dtigfeadh: Note the use of the condit. rather than the past subj.
55 do: The MS has a, the reduced form of the 2 sg. poss. pron.
57 [ach] : This conj. is not attested in the MS, but it is found in the later Irish texts, and its inclusion does make the line easier to understand. Nevertheless, its inclusion also makes the line hypermetric.
59 thíosadh: The verb form is evidently 3 sg. past subj. of tigim. Eg. and TOS have a condit. here.
62 gan <eana[ch]>: gin nen̄e MS. The suggested noun eanach would mean ‘snare, trap’ (RIA Dict. s.v. enech).
63 The line lacks a syllable as it stands, evidently through the loss of the preverb do.
64 The line lacks a syllable as it stands. Certain Irish versions represent Fathadh Canann with a hypermetric line; thus Fa chonnan (24 P 29), and Fatha Chonáin (TOS); but go mac mhic Con mhic Mhic Niadh (Eg., MOL). On the significance of this reference, see Section ii (2) (b) (ii.) above.
67 an t-saith sin: Transl. ‘that evil’; for saith, see RIA Dict. s.v. saich.
65 <ar rí> Teamhra: The significance of this quatrain depends to some extent on how we interpret the MS reading ar/reit tawreit, and particularly MS ar. There are two possibilities: the first, suggested in the present restoration, is that ar means ‘says’, and that the king of Tara is rebuking the Fian for their folly. This is feasible if the reference to the king of Tara is not to Cairbre but to Fathadh Canann, who has been summoned to take over the kingship of Ireland, evidently by the Fian survivors (see 63-6, and 64 n). The other possibility is that followed in HP, namely that MS ar represents the prep. ar, in the sense of ‘on account of, because of’ (RIA Dict. 1 ar II (c)), in which case the rebuke would be administered by Patrick. cur a n-adhaigh rígh Eireann gér dhoiligh (Eg.); cur an aghaidh rígh éirionn doirbh (MOL); ó rígh Eirionn fa mhór airm (TOS).
69 a t[h]ug <dhaoibh>: This restoration of MS a twg gew seems likely enough, and would seem to mean ‘which caused you’. However, dhaoibh, if correctly restored, fails to provide rhyme with the following line. HP assumes that the unhistorical relative particle has displaced a syllable at the end of the line, and emends to tug dhaoibh dhe, deriving dhe from Irish examples: tuille uadhbhair dhibh dhe (Eg., and similarly 23 O 32, MOL); but is tuille uabhair do ghabh sibh-si (TOS, and similarly 24 P 29).
70 <ar-oile>: The suggested restoration, which follows HP, seems the best way of understanding MS er ollea. dol do mharbhadh a chéile (Eg., MOL); do mharbhadh na bh-fear eile-si (TOS).
74 <na> d’rug: It seems possible that in MS na drwg, the MS form na could represent one of the forms of the interrog. in mod. Sc. G. In mod. practice, however, it would be unusual to find na followed by the preverb do as here, although the preverb would occur if an were used with the verb concerned. The MS reading may reflect a cross between na rug and an do rug in mod. Sc. G. Alternatively, the MS may represent na [an] d[rug], na being a pleonastic use of the con;.; thus nó an in HP, following the Irish versions.
air air labhracht: er er lawrycht MS. The first air may be taken with the preceding verb; the second air would appear to mean ‘for the purpose of, in order to obtain’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 1 ar II (f)); labhracht derives from labhradh, ‘act of speaking; speech, utterance’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 1 labrad). This would give the line the meaning ‘did you catch him [in time] to speak with him?’ HP restores as ar urlabhra, on the model of the later versions: air ag urlabhra (Eg., and similarly 23 O 32, MOL); ar urlabhra (TOS).
76 cur: The MS form cwrreit would appear to attest an unhistorical final syllable, perhaps reflecting a dialectal form cuireadh; cf. MS hutyt for thuit (73).
77 <ad->táinig: Id tanik MS. The use of ad as a preverb is unusual, but cf. <ad->fhuair below (130, 131). This practice may have arisen by analogy with such verb forms as adubhairt, where ad- may have been felt to be a preverb; cf. ad éirghe as macaomh mná (B, p. 289, 1. 4).
80 an gcaraide féin: in garrit [dyt] feyn MS. The scribe appears to have written gcarad originally, thereby maintaining the normal E. Mod. gen. pl. form of cara. Evidently conscious of the need to make up line length, he then altered the form to gcaraide; cf. the gen. pl. forms cairde, cairdeadh listed in RIA Dict. s.v. cara. a ccarad budhdéin (Eg., and similarly MOL); a gcarad féin (TOS).
