Talk:Ferdiad

Untitled

An anonymous editor has requested a quote to verify that Ferdiad was killed with the gae bolga to the anus. Here is is (Cecile O'Rahilly, Táin Bó Cualnge from the Book of Leinster p. 229):

And when Fer Diad heard the mention of the ga bulga, he thrust down the shield to shelter the lower part of his body. Cú Chulainn cast the fine spear from off the palm of this hand over the rim of the shield and over the breast-piece of the horn-skin so that its farther half was visible after it had pierced Fer Diad's heart in his breast. Fer Diad thrust up the shield to protect the upper part of his body but that was help that came too late. The charioteer sent the ga bulga downstream. Cú Chulainn caught it between his toes and made a cast of it at Fer Diad. And the ga bulga went through the strong, thick apron of smelted iron and broke in three the great stone as big as a millstone and entered Fer Diad's body through the anus and filled every joint and limb of him with its barbs.

That do? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I was just checking the online texts ([1] [2]) and was about to self-revert. I didn't know that the texts are available online at first. So I think links to the online texts would prevent future doubts. Otherwise, it does look a lot like the kind of vandalism that is often inserted in otherwise accurate texts.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is another translation:

The gilla set the Gae Bulga down the stream, and Cuchulain caught it in the fork of his foot, and threw the Gae Bulga as far as he could cast underneath at Ferdiad, so that it passed through the strong, thick, iron apron of wrought iron, and broke in three parts the huge, goodly stone the size of a millstone, so that it cut its way through the body's protection into him, till every joint and every limb was filled with its barbs. (English Translation of 1914).

and another

Cu Chulainn grabbed the spear with his foot and thrust it with all his might under Ferdiad's shield, piercing the iron kilt, shattering the belly stone into 3 segments then entering Ferdiad's stomach and spreading througout his body. (The Celtic Encyclopedia)

So I dont think it's quite such cut and dry. Q ^{T C} 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1914 one may well have been influenced by "Victorian" (not literally, of course) puritanism, unlike the more recent academic editions. The Celtic Encyclopaedia text isn't an actual translation but a retelling, as far as I can see. I suspect that many popular retellings would be tempted to mercifully spare the reader this specific detail. :) It seems a 100 times more likely than the probability of a modern academic translator inserting something so crazy into the text without a good reason. As far as I'm concerned, this is as certain as I can get without being able to read Old and Middle Irish.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) O'Rahilly's editions/translations of the two main version of the Táin (published in 1967 and 1976) are regarded as the academic standards. The one I quoted is the Book of Leinster version, and the relevant bit in Irish is co ndechaid dar timthirecht a chuirp, which literally and unambiguously means "so that it went through the anus of his body" - timthirecht is Old/Middle Irish for "anus", as per DIL. The other version, Recension 1, uses the same word. I can only suppose previous translators were sparing the delicate sensibilities of their audience. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably also worth pointing out that the Dictionary of the Irish Language, the only Old/Middle Irish dictionary in existence as far as I know, wasn't completed until 1976, so perhaps earlier translations may not have had the benefit of some of the language's more technical vocabulary, and just made a guess at the meaning of timthirecht from the context. It's primary meaning is "going to and fro", but it is occasionally used to gloss Latin anus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(deleted previous message) Yeah, I was just about to say the same. Makes me wonder what Ciaran Carson did with it. Cavila (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Carson, it "entered the rear portal of Fer Diad's body". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated revisions

@CreativeFlesh93 can you give an argument (for, against or separating the gay interpretation) rather than repeatedly reverting edits. ProfPixels (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I already have done, multiple times. The claim is made that in Cecile O'Rahilly's translation of the Cattle Raid of Cooley Cúchulainn defeats Ferdiadh by piercing his anus with his "mysterious weapon" Gáe Bulg implying that Cúchulainn defeated his opponent by sexually assaulting him. The original text, however, and the translation(s) cited, do not in any way suggest this.

For one, the Gáe Bulg is described as a martial feat, taught to Cúchullain by his master, Scathach; Ferdiad did not possess this feat. So if "mysterious weapon" means what I think the author of this edit means, Ferdiad has no penis....

"Cú Chulainn possessed no feat that Fer Diad had not, except only the feat of the gáe bulga. " Cecile O'Rahilly Táin Bó Cúalnge Recension 1 (https://celt.ucc.ie//published/T301012/index.html) In it you will see there is no suggestion that the murder of Ferdia was a sexual act, and in no way support the editor's implication.

