Comhrag Fir Diadh &ersir; Chon Cculainn. Táin Bó Cúailnge

The Fir Diad episode of the Tain Bo Cuailnge has been analysed and discussed by Nettlau in the Revue Celtique X 330 ff., XI 23ff. 318 ff., where several versions are printed and collated by him. But he did not make use of that contained in the Franciscan Convent MS. no. 16, beyond printing the opening and and closing lines (XI 329 ff.). Professor Thurneysen in his masterly paper on the transmission of the Táin (Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie IX 438) having remarked on the need of an edition of this MS. and that of Egerton 106, the following transcript has been undertaken. The MS., a small paper quarto (19 by 14 cm.) of the seventeenth century, has been described by Nettlau (l. c. 326). In addition to the pieces mentioned by him, it contains also poems by Tadhg Dall Ó Huiggin, Eochaidh Ó Heoghusa, Fearflatha Ó Gnímh, Muiris og Mac an Bhaird, Maol Muire Mac Craith, Flann Óg Mac Craith, Conchobar Ruadh Mac Conmidhe, &c. For convenience of comparison I have added the numbers of Nettlau's paragraphs within brackets. The word-division of the MS. has not been strictly adhered to, and punctuation and capitals have been added. The extension of contractions is indicated by italics, but not in every instance, where no real purpose would have been served.

As I found it necessary in the preparation of this text to collate that of H. 2. 12, it seemed to me that it would be useful to append a fresh transcript of this important fragment, especially as Nettlau was obliged to pass over sixteen lines, which in a short visit to Dublin he could not attempt to decipher, and as it was possible also to improve upon several of his readings.This is not included in the CELT edition. This fragment is no. 15 of a miscellaneous collection of loose vellums preserved in a wooden case in Trinity College Library, and marked H. 2. 12. It consists of a single gathering of two leaves (26 by 20 cm), one column to the page, belonging probably to the sixteenth century. The recto of the first leaf has been damaged by water evidently, and is much effaced and stained towards the centre, and also dilapidated. There are several rents and fractures in this portion, round which the membrane has become so fragile as to require the most delicate handling. The letters lost in these rents are indicated here by dots within parentheses ( ). The writing is in places almost entirely effaced, only the faintest white traces remaining, which could not be read at all without the aid of parallel passages in LL and elsewhere, to which Windisch's monumental edition furnished a useful clue. On the other hand, where no such clue was available, the decipherment of passages in reality less illegible had to be abandoned, after many whole mornings were spent in the attempt. As it is, I hope I have set down nothing that is mere guess-work, that cannot be verified with some patience by others.

Neither MS. can be said to be very good. From the wrong division of words it is apparent that the scribe of F did not always understand what he was copying, nor have I always succeeded. There are several obscure passages in both versions. For unravelling some of these I have to thank my friend Dr. O. J. Bergin, who was almost always ready with fruitful suggestions when appealed to. Some difficulties, however, still remain to be cleared up.

Perhaps, in such late manuscripts it would have been more consistent with the orthography of the period to extend the tall e, and the symbols for en, er, ed as ea, ean, ear, ead. In the often recurring name Fer Diad, the symbol has been silently extended Fer, italics being used in both versions only in the oblique cases. In H. 2. 12 the symbol for ar has often a slight hook over the a; it is not clear whether the scribe intends it always for air, but I have so extended it, following Nettlau.

My thanks are due to the Rev. Fr. O'Reilly, Librarian of the Franciscan Convent, and to the Librarians of Trinity College, for the facilities so kindly afforded me when transcribing the manuscripts.