87 <cathráth>: The suggested restoration of the MS form caichraa is tentative. If correct, it would seem that the second element is ráth, normally ‘an earthen rampart surrounding a chief’s residence, a fort, rath’ (RIA Dict. s.v.). This seems out of context in relation to the lúireach (88) and the sgiath (89), as one would expect a more personal weapon or item of armour. No such personal item is known under the name cathráth. It is conceivable that the MS form is the result of scribal error. HP appears to follow certain Irish versions in reading cathbharr; thus Dob iomdha cathbhair chaomh (Eg., and similarly 23 O 32, MOL); but agus mionn-chumhdach caomh (TOS, and similarly 24 P 29).
89 thars[n]a: The MS form harsi omits the -n- normally found in this adv., perhaps by confusion with the prep. pron. 3 pl. tharsa. The force of the adv. is ‘strewn from side to side’.
91 The line lacks a syllable as it stands, and HP emends to Nochar fhadhbhuigh, which may have been the original reading.
92 <ball>: It seems likely that the MS form baale should be restored as suggested; thus munaball (24 P 29); acht baill (Eg., MOL); óir ba bhall e (TOS).
97 <[a] ndáimh ris>: It is difficult to account for the MS reading nawris, which HP restores as láimh ris, this being the reading of several Irish versions (thus Eg., MOL). The present restoration suggests that the main element is the dat. sg. of dámh, ‘company, party’, and also ‘kindred, relation, consanguinity’ (RIA Dict. s.v. dám), the phrase meaning ‘in company with him’, and therefore virtually equivalent to láimh ris. Another possibility, which would support láimh ris, would be a dialectal peculiarity involving l/n.
104 ’na aghaidh: na (yġe) ȝeye MS. The present restoration follows the scribe’s original reading, and would mean ‘in his face, in front of him’. The scribe’s subsequent reading would give ’na dheaghaidh, ‘after him’, i.e. after he had died. The latter is the reading of the later Irish versions. Given the probable significance of 33-4 (see n.), it seems likely that the scribe’s alteration is not an error, but an emendation derived from another version.
105 Do shill: Di hillit MS. Cf. 76 n.
108-112 In the MS, a line like the elongated round brackets found elsewhere in the text begins at the end of 108, and links up with the end of 112. Its significance is hard to interpret, because 105-12 neatly fall into two quatrains in the restored text. Is it possible that in the scribe’s exemplar, 105-6 were part of q. 25, while 107-112 similarly formed a six-line unit? Or did the scribe find a later version in which this was the arrangement?
109 Do ghabh: The MS form Di ȝoyve suggests a dialectal form Do gheobh, with confusion between ghabh and gheibh, often pronounced gheobh in mod. Sc. G.; cf. 44 n.
113 Thubhairt: The first -r- of the MS form hurirt may be accidental. Note that the line is hypermetric as it stands, and requires thubhairt to be reduced to thuirt to give correct length.
114 <[a] n-earr [a]>: As HP suggests in a note, MS nar could also represent [a] ndeir[eadh].
115 The line is hypermetric as it stands, with no obvious solution, unless the poss. pron. a is omitted initially.
119 <mar> soin: The initial w of the MS form worsin is difficult to construe. It may be accidental, or it could be that the scribe was thinking in terms of [an] uair sin. mur sin (Eg.); mur sin ann (MOL); ann sin (TOS).
121 Adubhairt: The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP emends to Dubhairt; similarly 135.
122 <[a]taoi-s[e]>: The MS form tayȝeis appears to represent some such form as táthais for the 2 sg. pres. indic. of atá, and it may have come about as suggested in the restored text by the loss of unstressed initial and final vowels.
123 dluigh: dloe MS. This is a noun, meaning ‘(a) justifying reason; hence right, claim, possession; (b) plight, lot, fate’ (RIA Dict. s.v. dlug). Cf. DF, III, p. 253 s.v., where it is glossed as ‘(one’s) due, that which is right or proper.’ Here, the phrase mar as dluigh would mean ‘as is right’. On the significance of this and the reference to Adam’s seed (124), see Section ii (3) above. mar is dleadhthach (MOL); mur is dlighe (Eg.)
124 a gconair: The MS form a gonnir seems clearly to attest five minims in the second element, the last of which is dotted as an i; the present restoration therefore seems preferable to HP’s i gcomar. conar, ‘way, road, path’, is attested in a religious context, as evidently here (RIA Dict. s.v.). a ccomhuir (Eg.); do chóimh-áiriomh (MOL).