Here is the exact text from the above linked UCC source: ‘Look out for the gaí bulga!’ cried the charioteer and cast it to him downstream. Cú Chulainn caught it between his toes and cast it at Fer Diad into his anus. It was as a single barb it entered but it became twenty-four (in Fer Diad's body). Thereupon Fer Diad lowered his shield. Cú Chulainn struck him with the spear above the shield, and it broke his ribs and pierced Fer Diad's heart.

The interpretation that is now being used as an argument in favour of Ferdiad and Cú Chulainn's romantic relationship case from the book "Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Lore" written in 1998 by Randy P. Connor. He was *not* an expert on Irish mythology and not even an expert on mythology in general. He is a lecturer in LGBT humanities and none of the claims he made have ever been verified by any credible source in mythology. There have been opinion pieces written about it *since* his book came out but to date, the theory has been disregarded as unimportant because it simply comes from Conner's own interpretation of Ferdiad's death and willingly ignores the reason for the closeness in their relationship being that they were raised as brothers.

Now, if people want to theorise that this was removed from Irish myth because of puritan Christian beliefs, then that's another story but that doesn't explain why they were okay to include LGBT characters from every other mythology they documented but not Irish/Celtic mythology. CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop taking it so damn literally. It's subtext. Cú Chulainn killing Fer Diad with a spear up his arse looks very like a bit of clerical homophobia, implying that interpretation of their relationship was not unthought of. And again, the interpretation has been made in the literature and is there to be cited. The fact that you don't like it is not relevant. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is your modern interpretation and would not exist if not for this one person (who is not an expert on mythology let alone Irish mythology) adding it into his book. Again, you accused me of homophobia for no reason. Anyways if this is subtext, I guess you're saying that Láeg, Cú Chulainn's charioteer, gave Cú Chulainn an erection which he then used to rape Ferdiad to death. Very romantic. Definitely suggests they were lovers alright. CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's twice you've accused me of calling you homophobic, when I haven't. You're evidently only here for a fight. I'm out. No further engagement with you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine you want to deny deny but for future reference here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975194029 I'm not here for a fight but I'm going to keep changing this back because there's still zero proof Ferdiad or Cú Chulainn we're bisexual and apparently I'm the only one here who cares about accuracy in Irish mythology. CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're presenting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with WP:UNDUE weight, without explaining that it is not accepted or discussed by mainstream academia. And editwarring to include it in this unexplained unqualified state with the edit summary "revert arbitrary removal of sourced material". On top of that you are WP:FORUMSHOPing around the 'pedia (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad - user persistently removing cited information and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad) begging for help so you don't get blocked for WP:EDITWARring ("I don't want to get involved in an edit war or break 3RR, so somebody else please stop him." and "I can't maintain this alone without risking being called for edit warring or 3RR. Someone, please, lend a hand.") instead of addressing the policy and sourcing issues brought up. A google search for the subject returned nothing but blogs, tumbler, and reddit threads. You have one fringe source who is not an academic working in the field of mythology nor history and you're presenting it in the article as an uncontested interpretation. I do not mind the materiel being included if it is adequately sourced and it explained. You are doing neither. Heiro 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's fringe, or "not accepted or discussed by mainstream academia", then frankly, you are not familiar with mainstream academia. The homoerotic symbolism and subtext of Cú Chulainn and Fer Diad's relationship is taken for granted by modern scholarship. And if you think it's undue weight, you'll be delighted that I've expanded it from one clause and one cite to two sentences and three cites. Your edits, and those of CreativeFlesh93, are entirely destructive and need to be opposed by interested editors. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Was finding those additional sources so fucking hard? All I asked for was a better sourcing and more policy compliance. And knock it off with the borderline WP:NPAs. Asking for policy compliance and better sourcing is not destructive, it's the point of the 5 pillars. Heiro 17:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh fuck off. "All I asked for was a better sourcing and more policy compliance"? No, all you did was delete cited material, blindly and ignorantly, and now you try and passive-aggressively take credit for my work improving the article? If finding those additional sources was so easy, why didn't you find them? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked for other sources. If I had found them I would have added them accordingly. Judging by your additions you have access to physical texts I do not, and have had all along. As the one adding the material the onus is on you to provide them in the first place when other editors point out what you have added isn't policy compliant. I'm not taking credit for your additions. I'm glad you made them. Fucking off now. Heiro 17:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not adding material, I was reverting a destructive editor who was persistently removing material that had been there, added and cited by another editor, since 2017. The onus is on the one who wants to remove it to justify that. Neither you nor CreativeFlesh93 did that. You can't do that and then try and claim you were on the constructive side all along. You weren't. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)