APPENDIX 7
193
6. Yr heit gyntaf a del o’r
tar6heit, vyth k.k’ a tal.
7. Yr heit gyntaf a del o’r trydcd
heit, pedeir k. heb
ardyrchauel ; a honno ny dyly
heidya6 hyt gwedy A6st, a
honno a elwir asgelleit.
8. Gwerth modrydaf gwenyn :
pedeir ar ugeint a tal.
9. Ac y uelly hyt kalan gayaf y
bydant.
10. O kalan gayaf allan henlleu
uyd pob un a phedeir ar
ugeint y gwerth, eithyr asgelleit :
ny byd henlle6 hyt kalan Mei,
cany wys a uyd by6 hyt yna.
6. The first swarm that comes
from the bull-swarm is
worth 8d.
7. The first swarm that comes
from the third swarm, 4d.
without increment; and it
should not swarm till after
the 1st August, and it is
called a ‘ wing-swarm \
8. The value of a mother of a
hive of bees: it is worth 24d.
9. And thus they remain until
the 1st November.
10. From the 1st November
onwards each one is an old
colony and its value is 24d.,
except for the wing-swarm:
it is not an old colony until
the 1st May, for it is not
known till then whether it
will live.
1. Only G and K use the spelling henlle6 rather than henlleu; even in G and
K henlleu is used in 10 (only in the first clause in G; in both in K). In the earlier
MSS (AE) -eu might stand either for /eu/ or /eu/. D, however, (c. 1400), uses
only -eu, implying /ei/ from earlier /eu/. The fluctuations may perhaps suggest
that the word had become obsolete. 3. karbheit D (see note to §25 s.v.
tarbsaithe ), ail hait K. In the valuations A and E give only Roman numerals;
D writes out the figure and adds ke for keinha6c (Lat. denarius); K gives a figure
in Roman numerals but adds k. for keinha6c; G writes k. for keinha6c and /<’
for kyureith. The opposite of the k.k ’ ‘ legal penny ’ is the ‘ penny without
increment ’ of 7, namely the keinhawc cota of the South Welsh laws. A standard
increment of half the value of current clipped (cwta) coin was added to bring
it up to the legal standard (keinha6c kyureith); see WML 330, Llyfr Co/an §94n.
In the translation 24d. implies 24 legal pennies as opposed to ‘ 24d. without
increment’. 6. Omitted in K; or gar6heit D. 7. yr ail gyntaf K;
trydeded G, trededet A; derkauael A, drychauael E, drychauel K, ardrychauel
D. 8. G omits gwerth. 9. wyl yr holseint D; y byd E. 10. K
omits pob; un. a phet6ar ugein a tal K; eithyr] heityr G, hait or K; kalan]
kan G; hyt yna] not in AEK.
The common error shared by G and K in 10 argues strongly that they derive
from a common exemplar. Both have errors peculiar to themselves so that K,
the later MS, cannot be a copy of G. Admittedly in 7 A and G have a common
error, and in the same sentence G agrees with D in prefixing ar- to dyrchaue//
drychauel. In both these cases G and K disagree. But these variants are of less
weight than the error shared by G and K in 10. The prefixing of ar- in 7 by G
and D falls well within the scope of variation which Welsh scribes readily allowed
194
APPENDIX 7
themselves: it might well arise from independent changes made by G, D or
their exemplars. The same is true of hyt yna in 10, an amplifying phrase probably
added by G, D or their exemplars rather than omitted by AEK. We may,
therefore, discount the evidence for a close relationship between G and D. The
agreement between A and G in 7 ( trydeded G, trededet A) is of rather more
weight. Yet it is an error easily made and easily corrected, and is thus of less
significance than the error shared between G and K in 10. There are therefore,
so far as we can tell, three witnesses: AE (always close to each other), D and GK.
