Notes to Poem XXIII

i. MS Text:  The text begins in the middle of p. 236 of the MS, following immediately after the conclusion of BDL XXII. It then occupies the whole of p. 237 of the MS, and most of p. 238. Fading has occurred on the outer margins of all the pages, but its effect is not too serious, and most of the text can be read without difficulty.

There is clear evidence that the text was modified after the first draft was made. The process of modification involved the cancellation of a number of phrases, and even of lines, with the provision of preferred readings in superscript. Alternative positions for qq. 3 and 4 of the original draft are indicated by means of insertion marks, and the use of the letters a and b, placed in the margin beside qq. 4 and 3 respectively. These letters, which are in the normal hand of the MS, confirm that the compilers wished to reverse the order of the two quatrains. A third letter, possibly c, seems to be visible in the margin beside q. 5, conceivably indicating its position in the new sequence. A cross also appears in the margin, slightly to the left of the other letters, probably drawing the attention of the reader to the modification, but it is difficult to know whether this is the work of the original scribes or of a later hand. It is apparent from such emendation that the scribes had access to more than one version of this poem.

In the space to the left of the original ascription, a later hand, evidently that of Donald Mackintosh, has written ‘Bàs Chonnlaích’, and in the lower margin the same hand writes ‘nearly the same with Mr Campbell of Portrees edition’. To the right of this, a gloss ‘Conlaoch?’ has been added, possibly by an eighteenth century hand. Crosses indicate that  the gloss is meant to refer to Con̄il (i.e. ‘Conaill’) in the last line of the page (q. 7 b).

ii. General background:  This poem is of considerable interest because of its relationship to another piece in BDL, and also to prose versions of the same story. We may examine each of these topics in turn.

(1) The relationship between BDL XXIII and the bardic elegy beginning ‘Th naig adhbhar mo thuirse’:

Both BDL XXIII and a bardic poem in BDL beginning ‘Thánaig adhbhar mo thuirse’ (Watson, SV, pp. 82-9) are ascribed to a certain Giolla Coluim mac an Ollaimh. The latter poem is an elegy, composed on the occasion of the murder of Angus, son of John, Lord of the Isles, at Inverness around 1490. From this evidence, it was concluded by Professor Watson that Giolla Coluim was ‘a court bard of the ruling house of the Isles’ (ibid., p. 276). This inference has since gained support, and it has been suggested further that Giolla Coluim was a member of the MacMhuirich bardic family. His connection with the Clan Donald is underlined by the attribution of another poem in BDL, this time an elegy on the demise of the entire clan (ibid., 90-5). Giolla Coluim also seems to have been regarded as the composer of a further piece in BDL, ‘Mór an feidhm freagairt na bhfaighdheach’, which shows him in a less sombre frame of mind (ibid., 66-81).

The connection between BDL XXIII and ‘Thánaig adhbhar mo thuirse’ goes beyond mere ascription, however. The scribe of the bardic poem concludes his transcription at the foot of MS p. 241 in a manner which shows that he intended another section of the poem to follow. The MS text of the last three lines of the first section is now given, with transliteration:

<.> na wonsi darvir loom / vrskall nar ȝalve roy^tm
<.y> choyal mee fad o hen etc. vt sequitur in alio loco etc.
<     > swalti ni bree binn / daltan̄ chaiffe is chonill

This gives:

<     > ’na bhun so dearbhthar liom
uirsgéal nar dhealbhadh romham

<Do> chual[a] mi fad o shoin etc. ut sequitur in alio loco etc.

<     > Subhaltaigh na breith binn
daltán Chathbhaidh is Chonaill

Such evidence would seem to indicate that the uirsgéal which was to follow the first section of the poem was a version of BDL XXIII. The scribe gives the first line of BDL XXIII, and makes it clear that the piece has already been written in the MS. Professor Watson commented: ‘The Conlaoch uirsgéal begins on p. 236 of the MS, and is separated from this piece by the short poem, ‘Seacht saighde atá ar mo thí’. There can be no doubt, however, that the two pieces are really parts of one and the same poem, which fell into three sections: - (1) the part here printed [i.e. ‘Thánaig adhbhar mo thuirse’]; (2) a parallel between the grief felt by Cú Chulainn for the tragic death of his son and that felt for the tragic death of Angus; (3) some concluding quatrains which have not been preserved. This is a common arrangement in the bardic cumha…’ (ibid., 277-8). Watson’s conclusion, which is backed up by more specific argument, has been generally accepted and there seem to be no adequate grounds for dispute.

The presentation of the two pieces in the MS is, however, worthy of further discussion. Granted that they were both regarded as parts of the same poem, it is of considerable interest that BDL XXIII should be given a separate identity in the MS, and that it should have been placed in the MS prior to the writing up of the initial section of the bardic poem. This suggests strongly that when the MS was compiled, the uirsgéal or apologue already had an independent existence, and the extent of scribal emendation to the first draft may well be an indication of the popularity of the piece. This is wholly consistent with later evidence, which shows that the Conlaoch uirsgéal circulated independently in both Ireland and Gaelic Scotland, being relatively common in the two countries (Cf. O’Rahilly, Indexes, 40).

