Notes to Poem IV

i. MS Text: The text of this poem occupies p. 50 of the MS. Staining has developed in the margins, and this, together with the effect of a gum overlay, makes certain letters at the ends of lines difficult to retrieve. There is evidence of dittography, and other minor scribal errors are attested, but there is nothing to suggest that more than one version of the poem was available to the compilers of BDL.

ii. General background: The poem is concerned to portray Oisean as the only survivor of the Fian, who can now do no more than reflect on past pleasures and on present afflictions. He passes his time wearily at Oil Finn (Elphin in Co. Roscommon). The incremental catalogue of departed joys, which forms the first part of the poem, and the repetition of the line “Is fada a-nocht a nOil Finn” throughout the second part, succeeds wholly in conveying a mood of nostalgia and tedium.

BDL IV alludes to Oisean’s current occupation – dragging stones (q. 7). These are for the building of Patrick’s church, as another BDL ballad, item VIII, explains. The latter places his predicament in the context of a revolt against Fionn, for which he now pays the penalty.

Like the present poem, BDL VIII locates Oisean in Oil Finn, and this suggests that Elphin was of some significance in the development of the Ossian story in its later stages (cf. DF, III, 121-2).

iii. Later versions: This poem is not attested in Scotland, but it is known in a small number of versions in later Irish tradition, of which the main representative is DF LV. The BDL text differs from the Irish versions at certain points. BDL includes two quatrains (qq. 5, 8) which are not normally found in the Irish texts, as well as one couplet (q. 4 cd). The Irish texts similarly contain material which does not occur in BDL, usually one quatrain (DF q. 6) and one couplet (DF q. 2 cd). BDL, q. 2 cd, is also transposed in the Irish versions, where it corresponds to DF q. 4 cd. There is some minor variation in wording between BDL and the later versions, as is shown below.

The divergences between the BDL text and the more recent Irish versions are explained partly by the nature of the poem. As it lacks a cohesive story-line, and plays on a restricted number of ideas, it would be relatively easy for it to gain and lose quatrains in transmission without any obvious dislocation of the overall structure.

iv. Metre: Rannaigheacht Mhór

v. Line annotation

2 [a-]raoir: The MS form ryir represents the modern Sc. G. pronunciation /rəir'/, but it breaks the rhyme with dé (4). HP therefore restores to aréir.

3 an lá diu: The MS reflects modern Sc. G.; cf. an lá dé (4).

4 fada: The MS appears to have the adj. fada, which has also been used in 3. This involves treating leór as an adv.: “sufficiently long”. The Irish versions have the noun fad: do budh leór fad in laoi ané (DF). On balance, the Irish reading seems preferable, since it contains a more regular use of leór. The BDL reading may derive from an attempt to regularise fada throughout the poem; or it may be that an original fad has been given an additional syllable in anticipation of the following article. It is worth noting further that the final a of the MS form occurs at a point of elision.

6 do cleacht<adh> <d>úinn: The tendency of BDL to represent several unstressed vowels, diphthongs and final syllables by means of a (standing for /ə/) makes it difficult to be sure what tense is preserved by MS di cleachta. HP restores to impf. impers.; the present edition opts for pret. impers., in line with 23 L 34: do cleachtadh dhúinn. In some other Irish versions, it is evident that cleachtadh is treated as a vb. n., and preceded by the past of the copula: thus fa cleachtadh dhúinn (DF).

7 creach: The MS form is ceach, which employs the normal Irish scribal convention of representing vowel + r or r + vowel by means of the vowel in superscript. The expanded form accords perfectly with standard Gaelic orthography.

8 The line lacks a syllable as it stands in the MS. The problem is caused by the loss of unstressed ag (> /ə/ > 0) before a vb. n. which begins with a consonant. This occurs commonly in Sc. G., particularly if ag is preceded by a vowel or vowel sound.

gan: Prior to writing gin in superscript, the scribe has evidently written er, which has then been cancelled. The writing of er does not seem to be dittography or to have been caused by the scribe’s eye slipping to a later line. The form would seem to be the prep. air in the sense “after” (with lenition as in modern Sc. G.). The scribe may possibly have anticipated the general meaning of the line, and made this error accordingly.

<lúith>: dlw<o>t MS. The MS form may be explained in two ways: either (a) the scribe has confused lúth with the adj. dlúth, perhaps thinking of the latter in a military context (cf. close as applied to fighting); or (b) initial dl- attempts to convey broad l (i.e. /L/) in Gaelic. The second possibility seems the more likely.

Professor Ó Maolálaigh comments further:

‘In support of the latter we may note clesa lúith ‘athletics’ (eDIL s.v. lúth); cf. also modern lùth-chleas ‘agility, activity; manly feat, brave deed; athletic exercises’ (Dwelly s.v.). In support of retaining dlúth / dlúith, we may point to cleas dluth in a version of Teanndachd mhòr na Fèinne provided by J. F. Campbell, beginning ‘La do Phadric san Tuir’ (Leabhar na Feinne, 104, §16d) where it refers to a close feat in combat:

11 díoladh: This occurs in superscript in the MS. Previously the scribe had written dea<b>yt which he later cancelled. The cancelled form represents deabhaidh, and is clearly dittography (see 7). Note that the spelling of dea<b>yt is closer to standard Gaelic orthography than deowe (7).

ollamh<an>: The MS form is written ollom with a letter which appears to be w in superscript directly above -m. Presumably this letter is a suspension, perhaps standing for -an (ollamhan (DF etc.)). But w as a contraction or suspension mark cannot be paralleled in normal Irish scribal practice, and its unusual nature may have led the BDL scribe to retain it as it may have occurred in his exemplar. It is also possible that the w is a second attempt to convey the spirant mh which is represented by m without any mark of lenition in the lower line. If so, one might have expected the scribe to cancel the first attempt.

12 gan <fhidhle>: gi’ neilli MS. It is difficult to know what the scribe was trying to convey by eilli. HP restores to gan fhidhchill, and this may well have been the reading of the original poem. If fidhcheall were involved, it is possible that the scribe confused it with fidheall, “a fiddle”, and that eilli reflects a dialectal variant (or a pl.?) of the latter. gan ealadhoin (DF etc.)

14 <ar> n-úidh: The scribe has cancelled his original i’ which presumably may have represented the 3 pl. poss. pron. His second attempt is now illegible. ar súil (DF etc.)

21 The line lacks a syllable as it stands in the MS. This is due to the loss of do (> /ə/ > 0) in the phrase do-ghnáth.

24 As this line occurs regularly as the last line of qq. 5–9, and has already been written in full in the preceding quatrain (20), the scribe writes only the first two words here and in later quatrains.

26 ar beith: This reading is unusual in the light of the Irish versions: a Dhé (DF), which provides aicill with mé in the previous line. It is hard to explain the BDL reading; it is just possible that an original mé in 25 was pronounced as mí with the consequent need to adjust the syllable providing aicill at this point; beith could have been pronounced /b'i:/ for metrical purposes.