Neil McLeod wrote:

> > Cormac íar coraib cen chuibdius
> > ro·adair dia fhelius
> > a lis cían cíarb(o) olc in turus
> > a lot ina leigius
> > 
> > Cormac, after contracts without justification,
> > followed to his (own) vanity/futility
> > his far(-removed) advantage, although the journey was bad,
> > In his healing was his ruin.
> I like 'without justification', that captures what went on nicely.

That's what DIL says.

> What did you mean by the words 'Cormac followed ... his far-removed
> advantage'? I understand that Cormac was working to his own advantage,
> but not why it would be described as far-removed rather than
> immediate. Perhaps 'enduring advantage'?

I simply translated "cían" as "far" and thought that it meant that he 
had to go a long way to reach it.

> Can '2 adraid' mean 'follows' in the sense of 'pursues' rather than
> 'respects'? Perhaps rather 'was devoted to'?

I guess this may be possible, judging by the entries in DIL.

> I am also not sure how you are treating the preposition 'do' here. 'To
> his futility' seems to me to mean 'though it ended in futility'. 

Yes, that's what I meant.

> Of course, one benefit we have here is that we know that the poem is
> telling the story found in the prose version of 'Cath Crinna'. In that
> prose-narrative there isn't any mention of Cormac having been involved
> in a 'bad journey', and it is Tadg who undergoes healing (and is
> 'far-removed' in the Co. Sligo) and Cormac is neither healed nor
> ruined. (And the next stanza launches straight into the way Cormac
> interfered with Tadg's wounds.)

Could there be an error in the transmission of the poem?