The independence of the Conlaoch apologue in the MS and in later tradition raises the question of whether it could have circulated as a ballad before it was utilised by Giolla Coluim in his elegy. In the first section of the elegy, before proceeding with the apologue, the poet refers to it as ‘uirsgéal nar dhealbhadh romham’, thereby claiming originality to a considerable degree. Clearly, the theme of the apologue was known long before it was utilised in this context; the poet’s claim is therefore to the refashioning of the tale in the form of verse, or in a form of verse appropriate to a bardic elegy. Can any evidence be adduced to bear out the possibility that the poet of the elegy did, in fact, fashion the apologue in its original verse form? Two points deserve notice in this connection. First, it is apparent when transliterating the apologue into normal orthography that it employs a more regular rhyme-scheme than one usually finds in heroic verse; this is particularly noticeable in the final couplet of each quatrain. While the rhyme-scheme is by no means strict, it suggests that the poem once served a higher purpose than ordinary narrative. Second, it is clear from BDL itself that heroic themes could be refashioned and used as apologues in bardic verse; the BDL examples further demonstrate that these apologues could be detached to a large extent from their bardic context, and enjoy an independent existence (HP, XV, XVI). The present poem, however, seems to have been considerably more popular in later tradition than either of the other BDL specimens. Such evidence, therefore, falls short of absolute proof that the Conlaoch uirsgéal began its life as a bardic apologue, but it helps to allay scepticism.  On the other hand, we cannot discount the possibility that Giolla Coluim may have done no more than ‘improve’ an existing ballad text, but this would surely have diminished the value of his poem.  If, indeed, Giolla Coluim was the composer of the apologue, its later circulation in Ireland would be an interesting example of a poem of Scottish origin being absorbed by Irish tradition.

A question with some further bearing on the relationship between this poem and Giolla Coluim is that of the relevance of the apologue to the circumstances of the elegy. Angus, son of John II, Lord of the Isles, was murdered at Inverness in 1490 by his Irish harper, Diarmaid Ó Cairbre. At first sight, therefore, the slaying of Conlaoch by his father, Cú Chulainn, appears to be a theme with little bearing on the way in which Angus died. However, it is worth considering the wider field. Angus’s murder was but one symptom of the dissension within the Lordship of the Isles in the period following the first act of forfeiture against the Lordship in 1475. This led to the permanent loss of Kintyre and Ross. Dissatisfaction with John II’s management of the Lordship is evident on the Clan Donald side, and it seems that Angus may have been instrumental in organising opposition to his father. Between 1481 and 1485, there occurred the Battle of Bloody Bay, fought off Mull between Angus and his father, the former having the support of the MacDonald kindred. While Angus seems to have won the battle, there is some evidence of a reconciliation between himself and his father, although Angus based himself in the north with his centre at Inverness (Steer and Bannerman, 110-1; Munro, ‘Lordship’, 32-3). His murder was deeply resented by the Clan Donald, as is evident from the Dean of Knoydart’s aoir on Ó Cairbre, which is also found in BDL (Watson, 96-9). Both the Dean of Knoydart and Giolla Coluim afford considerable status to Angus, describing him as rí or tighearna of Islay (ibid., 84, 96). One wonders whether, in fact, they may have regarded Angus’s murder as part of the wider feud between himself and his father, between the traditional and the conciliatory wings of the Lordship. If so, Giolla Coluim’s use of the Conlaoch uirsgéal may have a greater relevance than has hitherto been realised. It may not be simply a good illustration of deeply felt grief, but a veiled political comment on the circumstances of the murder. Certainly, it could scarcely fail to strike a chord in the minds of those who had witnessed, less than ten years earlier, a bitter struggle between John II and his son Angus, who was now dead.

(2) The relationship between the BDL poem and prose versions of the story:

The story of the killing of Conlaoch by his father, Cú Chulainn, who failed to recognise him when Conlaoch came to Ireland, is also known in a number of prose versions. The earliest of these is ‘Aided Oenfir Aífe’ which is contained in the Yellow Book of Lecan (YBL), and which is to be dated to the later ninth or tenth century (Meyer, Ériu, 1 (1904), 113-21; Van Hamel, 9-15); another version, in TCD MS H.3.17, seems to belong to the Middle Irish period (O’Keeffe, Ériu, 1 (1904), 123-7); while a modern text, collected in 1891 from a Galway source, is accessible (Dottin, RC, XIV (1893), 113-36). On the whole, prose versions appear to be commoner in Ireland than in Gaelic Scotland in the modern period, but in both countries the Conlaoch story tends to occur most frequently as part of a composite biography of Cú Chulainn (Bruford, Gaelic Folk-tales, 93-5). The ballad version may have exerted some influence on the modern prose accounts; in Ireland the ballad is sometimes integrated into the prose biography of Cú Chulainn (ibid.). We may now note points of divergence between the BDL poem and the prose texts, especially the earlier recensions.

(i.) The ballad does not give a detailed account of the conception of Conlaoch. It is only as he lies dying that he tells Cú Chulainn how he was begotten while Cú Chulainn was being taught by Sgáthach (q. 22). In the ballad it is not explicitly claimed that Sgáthach was Conlaoch’s mother, but he states that he was taught feats of arms by his mother (q. 23). In the modern Galway version, the ‘bean múinte’ is said to be Conlaoch’s mother. YBL and H.3.17, on the other hand, make it clear that Conlaoch’s mother was Sgáthach’s sister, Aife, daughter of Ardgeimm.

(ii.) The ballad indicates that Conlaoch comes to Ireland from Dún Sgáthaigh, but it does not state where this was. In both H.3.17 and the Galway version, Cú Chulainn is said to have gone to ‘Alba’ for training. YBL places him in ‘Letha’.

(iii.) There is no mention in the ballad of the ring given to Conlaoch’s mother by Cú Chulainn, so that the son could be recognised by his father. The ring is mentioned in all the prose versions. (Note, however, that reference is made to the ring in some later Irish versions of the poem, such as RIA MS 23 M 2).