127 ga uilinn: The MS form ga wllin could possibly represent go h-uilinn, as restored in HP. go huillin (Eg., MOL).
128 an gcréachta: The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP restores MS in greachte as i gcréacht. a ccreacht (Eg., MOL).
129 a <chrí>: a knee MS. The proposed restoration seems closer to the MS than HP’s a chneadh, given that -ee in the MS orthography normally represents /i:/; the sense would be ‘his body’ (RIA Dict. s.v. crí). a chneadh (Eg., MOL).
130, 131 <ad->fhuair: See 77 n.
135 See 121 n.
137 <do sgaradh-s[a]>: a skarris MS. The suggested restoration regards MS a as the reduced form of the 2 sg. poss. pron., and takes sgaradh as the vb. n.: hence ‘your parting’. do sgaradh thú re ar bhféin (Eg., and similarly MOL); do sgarradh a nocht ris an bh-Féin (TOS). HP restores as do sgarais-se.
139 <rath catha>: This restoration of MS raa Caaċ is advanced tentatively. If correct, it would mean ‘good fortune in battle’, and the thrust of the line would be that Fionn had lost this, since Oscar, the great warrior, was now dying. HP restores as do sgar a chatha, evidently on the model of certain Irish versions: sgarfuidh a chatha re Fionn (Eg., and similarly MOL); is do sgaradh do chatha re Fionn (TOS).
141 Goirid a bheith: The MS form a, thus restored, would appear to be a reduced form of air (< iar, eclipsing in E. Mod. Ir., but leniting in mod. Sc. G.). Cf. 167.
144 roibhe: It is usually difficult to know on purely linguistic grounds whether the final e which often occurs in the MS form of the past conjunct of atá is to be regarded as syllabic, i.e. whether we should restore to roibh or roibhe. Syllabic count is the main guide; thus, in this instance, MS roye is taken to be roibhe; but in 147, MS roewe is taken to be roibh; cf. 156.
151 Tog<mai[d]-n[e]>: Togmy’ MS. Cf. beir<mi[d]-n[e]>, from MS Bermyŋ in 153. For discussion of such forms, see II, 11 n, and XX, 5 n.
154 a éadaigh: As Osgar is clearly m., the initial h of the MS form hevdyt can scarcely be other than graphic; cf. XI, 124 n.
157 bhonna: won̄yt MS. In all probability, this is a pl. form; cf. the Mod. Ir. pl. form bonnaí (Dinn. s.v. bonn) and Sc. G. bonnan, which are used in addition to buinn.
158 The line is hypermetric as it stands, but it occurs thus in certain Irish versions (e.g. Eg., MOL).
160 [a]g íodhlacadh: geilli’gga MS. The vb. n. íodhlacadh (< idlaicid, one of the forms of the vb. n. of *ind-anich, ‘bestows, conveys, escorts, delivers’: RIA Dict. s.v.) is evidently used here in the sense of ‘burying’. Cf. the similar use of tiodhlacadh (< tindlucud, a form of tindnacol, the vb. n. of do-indnaig, ‘act of bestowing’: RIA Dict. s.v. tindnacol).
163 The line lacks a syllable as it stands; certain Irish versions (e.g. Eg., MOL) read duine in place of neach, which provides correct line length.
chaoin: cheneit MS. Cf. 76 n, 105 n, and note MS chein for chaoin in 164.
164 fā dhéidh: fa ȝeyt MS. HP restores to faidhéin in the light of budhdein (Eg., and similarly MOL), and it seems possible that the BDL scribe has misunderstood some such form as HP suggests, evidently relating it to ’na dhéidh, ‘after him’.
165 The line is hypermetric as it stands, but it occurs thus in certain Irish versions (e.g. Eg., MOL).
167 Goirid a bheith: See 141 n.
168 <cuibhreachtain>: It is likely that the MS form cwryttin is to be taken as representing the suggested variant of the vb. n. cuibhreach, ‘act of binding’ (RIA Dict. s.v. cuimrech), referring to the binding of Oscar’s wounds; cf. Dinn. s.v. cuibhreach, where ‘band, bandage’ is given as one of its meanings. Note that the line is hypermetric as stands, requiring the disyllabic cuibhreach to restore line length.
171-172 It seems likely that Go dtugsadar is here to be understood as ‘they proceeded’ (cf. RIA Dict. s.v. do-beir V), with reference to Fionn and his men, who are further defined in 172.