The relationship between lor. I and II may be shown in a table if we number
the sentences (periods) of §135 of Llyfr Iorwerth, and also clauses within sentences
so that guerth kyntheyt, xvi is §135/1/2, i.e. the second clause of the first sentence
or period of §135 :
I
§135/1/1
1/2
1/3
2/1
2/2
2/3
4
2/4
3/1-2
5
The position of §135/4 is peculiar to B; in A and E its position agrees with that
of lor. II (after 2/3), and hence this is probably an innovation in B. On the other
hand the singular verb found in AE in 3/1 (uyd as against B’s vydant; lor.
II uyd pob un) appears to be a shared error since the statement applies to all
the swarms of 1/1-2/2. For lor. I, then, we have two witnesses, AE and B.
The principal differences between the two versions are the absence of a counterpart in lor. I to lor. II 4, and in lor. II the absence of a counterpart to lor. I 5.
The latter is a quotation from a triad and so probably a relatively late addition.
The absence of a counterpart in lor. I to lor. II 4 is more important since it is
connected with the difference between lor. I 2/3 and lor. II 7 :
I II
4. y tryded heit vyth k einha6c kyureith
a tal.
2/3. o deruyd heydyau heyt guedy 7. Yr heit gyntaf a del o’r tryded heit,
Aust, iiii .k’ a tal, a honno a pedeir k einha6c kyureith heb
elwyr asgellheyt. ardyrchauel; a honno ny dyly heidya6
hyt gwedy A6st, a honno a elwir
asgelleit.
lor. I envisages two primary swarms, the kyntheyt and the taruheyt, each of which
may produce, apparently in the same year, a secondary swarm. Ior. II, however,
envisages three primary swarms (cf. BB §§19-21). Each of these may produce a
secondary swarm. In Tor. I the asgellheyt is identified as any swarm which
swarms after August; in Ior. II it is the secondary swarm that derives from
the third primary swarm, and of this it is then said that it should not swarm
until after August.
II
1
o
3
4
5
6
contrast 7
8
9
10 (very different wording).
APPENDIX 7
195
It may well be that lor. II’s identification of the asgellheit with the secondary
swarm that derives from the third primary swarm is merely a consequence of
the method for calculating the values. This can best be shown by a table:
Primary
Secondary
First I
16
12
II
16
12
Second I
12
8
II
12
8
Third II
8
4
If the asgellheit were any swarm that swarmed after August, and if it was valued
at 4d., then a lawyer determined to bring the asgellheit within the scheme of
values set out in the table would be compelled to identify it as the secondary
swarm that derived from the third primary swarm. The further implications of
these differences may be considered once we have the evidence from the South
Welsh versions available for comparison.
The relationships between the South Welsh versions are more complicated
than that between the two versions in MSS of Llyfr Iorwerth. There is one line
of development in the Latin lawbooks and in Llyfr Elegy wryd; a second in
Llyfr Cyfnerth ; and in Latin Redaction E a section appears which occurs nowhere
else. A conspectus will show the situation best. Sentences that occur in Latin
Redaction A are numbered 1-9. Those which occur in other texts but not in
Redaction A are identified by their position compared to sentences in Redaction
A: thus a sentence in Redaction D, but not A, which occurs after a sentence
which, in A, is no. 6 is designated 6a. GwC stands for Aneurin Owen’s Gwentian
Code (from U); WML stands for Welsh Medieval Law, ed. Wade-Evans; the
Latin texts are in LTWL 149-50, 242, 365, 483-4 (for permission to quote from
the late Dr. H. D. Emanuel’s text we are indebted to Mrs. M. H. Davies):
Latin tradition
Llyfr Cyfnerth
A
B
D
Bleg
E
GwC II .xxvii.
WML p.
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
7
5
6
5
5
5
6
5
6
6
6
6a
6a
6a
6a
6b
6b
6b
6b
contrast 10
contrast 21
6C
6C
6C
6C
6d
6d
6d
6e
7
7
7
6
8
8
8
8
7
9
9
9
9
gvwx
11
iqb
APPENDIX 7
Latin tradition
Llyfr Cyfnerth
Qa,
9a
9b
9b
9c
9e
9d
9d
cf. 13
cf. 18
9e
9c
cf. 9
12
9f
9r
cf. 12
cf. 15
The fullest text of the main section is in Redaction D and it is therefore given
here. To it is added the section found only in Redaction E (El-13).