(iv.) The ballad gives a very bare account of Conlaoch’s arrival in Ireland (qq. 2-4). Qq. 2-3, apparently telling how the men of Ulster are assembled on a particular plain, occur also in most of the later Scottish versions, but they do not appear on the Irish side. Of the prose texts, only YBL gives a close description of Conlaoch’s games and tricks as he approaches in his boat, with the men of Ulster assembled at Tracht Eisi. H.3.17 locates the Ulstermen at Mag Ene.

(v.) In the ballad, the Ulster hero Conall Cearnach is the first to meet Conlaoch at Conchobhar’s request, and he is immediately trussed up by Conlaoch (qq. 5-7). In YBL, Condere goes to speak to him first and is repulsed. Then Conall goes forward and is humiliated. In H.3.17 Conlaoch defeats Munremar and Dubthach, but there is no mention of Conall. In the Galway version, Conlaoch defeats Conchobhar’s best soldier.

(vi.) The ballad states that, following Conall’s humiliation, a messenger was sent by Conchobhar to Cú Chulainn, who was at that time in Dundalk (where he was normally resident) (q. 8). YSL and H.3.17 place Cú Chulainn directly in the scene of action. According to YBL and the ballad, Eimhear (Cú Chulainn’s wife) tries to prevent her husband from taking part; this detail is omitted in H.3.17 and the Galway version. The latter, however, does record the sending of a messenger to Cú Chulainn.

(vii.) The ballad describes a heated exchange between Conchobhar and Cú Chulainn when the latter arrives. Conchobhar resents the late appearance of Cú Chulainn, and he has to urge him to take action against Conlaoch (qq. 11-13). This episode is not attested in the prose versions.

(viii.) The ballad does not provide details of the combat between Cú Chulainn and Conlaoch, but describes the encounter in fairly general terms (qq. 19-20). YBL tells how Conlaoch thrust Cú Chulainn between two pillar stones, and ducked him twice in the sea, before he was slain by his father. H.3.17 refers to the conflict on land and sea, and like YBL makes it clear Conlaoch was slain by the gai bolga. YBL indicates that Conlaoch had not been trained in the use of the gai bolga by Sgáthach; only Cú Chulainn knew how to use it. The ballad does not refer to the gai bolga, but it states that Conlaoch was killed by tricks which he had not learnt from his mother (q. 23). In the Galway version, Conlaoch is killed by his father’s spear.

The points of divergence noted above are fairly minor, and on the whole, the ballad and the prose versions are remarkably consistent. Some of the differences would appear to be primarily stylistic, with the ballad tending towards concision and economy of narrative. It may be, indeed, that the composer assumed a knowledge of certain details (e.g. the location of Dún Sgáthach, and the giving of the ring) on the part of his audience. On the other hand, the ballad includes certain episodes which heighten tension at crucial points (e.g. the quarrel with Conchobhar prior to the fight) and these are generally missing from the prose versions. It is difficult to know whether such episodes were part of the original story, whether they reflect a different tradition, or whether they were added by the composer of the ballad.

iii. Later versions:  This ballad is found in a considerable number of Scottish Gaelic and Irish versions later than BDL. The evidence suggests that an Irish text-type and a Scottish text-type can be distinguished. The principal features of both types will now be set out, and the relationship of the BDL text(s) to these types will then be discussed.

(a) Irish: The Irish versions normally do not include BDL qq. 1-3, but begin directly with BDL q. 4. They then proceed with several quatrains in which Conchobhar welcomes Conlaoch, and warns him of the serious nature of his errand (Brooke has four such quatrains, RIA MS M 2 has five, and RIA MS 23 L 8 has three). The Irish texts generally correspond fairly closely to the BDL version from this point, with the occasional loss or addition of quatrains) until BDL q. 22. Here the Irish versions insert a sequence of quatrains (varying from nine in Brooke to forty-seven in RIA MS 23 L 8) in which Cú Chulainn identifies his son beyond doubt and/or mourns his death. Cú Chulainn’s grief may be shown in quatrains beginning ‘Truagh sin a aoinfhear Aoife’. This lament could evidently be regarded as an independent poem; it is found independently in McLagan MS 24 on the Scottish side (Thomson, ‘Catalogue’, 195-6), and in Brooke. McLagan MS 24 was obviously obtained by the collector in Ireland, and it would seem probable that Cú Chulainn’s lament was primarily an Irish development, since it is not attested in Scotland in its extended form.

(b) Scottish: The Scottish versions usually retain BDL qq. 1-3, which are absent from the Irish versions. Indeed, the principal Scottish versions of McLagan MS 130, Stone and Gillies (as well as Irvine and MacCallum) are structurally very close to the BDL text. McLagan and Stone’s versions, which are themselves closely related, include qq. 1-24 of the BDL text, preserving the BDL order until BDL q. 18. At the end, they contain one quatrain of lament by Cú Chulainn (corresponding to Brooke q. 25), and two couplets which are not attested in BDL (McLagan and Stone, q. 24 and q. 25 ab, q. 26 cd). Gillies’s version is basically similar, but from q. 22 of MacLagan and Stone, it includes five quatrains which are not attested in McLagan and Stone. Two of these correspond to Brooke qq. 21 and 24, and are from Cú Chulainn’s parting conversation with Conlaoch, giving a total of three quatrains in the Gillies version which are paralleled in Brooke. Gillies also contains one quatrain (q. 25) in which Conlaoch shows his ring to his father. The versions of Irvine and MacCallum have a further quatrain which can be paralleled in Brooke (Irvine q. 28, Brooke q. 26).

