APPENDIX 5
Caithchi bech ‘ trespass-penalties of bees There are two MSS of this text,
H.3.18 (our B; CIH 578. 24ff.) and E.3.5 (CIH 196. 18ff.). Thatthetwo MSS are
closely related textually is suggested by four common errors : i for m (footnote 2
below) and their readings for do airlimennaib sin (footnote 5), imid-mbiat (footnote 10) and saith (footnote u). On the other hand, B has omitted about a line and a
half of the text by jumping from one i tri .i. to the next (footnote 8). Otherwise
B preserves older forms better than E.3.5.
The date of the text is difficult to pin down at all closely. Once the usual
scribal modernizations have been peeled away there is nothing to suggest that
this text is not, like similar texts in the same part of B, Old Irish. That it may
belong to the ninth rather than to the eighth century is suggested by the use of
the dependent form of the negative nad in (b) nad n-airlengat and na tuilli : in
the earlier glosses non-relative forms are used when the copula is used to advance
a prepositional phrase but exceptions to this rule appear in the ninth century
( Grammar §506). On this basis we have normalized the text to an O. Ir. standard.
The critical apparatus takes no notice of merely orthographical variations.
(a) Caithchi bech tra, it caithchi fil do suidib1, ni2 tairgille.
(b) Cid fod-era son? Ar it luaimnig3 *] nad fil4 tairgellad foraib -j
fo bith nad n-airlengat uili imalle; ar is do airlimennaib sin5 na
tuilli aithgein na smacht la comaithchiu .i. airlim dia n-airister a
n-erae6 fris. (c) Fo-fechat som tra caithchi conach erassae can icc a
cinad. (d) Di chaithig fil doib .i. caithig dia torud. (e) Co herenar
in chaithig dia torud? Ni anse: amser i coillter in beich, do-beir in
fer ada-gair7 comrac forsin mil sin co tet i llaim gabalae -j fo-gellat
iarum. (f) Is si breth is coir larum imbi: rann na mela i tri 8.i. trian
do aurgnam *] trian do bechaib -] trian do thlr. (g) A trian in tire,
•
ranntar son i tri8 .i. trian de dond fiur beta beich fo blth in tire asa
nderget; in da trian n-aill9 ranntar son iter na ceithri comaithchiu
beta nessam do .i. imid-mbiat10. (h) Mad sclth laisin tomus sin cacha
blladnae fair, do-beir saith11 each comaithig besa nessam.
1 suidiu B, suidhaib E.3.5. 2 i B, i corrected to ni E.3.5. 3 luaimnighe
B, luamnaig E.3.5. 4 na fil B, ni fil E.3.5. 5 do airlimen//a in n sin
B, do eirlimean/7 an/7 sin E.3.5. 6 a nderad B, a nera with d written above
second a E.3.5. 7 atgair B, adhgair E.3.5. 8....8 .i. trian . . . ranntar
son i tri omitted B. 9 in trian naile E.3.5. 10 imeitbiatt B, imbeith
imbiad with second im crossed out E.3.5. 11 saithce B, saiche E.3.5.
APPENDIX 5
TRANSLATION
(a) Trespass-penalties of bees then. Trespass-penalties are
appropriate for them, not a fore-pledge, (b) What is the reason for
that ? Because they are swift and there is no fore-pledging for them
and because they do not all commit ‘ leaping-trespass ’ together;
for it is in respect of those ‘ leaping-trespasses 5 that it does not
entail restitution or fine among neighbours i.e. a ‘ leaping-trespass ’
for which it comes about that they are refused in spite of him.
(c) Yet they commit trespass- offences so that it is not easy [to
decide] who is to pay for their offence, (d) There are two trespasspenalties for them, i.e. a trespass-penalty from their produce,
(e) How is the trespass-penalty from their produce paid? Not
difficult: at the time when the bees are deprived [of their honey],
the man who brings a claim against them causes a confrontation
over that honey so that it (the honey) passes by forcible seizure and
they then submit to judgment, (f) This then is the appropriate
judgment in that case: the honey is divided into three, i.e. a third
goes in respect of care and a third goes in respect of the bees and a
third goes in respect of land, (g) The third belonging to the land is
itself divided into three, i.e. a third of it to the owner of the bees on
account of the land from which they arise; the other two thirds are
divided between the four neighbours nearest to him, i.e. who
surround him. (h) If he does not care for that apportionment every
year at his expense, he gives his fill to each neighbour who is nearest
to him.
DISCUSSION
It has already been observed in the notes to BB that this text takes the opposite
line to the main tract on the issue of how to fit the problems of bees into the
framework of the law of neighbourhood ( comaithches ). If animals do not need
human supervision, but only fences, to restrain them from trespass, a fore-pledge
( tairgille ) is given by each member of a group of neighbours to the others (or
perhaps to his immediate neighbours, those who are nearest). The penalty for
trespass by such animals is called smacht. If the animals do require human
supervision then no fore-pledge is given and the penalty is called a caithig (also
cathach etc.). Faced with the problem of bees BB prefers the framework of
tairgille and smacht, whereas this text, impressed by the absurdity of thinking
that bees may be restrained by fences, prefers the alternative of the caithig even
though this should have implied a ‘ bee-herd ’ who was obliged to restrain them
from trespass.
i88
APPENDIX 5
The first serious difficulty in the text is the clause (b) dia n-airister a n-erae
fris. B has derad but there are no early examples of this word in DIL so we have
preferred the other reading. The addition of -d in E.3.5. may be solely a matter
of scribal preference for the later form erad. The implication appears to be that
the neighbour refuses to permit grazing by the bees on his land and hence they
commit trespass. Fris may refer to the owner of the bees whose interests are
opposed by this refusal to allow grazing.
The neighbour is now entitled to a penalty, a caithig. The bees are supposed
to have trespassed against his will. The verb coil Iter may refer to the process of
extracting honey from the hive (see note to §27 collud). At that point the claimant
causes a confrontation ( comrac ) over the honey. This looks very much like a
technical term for the formal act by which a dispute is brought out into the open.
Similarly teit i //aim gabalae is evidently a technical phrase for a formal seizure.
These are devices by which the claimant can press his claim, presumably before
witnesses, and compel the defendant to submit to judgment. The judgment
itself is interesting. It bears little resemblance to the caithgi in B Comaithchesa,
but is modelled on the kind of division also found in Cain Lanamna §10 (Stud.
E. Ir. Law p. 28). In Cain Lanamna §10 the issue is one of the termination of a
marital union, and, therefore, of dividing the cattle born during the marriage
between the two parties. The cattle born before the marriage still belong to one
or the other of the partners: they are not common property. The division is
similar: | tir, | cethrae, ^ aurgnam. The third due to cethrae is divided according
to the original contributions made by the two parties to the herd; the third due
to the land will normally have gone to the man; and the third due to aurgnam is
assigned according to the extent to which either of the parties has looked after
the cattle. With bees, their owner must get the third of the honey due to them and
also the third due to aurgnam. Because the bees trespass on the neighbours’ land
they receive a portion of the third due to the land. This scheme then appears to
be an adaptation of one that was used in a quite different context. The text implies
that the neighbours are entitled to f of the torad every year; to be contrasted
with this idea is the rule in BB §24 that the gift of a swarm precludes any further
claims to smachta. On the whole BB's solution seems much the more skilful of
the two.
The alternative penalty given at the end of the text is found in BB but in a
different context (§29).