1 . Apum matrix, id est modrydqf ‘ ii solidos valet.
2. Primum examen xvi denarios.
3. Secundum examen xii denarios.
4. Tercium examen viii denarios.
5. Primum examen primi examinis xii denarios.
6. Primum examen secundi examinis viii denarios.
6a. Et in tali precio usque ad festum Omnium Sanctorum manebunt.
6b. Omnia examina de ante Augustum erunt equalis precii usque
post festum Omnium Sanctorum id est, xxiiii denarii.
6C. Si examen post kalendas Augusti exierit, vocabitur illud
asgellheid ;
6d. precium eius usque ad Maium est iiii denarii legales.
6e. Examen quod reperitur postquam descenderit iiii denarii.
7. Apum matrix post primum examen xx denarios valet ;
8. post secundum, xvi denarios;
9. post tercium, xii denarios.
9a. Precium gwenynllestyr ii solid i.
9b. Precium bydaf in nemore habiti ii solidi.
9C. Si furatur, et secatur arbor in qua constat, precium arboris
una cum precio bydaf debet reddi domino terre ;
9d. inventor vero, si domino terre illud monstraverit, iiii denarios
et prandium ab eo habebit, vel totam eius ceram.
9°. Nullum examen valebit plus quam iiii denarios, antequam tribus
diebus sit manens per auram serenam, scilicet, uno die
ad querendum locum, secundo ad removendum, et tercio ad
habitandum.
9f. Qui examen invenerit in terra aliena iiii denarios habebit a
domino terre illius, si ille examen habere voluerit.
APPENDIX 7
197
TRANSLATION
1 . A mother-colony of bees, that is a modrydqf \ is worth 2s.
2. The first swarm, 16d.
3. The second swarm, 12d.
4. The third swarm, 8d.
5. The first swarm from the first swarm, 12d.
6. The first swarm from the second swarm, 8d.
6a. And they shall remain with that value until the Feast of All
Saints (1 Nov.).
6b. All swarms from before [the first of] August shall be of equal
value after the Feast of All Saints, that is 24d.
6C. If a swarm should have departed after the first of August, it
shall be called a wing-swarm;
6d. its value up to [the first of] May is four legal pence.
6e. A swarm that is discovered after it has come down, 4d.
7. A mother-colony of bees is worth 20d. after the first swarm [has
flown];
8. after the second, 16d.;
9. after the third, 12d.
9a. The value of a beehive, 2s.
9b. The value of a colony of wild bees in a wood, 2s.
9C. If it is stolen, and the tree in which it is situated be cut, the value
of the tree, together with the value of the colony of wild bees,
should be given to the owner of the land;
9d. but the finder, if he has shown it to the owner of the land, shall
receive from him 4d. and a dinner, or else all its wax.
9e. No swarm shall be worth more than 4d. before it has survived
for three days of gentle breeze, namely, one day to find a place,
a second to move, and a third to settle.
9f. A man who has found a swarm on someone else’s land shall
have from the owner of the land 4d., if he should wish to keep
the swarm.
REDACTION E
El. Quercus si perforetur causa mellis, pro apericione xxiiii denarii,
pro melle et apibus xxiiii denarii, et pro uno illorum xxiiii
denarii redduntur.
198
APPENDIX 7
2. Si autem fuerit fracta et ad terram furto succisa, x solidi.
3. Qui autem invenerit et domino monstraverit, prandium illo die
et ceram habebit.
4. Si alie arbores sine licencia fuerint occise, de quolibet onere
duorum bourn i denarius reddatur, si non negatur, et regi
camluru.
5. Si autem negatur, sicut fructus debet negari.
6. Si apes hominem occiderint, apes occidantur, et mel pro earum
facto reddatur.
7. Si autem possessor apum, postquam hoc sciat, iterum eas mellificare permiserit, pro galanas omnino respondeat.
8. Si autem heit exiens hominem occiderit, et inveniri non potest,
possessor liber erit, ita tamen quod precium heit legale pro
occiso reddat.