It is possible that the quatrains common to the later Scottish versions and to Brooke, but not found in BDL, are to be explained by the influence of Irish texts circulating in Scotland. The fact that the number of these quatrains appears to increase with time suggests that they are a fairly late acquisition to the Scottish texts. There is certainly evidence that distinctively Irish texts were available in Scotland. Nat. Lib. Scot. MS 72.2.15, which was compiled by the poet Alexander MacDonald, contains a text of the poem which is very closely related to that of Brooke. (This was originally Edinburgh MS LXV; see MacKinnon, Catalogue, 175, for the identity of the scribe.) Similarly, Pope of Reay’s version shows features which are usually found on the Irish side, namely the absence of BDL qq. 1-3 and a tail-piece which, although fragmentary, is clearly related to ‘Truagh sin a aoinfhear Aoife’.

Certain Scottish versions (e.g. those of Gillies, Kennedy (2) and MacCallum) may be preceded by prologues explaining the background to the story. Kennedy’s prologue attempts to set it within a ‘Fingalian’ framework of the type constructed by James MacPherson, who made use of the Conlaoch poem, and whose influence is all too apparent in Kennedy’s text of the ballad (Thomson, Gaelic Sources, 48-51). Confusion of the Finn and Ulster Cycles is already in evidence in Pope’s version of the poem.

It has been noted above that the text of the Conlaoch ballad presented in BDL is composite in nature, representing a first draft which was subsequently altered. The first draft of the poem is, on the whole, close to the later versions of McLagan MS 103 and Stone as far as its main structure is concerned. This can be shown with reference to BDL qq. 3 and 4, which occur in the first draft in the order of McLagan and Stone (this being the order of most other Gaelic versions also). The wording of the  first draft is, however, different from that of the later versions at a number of points. This is scarcely surprising in view of the two centuries which separate BDL from the modern versions.

The alterations made by the scribe(s) to the original draft show that they wished to reverse the order of qq. 3 and 4. No later version which has the quatrains in the reverse order seem to be known, and the text being used as a basis for this alteration would now appear to have been idiosyncratic. At the same time as indicating a new order for these quatrains, scribal emendation extends to the cancellation of several words, phrases and letters, and the provision of alternative readings. By no means all of the alternative readings can be paralleled in the later versions, but a few can (e.g.1 b, q. 2 c, q. 3 b, q. 5 b). While the correspondences are nut always precise, they do seem to reflect the influence of a text (or texts) closer in wording to McLagan and Stone than the one on which the original BDL draft was based.

iv. Metre:  The poem is composed in a noticeably stricter form of Deibhidhe than one usually finds in heroic verse. Although rhymes are frequently imperfect, two internal rhymes are generally found in the last couplet of each quatrain, and the rinn: airdrinn pattern of Deibhidhe scaoilte is well maintained throughout. Alliteration is often attested in the lines, but not with the precision or regularity required by Deibhidhe in its full dán díreach style. For the possible significance of the treatment of the metre in this poem, see Section ii (1) above.

v. Line annotation

Ascription:  For some discussion of the person to whom the poem is ascribed, see the Introduction to this volume; see also Section ii (1) above. The MS form Gillcallu’ runs together the two elements in the character’s first name, and represents the modern Sc. G. form of the second element. The form of the ascription differs from what is normally found in the BDL heroic corpus, both in introducing the person without the standard formula A <h->ughdar so or Auctor huius, and in describing the poem as an uirsgéal, ‘famous tale; later, (edifying) story, parable’ (RIA Dict. s.v. airscél). This term is also used to introduce the apologue, which is clearly this piece, in the bardic poem ‘Thánaig adhbhar mo thuirse’; see Section ii (1) above.

2 The restoration of this line follows the original MS reading. The scribe cancelled is coslow rair gow and substituted di vonis re cowe in superscript. The superscript is to be interpreted as do bhuineas rē cumhaidh, ‘which has to do with sorrow’. Watson’s view (SV, p. 278) that the emendation is ‘obviously a blunder’ is overstated, in spite of the unhistorical use of do with the pres. rel. form of the verb. The scribe’s original reading relates the anticipated story more closely to the context of the elegy – ‘which resembles our lament’. The superscript is less specific, and it would appear to mark a stage in the detaching of the apologue from the framework of the elegy. It is also clearly related to the reading of certain Scottish versions; thus Soisgeul a bhuneadh rem chumhuidh (McL MS 130); Soi-sceul a bhuineadh re m’ chuimhne (G).

cosmhail: The MS form coslow probably reflects a dialectal pronunciation such as /kɔsLu/.

3 aithris: Given that sgéal is normally m. in the E. Mod. period, it seems likely that the initial h of the MS form haytris is to be taken as mute. Nevertheless, sgeul is sometimes f. in modern Sc. G., and dha h-aithris might therefore be conceivable here.

4 ’na: This restoration follows the scribe’s original reading na. This was subsequently cancelled, and mir (representing mar, as in HP) was placed in superscript.

5 Clanna Rudhraigh[e]: Clanni rowre MS. If the second element is transliterated is indicated, the line is hypermetric. It seems likely that, as the MS form rowre would suggest, Rudhraighe came to be pronounced as a disyllable; this may have caused clann to gain a syllable to maintain line length. A similar problem arises in 12, where Rudhraighe is required by rhyme. Cf. Clanna Ruaribh (McL MS 130); Clanna Ruraibh (G). The Clann Rudhraighe was an alternative name for the Ulaidh: cf. TBCLL, l. 2581.

