It is Grattan Flood's ventures into musical history that are the problem; for all I know, his other historical work may be perfectly ok. The trouble was that he was a devoted patriot who wanted very badly indeed for Ireland to be at the centre of European musical culture, and he devoted enormous effort into researching Irish musical history with a view to proving that it was not only that, but also the source of most of it. Unfortunately, he was quite unable to be objective, and this led to his jumping to all manner of dubious conclusions on threadbare 'evidence' and making many extravagant claims that have since proved to be entirely false.

As something of a pioneer in the field, he was taken seriously by most of his contemporaries and, as a result, mistakes and misrepresentations that he put about still turn up as 'received wisdom' in otherwise respectable reference works. He was largely responsible, for example, for the widespread modern belief that the Irish bellows-blown pipes were originally called 'uilleann' rather than 'union' pipes; extant records suggest that this was mere fantasy, but the idea has now taken root so extensively that it is too late to correct the misapprehension. The book is full of such things; I'd recommend that anyone wanting to understand better some of the myths circulating today about Irish (and other) music read his books; but with plenty of salt to hand.

He is still quoted uncritically by a lot of people who know no better (and, I suspect, by some who do) but there are so many holes in his work that really nothing he wrote on the subject can safely be believed unless it is independently confirmed by verifiable sources. Nowadays he is something of an embarrassment to serious scholars of Irish music; when his A History of Irish Music (1905; third edition, 1913) was reprinted in facsimile in 1970, Dr Seóirse Bodley began his Introduction thus:

'Perhaps the importance of Grattan Flood's "History of Irish Music" lies elsewhere than in its value as a work of reference.'

That says it all, really; but I might also quote from a review of the reprint that appeared in the Times Literary Supplement (19 February 1971):

'One is assailed by a feeling of guilt at being somewhat scornful of the tremendous amount of earnest pioneer work which Flood undertook in writing his History. The unfortunate fact remains that this is highly dangerous literature which can easily corrupt anyone who is not trained to treat every statement of fact with exteme caution.'

And

'That Grattan Flood's book should have been reprinted ... at a time when the first serious research into the subject is just being undertaken by a number of scholars seems either irresponsible, or to show a regrettable lack of awareness of this work on the part of the publishers [New York: Praeger; Shannon: Irish University Press].'

The late Bruce Olson referred more than once to 'Grattan Flood's lies'. I rather think that the man was sincere and really believed what he wrote, however unlikely it may have been; unfortunately, he is still being quoted as an authority by people who simply haven't noticed that scholarship has moved on in the intervening century. This is a perennial problem, of course, whenever traditional music is discussed; and Grattan Flood was far from being the only person whose speculations constantly return to haunt us. He has been, however, one of the greatest sources of misinformation on the subject.

It is no surprise that Wikipedia fails to mention any of this. Wikipedia itself. though it contains much of worth, is, because of the way it is set up, potentially the greatest source of misinformation available anywhere in the world just at present.

None of this has anything at all to do with 'Fortune My Foe'; but you did ask.