9. Si autem inveniri poterit heit , detur quasi llourud pro eo.
10. Si heit alicuius in arborem alterius hominis intraverit, et
possessor arboris earn recipere non permiserit, licitum est
possessori apum post annum et unum diem suum heit capere,
ita tamen quod mel in duas partes inter eos dividatur.
1 1 . Examina tamen si qua ex arbore exierunt, possessor arboris
non habebit.
12. Si autem possessor examinis attestetur duobus hominibus quod
possessor arboris impedivit eum suum heit accipere, si postea
illud heit de arbore exierit, possessor arboris pro heit respondebit.
13. Nemo debet ponere crucem in arbore alterius propter apes.
TRANSLATION
El. If a cut be made in an oak for the sake of honey, 24d. are paid
for making an opening, for the honey and bees 24d., and for one
of them 24d.
2. If however, it has been broken and secretly cut down to the
ground, 10s.
3. If however, a man has found it and shown it to the owner, he
shall have a dinner that day and the wax.
4. If other trees have been cut without permission, Id. is due for
every load drawn by two oxen, if it is not denied, and a minor
fine (of three cows) to the king.
5. If however, it is denied, then it should be denied in the same
way as fruit.
APPENDIX 7
199
6. If bees should have killed a man, let the bees be killed and honey
given in reparation for their deed.
7. If however, the owner of the bees, when he knows it, should
allow them to make honey again, let him be wholly answerable
for the wergeld.
8. If however, a swarm, on leaving [the hive], has killed a man,
and cannot be found, the owner shall be free from liability,
provided that he pay the legal value of a swarm for the dead
man.
9. If however, a swarm can be found, let it be handed over, like a
guilty person, for him.
10. If anyone’s swarm has entered into another man’s tree, and the
owner of the tree has not allowed him to recover it, it is permissible for the owner of the bees to take possession of his
swarm after a year and a day, provided that the honey be
divided between them into two [equal] shares.
11. But if any swarms should have left the tree, the owner of the
tree shall not have them.
12. If however, the owner of the swarm should attest before two
men that the owner of the tree prevented him from recovering
his swarm, if then that swarm should leave the tree, the owner
of the tree shall be answerable for the swarm.
13. No one should place a cross upon a tree belonging to someone
else on account of bees.
The E tract, as it may be called, is quite different from all the other texts on
bees: the latter, apart from the occasional aside, are concerned with the legal
value, precium legale (E8), of bees according to circumstance; the E tract,
however, consists of rules more closely akin to BB and the other Irish texts.
The concentration of the texts other than the E tract on legal value is put into
clearer relief if their structure is noticed. They consist, for the most part, of a
number of short sequences of connected rules: the values for primary swarms,
those for secondary swarms and so on. They may be tabulated as follows:
Values of
lor. II
Red. D
GwC
A.
Henlleu/ modrydaf
1
1
2
B.
Primary swarms
2-4
2-4
3-5
C.
Secondary swarms
5-7
5-6
(+ asgellheit )
D.
Modrydaf (when not
equivalent to henlleu).
8
E.
Period for which values
9-10
6a-6d
10-11
operative
(+ asgellheit)
200
APPENDIX 7
Values of
Ior. II
Red. D
GwC
F.
Henlleu/ modrydaf after
swarms have left.
7-9
6-8
G.
Gwenynllestyr
Qa,
H.
Bydaf
9b-d
13
I.
Swarm which has not had
9e
9
three days of good weather
since swarming.
(+ asgellheit)
J.
Share accruing to the finder
of a swarm.
9r
12
The core of the texts consists of brief statements of the values of modrydaf,
henlleu and swarms (in GwC only primary swarms). Once we move beyond this
core of information a greater variety of doctrine is at once apparent.