6 Chonch[obh]ar: The MS form chonchir would seem to represent a disyllable, although a trisyllable is required by metre, if MS is is taken as ’s; cf. O Thuidh Chonchir s o thuidh Chonuil (McL MS 130, G).

7 The restoration of this line follows the scribe’s original reading. The scribe first wrote Er orle oyg ni wyġ; Er orle was then cancelled, and Di burlow placed in superscript; err was added to oyg above the line with insertion marks indicating its position, and s was written over the n- of ni. The emended line would represent Do b’urlamh óigfhir ’sa mhoigh, which is the basis of the restoration in HP. As originally represented in the MS, and restored in this edition, the line would appear to mean ‘his young men ready in his plain’, perhaps with reference to Conchobhar.

8 go h-urlár: This restoration follows the original MS reading, gow hurlair; gow was then cancelled, and er (representing air, whence ar in HP) was written in superscript. The original reading with go is less readily comprehensible than that with air, perhaps requiring the sense ‘bottom’ rather than ‘level surface’ for urlár (cf. RIA Dict. s.v. airlár) and implying a contrast between the highlands and lowlands of the province. S’ iad ar urlar Chogidh Ulin (McL MS 130, and similarly G).

9 There are clear indications that the scribe wished to switch the order of this quatrain and the next in the first MS draft; lines showing the transposition of the quatrains are placed in the left-hand margin, and in addition, the letter a is placed beside q. 4 and the letter b beside q. 3, both letters being in the normal scribal hand of the MS. This clearly reflects the influence of another version, but no version with the quatrains in the reverse order (i.e. with q. 4 occurring before q. 3) is known to survive.

10 uaisle Eireann: This restoration follows the original MS reading, olsa eirrinn; this was later cancelled, and leichre plus another now illegible word placed immediately after the original phrase; leichre represents laochraidh, whence the reading in HP. On the MS form olsa, cf. XXII, 38 n.

11 eachtra ard: This restoration follows the original MS reading, Eachtre ard; this was deleted at a later stage, and Cath er waall (representing cath air bhall, whence the restoration in HP) was written in superscript. We should probably translate eachtra ard as ‘a noble expedition’, such an expedition usually being in quest of adventure (see RIA Dict. s.v. echtra). Gun a tigidh (or gun tigidh) orn o ana bhall Elldh (McL MS 130); Gar an’ tigeadh oirn a aon bhall eile (G).

12 dār <dhiombuan>: dar ȝy’mone MS. The present restoration of the MS form ȝy’mone follows HP, and it would seem to be the only feasible solution, although it raises difficulties. The meaning of diombuan is normally ‘transitory, impermanent, unsteady’ (RIA Dict. s.v. dimbúan). It is hard to see how the encounter with Conlaoch could have affected the permanence of the Ulaidh, unless, as HP suggests, the reference is to their inability to resist the attacker for a prolonged period. The later Scottish versions agree with McL MS 130, Thoirt Dimbuaidh do Chlan̄a Rhuaribh, where diombuaidh, ‘defeat, discomfiture, disgrace’ (RIA Dict. s.v. dimbúa(i)d) makes good sense in the context of the poem as a whole. The BDL text may be defective at this point.

Clanna Rudhraigh[e]: See 5 n.

13-14 These lines suggest that Conlaoch’s arrival is being viewed from the Scottish side; note thuca, used of the Ulaidh in 13, and the poss. pron. ar which refers to Conlaoch in 14, Conlaoch having been born and brought up in Scotland, according to certain versions of the story (cf Section ii (2) (ii) above).

16 go [h]Éirinn: The MS reading gow errinn does not have any trace of h- prefixed to the second element, although this would be expected.

17 The line is hypermetric as it stands; it may be emended by removing the preverb do, or by taking Conchobhar as a disyllable (cf. 6 n), although the MS form con̄chovir is trisyllabic. Cf. Labhair Connichir re Cach (St.), which has correct length.

18 gheobh<maid-n[e]>: ȝovemy’ MS. On the reconstruction of this verb form, see II, 11 n, and cf. XX, 5 n. Here, the inclusion of the enclitic makes the line hypermetric. But even without the enclitic, the MS reading may derive from a trisyllabic form gheobhamaid.

a’ mhacáimh: This restoration follows the original MS reading, a wakcaive; this was later deleted, and in noigl<e>yt written in superscript. The superscript represents an óglaoich, whence HP. The original reading provides better rhyme with the preceding line; the superscript reading is, however, found in the later Scottish versions; thus thun an og-Laoch (McL MS 130); but a bhuain sgeala on macaomh (23 M 2).

19 <nan>: The suspension mark evident in the MS form ny’ suggests that the form intended by the scribe is the gen. pl. of the article, and that the following noun is therefore regarded as gen. pl.; sgéala is common enough in the nom. and acc. pl. in the sense ‘news, tidings’, although one might expect sgéal as the gen. pl. It is improbable that the MS form skailich represents sgéalacht; cf. MS skailleit, also apparently representing sgéala, in 22. See RIA Dict. s.v. scél.

23 This line refers to the torann-chleas or ‘thunder-feat’ usually performed by heroes in the epic tales (RIA Dict. s.v. torannchless); it probably means ‘after the hero (i.e. Conlaoch) had proved his thunderfeat’, i.e. after he had demonstrated it to Conall.