172 The line lacks a syllable as it stands, with no obvious solution.
173 The line is hypermetric as it stands, and HP restores to Clann Baoisgne mhir to lose a syllable. Irish versions also tend to be hypermetric; thus do-chí sin Clanna Baoisgne mhir (Eg., MOL); ag féachain Chlanna Baoisgne mar sin (TOS).
176 sgannal: The word has two groups of meanings: ‘(a) quarrel, contention, fight; (b) offence, cause of offence, abusive language, scandal’ (RIA Dict. s.v. scandal). In the context, a meaning from either group would be appropriate; thus HP translates as ‘fray (?)’. But in view of béiceach in 175, the reference could be to the crying of the wounded soldiers, and perhaps to their ‘abusive language’. búirtheach (TOS, and similarly MOL).
míleadh: meill<e>yt MS. In the actual MS, the raised e shown in the transcript occurs directly above the y, as if it were an alternative to it.
180 The line lacks a syllable as it stands, and HP reads iona gcomhdháil, which restores line length.
183 <’na thréan>: na rane MS. The suggested restoration, which follows HP, seems a reasonable interpretation of the MS reading. It is, however, difficult to construe in the context; it could mean ‘as a brave man, heroically’. go ráinig an tulach tréan (TOS); acht dul air an ttulaigh ttréin (MOL).
186 toidheacht: t<o>thc MS. A dot appears over the second letter of the MS form, and immediately to the right of the dot there is a light stroke which terminates on the top of the o. This stroke may be an attempt to make it clear that the word is disyllabic.
187 <néalla[ch]>: neachla MS. The proposed restoration is offered with little confidence, especially as it fails to make even reasonable rhyme with the next line; the meaning ‘clouded’ is, however, appropriate in the context. féachas an aghaidh na flatha (TOS).
189 The line is hypermetric as it stands. Certain Irish versions (e.g. TOS, MOL) omit the article, but cf. 121 n.
198 an diugh: The scribe first wrote do<w>, the last letter possibly being o originally; this word was then deleted, and dwe written immediately after it. i’ was written in superscript between the two words at some stage.
201 To give correct line length, MS is may be read as ’s. HP, however, recasts the line as Slán uaim d’iorghail agus d’ágh. Irish versions tend to lack a syllable; thus slán uaim d’iorghail a’s d’ágh (TOS, and similarly MOL).
203 anos: The MS form i’ nossa attests an unhistorical final syllable; cf. MS rosga (208), wranna (211).
204 <dhon chomas>: ȝin chom̄sa MS. The best way of understanding the second word is to suppose that the last two letters have been transposed in the MS form. Transl. the line: ‘apart from what I may get of power’ (see RIA Dict. s.v. commus). Note that the MS form ȝin does not support HP’s restoration dom. don donas (MOL).
210 déara: Note that the MS form deara is almost identical in orthography with the restored form; cf. MS dair for déar in 212, which follows the usual MS practice of representing -éa- by -ai-.
213 fhéin: wane MS. Cf. VII, 67 n.
217 Following the first occurrence of céad in the line, the scribe wrote, and then cancelled, what appears to have been the numeral ix. This numeral may have come into existence accidentally, perhaps by writing the i- of is (which does, in fact, follow) and then by anticipating the numeral deich. The appearance of ix is all the more intriguing in the light of certain Irish versions: thus Naoi bhfichid céad is deich céad (Eg., MOL); but dá fhithchid is fithche céad (TOS).
220 <easbhaidh>: The MS form essew may represent a dialectal variant such as easaibh.
225 Ní <’n>: Ney’ MS. See XII, 15 n.
228 < >: It is by no means clear what is intended by MS ȝi werrin; it could possibly represent dha fhearann, but it is difficult to know how this is to be understood in the couplet as a whole; HP restores tentatively to do bheirinn, suggesting in a note that beirinn ‘seems to be a verbal noun of beirim’, but this seems improbable. Scribal misunderstanding at some stage may have led to the present MS reading. rígheacht an bheatha da bhfaghadh (MOL); rígheacht an bheatha dá bhfaghainn (TOS).
231 cha roibh: The scribe first wrote Cha drone ma, evidently Cha d’rinn mé, perhaps thinking of the preceding line; he then cancelled drone ma and wrote roive in superscript.
< >: The MS form roea may be construed in different ways. It is possible to regard the initial r as a projection from the preceding word, in which case we might consider uaithe in the sense ‘from then’; or, allowing r- to stand, we could read roimhe, perhaps in the sense ‘before now’. The orthography gives little support to HP’s restoration adhaigh. ní reamhamuir oidhche ná ló (Eg.); Ní rabhsam oidhche ná ló (MOL).