The variety of doctrine outside the core of values may be illustrated by two
examples: the asgellheit and the rules determining how long the values assigned to
swarms are operative. The term asgellheit , ‘ wing-swarm was evidently in
general currency for it occurs in all the main versions. Yet the precise sense
attached to the term, and the position in which it is introduced into the text,
varies from one version to another. The two versions from Gwynedd, admittedly,
both regard the asgellheit as a swarm that has left the hive after the first of August
(Awst is used for kalan Avrst', see Llyfr Blegywryd n. on 55.12); but while lor. I
leaves it at that, lor. II identifies it, as we have seen, as the secondary swarm
from the third primary swarm. In Redaction D (and also Redactions B and E),
the asgellheit is again identified as the swarm that leaves the hive after the first
of August; like lor. I, again, Redaction D knows nothing of a secondary swarm
deriving from a third primary swarm. The versions of Llyfr Cyfnerth differ
among themselves. The version printed by Owen as his Gwentian Code is, apart
from text in square brackets, from U, Peniarth MS 37 (s. XIV1; in the same hand
as the bulk of G). It defines the asgellheit as follows (f. 38r): Asgelleit , pedeir k.
a tal. Sef y6 asgelleit \ heit ny chaff o tri dieu o hinda kyn hoc A6st: dyd y geissa6
lie , cir eil y uuda6 a'r try dyd y orffowys. ‘ The wing-swarm is worth 4d. This is
the wing-swarm, a swarm which cannot get three days of good weather before
August: a day to seek a place, and the second to move and the third to settle ’.
This is not far removed from the line taken by lor. I and Redaction D that the
asgellheit is the swarm that leaves after the 1st August, but that it is different is
confirmed because in essence it is the same as Redaction D 9e with the addition
of the term asgellheit itself. The other version of Llyfr Cyfnerth (V, W, Mk, all
roughly contemporaneous with U) has a rule essentially identical with that of
Redaction D 9e, without any mention of the asgellheit {WML., p. 81.12-15).
It uses the term asgellheit later but only to state in the same terms as those used
by U that the asgellheit does not acquire a value of 24d. until 1st May (cf.
Redaction D 6d). The close agreement between Redaction D and lor. I over the
asgellheit is interesting since it is clear that the Latin tradition took material at
the start from Llyfr Iorwerth (WLW pp. 180-85). It may be that this influence
extended even to influencing a text on bees which might otherwise have resembled
fairly closely the VW version.
The rules governing how long the values assigned to swarms should remain
operative are clear enough in the North Welsh texts but in a state of some
confusion in the southern versions. For the northerners the swarms retain their
values as swarms until the beginning of winter, 1st November. At that point
they all acquire the value of a henlleu, 24d, except, of course, for the asgellheit
which must wait until the 1st May. In effect, the period from 1st August untilAFPIiNDIX 7
20 I
1st November is a testing time to see if (he swarm can establish itself ns a viable
colony; hence, in lor. II it is said of the asgellheit that it does not acquire the
status of a henllcu until 1st May, cany wys a uyd byf> hyt yna , 1 for it is not known
whether it will live until then
There is a quite different doctrine in Llyfr Cyfnerth and in one MS of Llyfr
Blegywryd (\ Peniarth MS. 3X). In MS U of Llyfr Cyfnerth the rule is given
as follows:
Nafiuetdyd kyn A6st pedeir ar ugeint a tal pob licit canys breint modrydaf
a gymer yna. 1 On the ninth day before 1st August every swarm is worth
24d. for it then acquires the status of a modrydaf.'’
In I:
Pedeir ar hugeint a tal pob heit a nabuetyd A6st allan. ‘ Lvery swarm is
worth 24d. from the ninth of August onwards \
In Redaction I) and (he Latin tradition as a whole, including the main MSS
of Llyfr Blegywyrd but excluding Redaction A, which omits this sentence, there
are a number of renderings of what must be a single original text, but which are
not easily intelligible:
6a Lt in tali prccio usque ad festum Omnium Sanctorum rnanebunt.
6b Omnia examina de ante Augustum erunt equalis precii usque post lestum
Omnium Sanctorum, id est, xxiiii denarii.
l or 6b Redaction B has:
I :t qualis precii erunt examina ante Augustum el post festum Omnium
Sanctorum, id est, unurri quodlibet xxiiii denarios valet.