25-26 These lines as they stand in BDL pose a problem of interpretation: in the present edition, the lámhach is taken to be that of Conall, and it seems likely that we should take gabh…rē in 25 in the sense of either ‘receives, welcomes’ or ‘accepts’ (RIA Dict. 9-V. gaibid, V(f) and (i)), probably the former, meaning that Conlaoch brushed off Conall’s attack, either before or after the latter was trussed up. HP emends the text, following B which has:

Níor sguir an laoch da lámhach
Connlaoch fraochdha forránach

A similar reading is preserved by 23 L 8, and 23 M 2 has the same sense with different wording. The later Scottish versions have been altered in transmission, it would seem, but the evidence suggests that they are closer to the later Irish versions than to BDL. Thus St. and G agree with McL MS 130 which has:

Gresar chugin ar Fir Laochar
Gu Conlach Fraochmhor Furanich

Note that in the present reconstruction of 26, non-lenition of adjs. following the gen. sg. form Conaill is explained by the desire to provide alliteration.

27 dār sluagh: The use of the poss. pron. ar here suggests that the forces of Ireland and Gaelic Scotland are seen as one; contrast 13-14 n.

28 rē aithris: As eangnamh is normally m., it seems that the prefixed h- in the second element of the MS reading ra haytris is to be disregarded in transliteration.

29 [an]: The line requires the insertion of a prep. to complete the idiom with ceann; HP restores to ar cheann, and a form of i, ‘in’, giving the sense ‘to, in the direction of, towards’, would also be feasible (RIA Dict. s.v. cenn, IV, 21, 45). But such an insertion makes the line hypermetric, and HP therefore emends teachdair[e] to teachta, pl. of teacht, ‘messenger, envoy, courier’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 2 techt). The later Scottish versions tend to support teachdair[e] : thus Chuidh Teachdirichd go cian nan Con (McL MS 130); Chuaidh Teachdaireachd gu Ceann na’n Con (St., and similarly G).

na Con: As happens frequently in the E. Mod. period, cú is here regarded as f. rather than m., being m. originally (RIA Dict. s.v.).

30 go h-airdrigh: The restoration follows the original MS reading, gow hardre; gow was subsequently deleted, and woo written in superscript. The original reading implies that Cú Chulainn was the ‘high king’ in question, which is incorrect politically, since Conchobhar was king of Ulster; the superscript, which represents bho (whence ó in HP, makes the identification with Conchobhar, from whom the messenger is to be dispatched. The original reading is defensible, if airdrí is meant purely as honorific in this instance. The later Scottish versions agree with the superscript: thus O Ard-Rhidh Iunidh Ulin (McL MS 130).

34 do dh’aindeoin: di ȝangnowne MS. The reduplication of the prep. in this phrase may account for the line being hypermetric when the unstressed -e is restored to the gen. form nighin[e]; the line may have had d’aindeoin originally; cf. d’aimhdheóin in HP. Note that the MS form ȝangnowne reflects vernacular Sc. G. pronunciation.

Fhoirginn: orginn MS. HP emends the MS reading to Fhorghaill, in accordance with the form of Eimhear’s father’s name in the prose tales (cf. M. Dillon (ed.), Serglige Con Culainn, p. 91, s.v. Forgall), but this emendation breaks the rhyme with the preceding line.

35 tigeas: Teggows MS. This verb form is evidently the 3 sg. pres. indic. of tigim, but it is unusual morphologically, as one would expect tig in E. Mod. Ir. The extra syllable is required by metre. The form may have come about by analogy with pres./fut. forms like cuiris (probably from cuiridh sé); cf. XII, 79 n. The same form is represented by MS teiggows in 38. It is interesting that for 38, McL MS 130 has Tigidh Cuth na Chraomh Thruaidhidh, and similarly G.

saoireach: The scribe originally wrote seir acha, but later deleted acha and wrote rit in superscript, right beside the first element. It seems likely that rit is merely a second attempt at spelling, rather than an alternative reading.

37 D’fhiosruigh[e]: Disryt MS. When the restored form is written in full with historical -e (see RIA Dict. s.v. fisraige), the line becomes hypermetric. HP emends to Do fhios. The later Scottish versions are in agreement with McL MS 130, Do Dfhios na Hula Uainne.

38 tigeas: See 35 n.

Craobhruaidhe: The MS reading creive roye appears to represent the two elements separately, perhaps to be restored as Craoibhe Ruaidhe. This, however, would make the line hypermetric, and a trisyllabic form is required by the metre. For the later Scottish versions, see 35 n.

39 gh[r]uaidh: The MS form ȝoyg apparently omits r as its second letter, perhaps because of the preceding yough which is similar in form, and which may have caused the scribe to overlook the required second letter. The restored form breaks the rhyme with teacht in the next line, and it may replace a more appropriate word; thus HP emends to dhreach, but the BDL reading is supported by the later Scottish versions: is gruaidh mar shubh (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G).

41 The line is hypermetric as it stands, without any obvious solution, unless Conchobhar is to be taken as disyllabic, in spite of the MS evidence; cf. Labhir Conchir ris a choin (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G).

44 ’s: MS is requires to be read as ’s for line length.

46 <chuireadh> air: chwre er MS. It is difficult to accept that the MS form chwre can represent chabhradh as restored in HP; one would expect chawre as the MS form if chabhradh were to be considered. In the context, ‘helping a friend’ seems odd, particularly as Conchobhar has just reproached Cú Chulainn for his slowness in coming to the assistance of Conall. We may consider the idiom cuir air, common in Sc.G. in such phrases as Dè a tha a’ cur ort? (‘What’s bothering/ annoying you?’); cf. O. Ir. cuirid for in the senses ‘grieve, disturb’ (RIA Dict. s.v. 1 cuirid (b)). A meaning such as ‘annoy’ would not be inappropriate here, given Conchobhar’s needling remarks.

47 ní <’n>: See XII, 15 n.

eangnamh lann: ayngnyt(w) a lanni MS. It would appear that for the first element, the scribe initially wrote ayngnow; he then changed the o to yt, and cancelled the final w. It is difficult to know how to construe the following a in the MS. It may belong to the preceding word; otherwise its formal inclusion in the restored text, possibly as a poss. pron., is uncomfortable and makes the line hypermetric.

49 ’na dheaghaidh: na ȝye MS. HP’s restoration ’na aghaidh may be based on a misreading of the MS. Note that dheaghaidh provides better rhyme with the following line. The implication of the phrase is that Cú Chulainn should go to rescue Conall, rather than to fight Conlaoch.

50, 51 In both lines, the presence of the vocative particle appears to add an extra syllable.

53 seanglann: This restoration follows the original MS reading sang<i> lanni; the scribe later cancelled the g of the first element, and wrote n in superscript, which is the basis of seanlann in HP.

54 cuibhreach: HP’s restoration tuireadh appears to be based on a misreading of the MS form Curyt; cf. Re Cuimhnich ar Cuimhrich Chonnil (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G).

55 sé: The pron. is represented in the MS by the last syllable of the form di ȝlossa.

56 bhreith: wraa MS. HP emends to bhuain in the light of B to provide rhyme with ghluais in the preceding line.

58 The line is hypermetric as it stands, requiring the removal of a (< preverb do).

60 dhúthchas: ȝowchis MS. HP reads dhúthaigh, which provides better rhyme with the preceding line. cea do Dhuich (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G).

62 <dh’aoidheadhaibh>: ȝoew MS. The restoration follows HP, but not with confidence. The rhyme requires a disyllable at this point, and the restored form may make the line hypermetric, depending on how one restores the earlier part of it; thus HP reads gan sgéal d’innse d’aoidheadhaibh. If we read MS skaili as sgéala, we should perhaps consider a syncopated dat. pl. form such as aoidhibh. Of the later Scottish versions, the closest to BDL appears to be McL MS 130 do Chuidheadh; cf. do dh’aoidhe (G); do Dhuine (St.).

67 do: The MS form ȝi seems to represent a dialectal variant of the 2 sg. poss. pron. with lenited initial.

68 <ní ciall tadhall fān>: ne gail tyigil vin MS. The restoration follows HP. It gives good sense, and satisfies the internal rhymes normally found in the final couplet of quatrains in this poem. It is to be noted, however, that initial g of the MS form gail could represent eclipsed c-; with v- representing f- in the MS form vin, cf. MS w- evidently representing fh- in XXII, 213 n.

69-70 The restoration of these lines follows the original reading in the MS, which is Achna teqfow er a kenn Inċow aw ni herrin; subsequently the scribe allowed Achna to stand but deleted the remainder of the MS line, writing wea goe dighow nar genn a honchow aw ne herrin in superscript. Following the superscript, the couplet would read in normal orthography:

Ach nā bhiadh go dtig[f]ea ’nar gceann,
a onchú áigh na hEireann

The differences between the two readings are fairly minor: air do c[h]eann would seem to refer to Cú Chulainn’s advance (‘If you were to advance on your way…’), while ’nar gceann underlines Conlaoch’s challenge to come ‘to meet us’; aonchú, ‘outstanding hound’, is replaced by onchú, used frequently of a warrior or hero (RIA Dict. s.v.). In terms of line length, the superscript version of 69 is hypermetric as it stands in the MS, but the superscript version of 70 attests the vocative particle, which is omitted in the original version, and which is required for line length.

69 nā tigfea: Note the Sc. G. form of the conj. na (< dan), followed by the condit.; cf. na bhiadh in superscript, which evidently attests lenition after na, the verb probably being condit. also.

air do c[h]eann: MS a is here taken to represent the reduced form of the 2 sg. poss. pron.; on the apparent non-lenition of c- in the MS form kenn, cf. coilean, XVI, 8 n.

72 The sense of the line would seem to be that Cú Chulainn will learn all about Conlaoch by fighting him.

73 The restoration of this line follows the changes made in superscript by the scribe. The original reading was heymon i’ gonnew chaill, which would seem to represent Théighmi[d]-n[e] an gcoinneamh [a] chéil[e]; the verb form would appear to be 1 pl. pres. indic. (see II, 11 n), and as this fits the context very uncomfortably, it seems possible that it is based on a scribal error. The superscript, which is fully legible only under ultra-violet light, appears to read <hernid dyr> chona in place of heymon in gonnew, which is cancelled. The line would thus mean ‘They turned towards one another’, which gives good sense in the context (see RIA Dict. s.v. térnóidid, térnaigid (a)).

74 The restoration of this line follows the original MS reading. The scribe later deleted ne royġ, and wrote ca in superscript; he also deleted a bantrane, and wrote a banvaill in superscript. Following the superscripts, the line should be restored cá comhrag a b’ainbhféil[e]?, ‘what contest was [ever] more shameless?’ (see RIA Dict. s.v. ainfíal). Note that the original reading is hypermetric, whereas the emended line is the correct length. With the original reading cf. Chum a Chomhrig mar budh treun (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G); with the emended line cf. is ba tearc comhraic dob áidhmhéile (B).

75-6 The restoration of these lines follows the original MS reading. The precise difference between the original reading and the alternative appears to have been slight, and may have involved only an alteration to the opening words A vakcan, although the deletion and superscript extend to daltaŋ. Unfortunately the reading preferred to A vakcan cannot be transcribed or transliterated with certainty; the MS may have either na ma<lc>an or ua ma<lc>an; if the latter, an alternative name for Conlaoch may be involved. It is worth noting that the scribe seems to have had difficulty with the next two words in the superscript itself; for ga tor he may first have written ca/ta for. This may suggest that the source of his emendation could not be deciphered easily.

76 agus daltān: The use of agus here implies that Cú Chulainn himself was wounded in the encounter; this seems probable enough, and there is no great need to emend to ó dhaltán with HP, in spite of the later Scottish versions, which agree with McL MS 130 Le Daltan a Cruaidh Cath bheura. Note that the emendation in HP also loses a syllable in the line.

77 In terms of the development of the poem, this quatrain strikes one as occurring too early in the BDL text, as Conlaoch is not yet dead, and is able to converse with his father. In the later Scottish versions, its couplets are found forming part of the last two quatrains of McL MS 130 and St.

82 n-ailgheas: The MS form naildas may contain a dialectal variant of ailgheas such as aildeas.

84 The meaning of this line as it stands in the MS would appear to be ‘do not go to hide from us’; HP, however, restores the line to ná tairg a fholchadh orom, ‘seek not to hide it [i.e. the name] from me’, which may have been the reading of the poem as originally composed. Cf. S’ na trial dol gallach [=’ga fhalach] Uainn (McL MS 130, and similarly St., G).

dh’fholchainn: The MS form ȝulchin would strictly seem to represent dh’fhulchainn, from a vb. n. fulchainn. The usual form of the vb. n. in question is folach or falach (RIA Dict. s.v. folach); the present form may reflect the influence of fulachtain, a development of fulach, vb. n. of fo-loing, ‘bears, sustains, endures’ (RIA Dict. s.vv.).

86 dhligheach: The MS form ȝleit clearly shows lenition, which is at variance with the m. gender of oighre; the scribe may have been influenced by the normal lenition of the following noun Dhúin.

92 <         >: ȝesse<n> MS. The final letter of the MS form could be u (representing /v/), as is evidently presumed by d’easbhaidh in HP; cf. also XXII, 220 n.  This would imply that the MS represents a dialectal form dh’easaibh; if we follow this interpretation, the line should be restored as bha dh’easbhaidh a bhfoghlaim oirnne (‘we lacked learning in them’, i.e. their use).  If the final letter is indeed n, its use is hard to explain, unless the original word were gessa, ‘taboos’, which acquired a Sc. G. pl. ending, and a lenited initial by scribal error. Could the original line have been something like bhí geasa a bhfoghlaim oirnne, ‘taboos prevented us from learning them’? This would give a better explanation than mere failure to learn the tricks in question. Cf. Budh gheass domh fhaolim om Mhathar (McL MS 130); budh dheas domh fhoghluim o’m Mhathar (St.); Bu dheas damh fhoghlam uaidhe (G).

93 <       >: It has so far proved impossible to provide a convincing transliteration of MS vor <n>aik; the second element could contain éag, but the first element could be interpreted variously. Did the line originally have iar n-éag? See next note.

94 The MS version of this line poses major problems of interpretation and transliteration. As with MS vor <n>aik discussed in the previous note, one suspects that the MS reflects confusion by the scribe or in his exemplar. Any reconstruction of a possible original line must be tentative in the extreme; if we disregard -ne in the MS form vcne, we might suppose that the line was something like a mhic ionraic ’gá choimhéad. This would give the couplet the meaning, ‘Cú Chulainn thought after the death of his faithful son as he guarded him…’ Later versions help little in elucidating the couplet. The nearest to BDL would seem to be Ed. MS LXII which has Daithn’ cc. uo neg a mhac snior (or smor) a choimhed; St. and G agree with McL MS 130 which reads:

Nar Chunig an Cuth ar dol Eug
A Mhac ar Call a Chobheum

95 smuain: The repetition of this verb which occurs at the beginning of the quatrain adds to the general impression of poor textual transmission in the quatrain as a whole. See 93 and 94 n.

96 chéad[f]aidh: The MS form chat<eave> may represent a dialectal variant such as céadaibh; cf. Sc. G. ceutadh, ‘pleasure, elegance’, which may have influenced the MS form.

98 ’s: MS is has to be read as ’s to preserve line length when the second syllable of chumhaidh is restored in the text.

99 The line is hypermetric as restored, without any obvious solution. In the MS itself, an a appears between the last two syllables, but this can scarcely have any independent value; cf. 47 n.

100 gaisgeadhach: The MS form gaisgeit may represent gaisgeach, but the metre requires the earlier trisyllabic form.

101 A chumh[a]: Immediately above the MS form of these words, there appears a gloss Mak swalti which is evidently a later insertion. This clearly represents Mac Subhaltaigh, and HP takes the phrase to signify that the scribe wishes to insert at this point the couplet which is found at the very end of the bardic piece, ‘Thánaig adhbhar mo thuirse’, namely:

[Mac] Subhaltaigh na breith binn
daltan Chathbhaidh is Chonaill

(see Section ii (1) above). This seems feasible, since we then have a complete quatrain, but it must be noted that the end-rhymes in both couplets are unsatisfactory. See also next note.

Do <chuala>: The scribe has repeated the opening words of the piece but there is nevertheless no formal dúnadh, and from this it must be concluded that the work is incomplete (see Section ii (1) above). The fact that the scribe has written Do chuala rather than Thánaig adhbhar in this position indicates further that the apologue was regarded by the scribe as an independent piece when he first wrote it in the MS, in spite of the absence of a dúnadh. Another quatrain occurs in the MS after the completion of the present piece, but this does not appear to have any connection with the preceding item.