Redaction L differs only in minor details. Lmanuel emended the Red. B text
to read lit equalis precii erunt . . ., but this is hardly enough to make sense. The
difficulty is particularly clear if we consider Llyfr Blegywryd's Welsh rendering
of the Red. I) text:
Ac yn y gwerth hwnnw y bydant hyt Wyl yr llollseint. Pob heit o kyn noc
Awst hyt wedy (iwyl yr llollseint vn werth vydant, nyt amgen pedeir ar
hugeint.
The difficulty lies in the usque of Red. I) 6b, the hyt of Llyfr Blegywryd. If we
delete them, good sense is restored and 6tt and 6b jointly state the same rule as
that in lor. I and II. But this would be too easy a solution. The phrase usque
post may be taken as based upon the familiar usque ad where usque implies
continuity, either in space or time, up to a certain point (cf. also ah usque as in
ah usque principio ‘from the beginning’, Augustine, Conf, xi, 2). One might
then expect usque post to imply continuity, in space or time, from a certain
point. This is, however, precisely what the corresponding Welsh phrase in lor. I
and II implies: <> kalan gayaf allan signifies continuity in time after the 1st of
November. We may then reasonably infer that the unusual phrase usque post
is based partly upon the common usque ad and partly upon the Welsh o . . . allan.
It may well be that the original Latin text was attempting a literal rendering of
a Welsh text. There is, then, no need to delete usque. The hyt of Llyfr B/egywryd ,
however, is simply a misunderstanding of his Latin original. Redactions B and
L must also have misunderstood the original Latin text. By omitting de before
ante they have been compelled to insert et and change equalisjequalia to quads /
qualia in a vain attempt to restore sense.
Behind the textual confusion we have another agreement between the Latin
tradition and the North Welsh versions. In effect the redactor of the Latin
archetype appears to have used a text akin to Llyfr Cyfnerth as his base but to
have emended it where it disageed with lor. I. This suggests that he regarded
202
APPENDIX 7
Llyfr Iorwerth as the more up-to-date text. If we put this conclusion together
with some arguments given in WLW 180-85 we can offer the following stemma
(using Cyfn.1 for the original text of Llyfr Cyfnerth, Cyfn. VW for the descendant
of Cyfn.1 which lies behind MSS V, W and Mk, Lat.1 for the archetype of the
Latin tradition):
Cyfn.1
Ior. I
VW Mk
Lat.
Red. E
The stemma may throw some light on why the Latin texts interpret the term
modrydaf in a way which conforms rather to the North Welsh use of the word
than to their own. The North Welsh versions keep hen/leu ‘ old colony ’ and
modrydaf distinct. Quite reasonably they assign the same value to modrydaf as
to henlleu. If modrydaf means ‘ queen-bee ’ then killing or stealing a modrydaf
will usually destroy the colony (Butler, The World of the Honeybee , p. 56). The
glosses in Redactions A and B suggest that modrydaf meant ‘ queen-bee ’ : A
has mater appium, id est, modredaf; B has modredaf apum, id est, wrach, where
wrach must be gwrach ‘ old woman ’ (cf. Llyfr Blegywryd, note on 55.15). The
etymology of modrydaf also supports the idea that it meant ‘ queen-bee Litis
an old compound, modr- <*modyr <* mater- and -ydaf <-fydaf the lenited
form of bydaf (:Ir. betham ‘ colony of bees ’)• It should, therefore, have had the
original meaning ‘ mother of a colony of bees see E. Phillips, BBCS xxv 119.
In henlleu we appear to have hen ‘ old together with a derivative of the root
*leg~, *logu-. It would therefore, have an original meaning something like ‘ old
settlement This fits very well its use in the North Welsh versions for the hive
from which the swarms originate. We therefore have three sorts of evidence for
concluding that modrydaf means ‘ queen-bee ’ : the way the North Welsh texts
keep modrydaf and henlleu separate, though they are of equal value ; the glosses
in Redactions A and B; the evidence of etymology.
In the South Welsh texts, however, modrydaf occupies the position assigned
to the henlleu in the North Welsh versions. Even though the glosses in Redactions
A and B point to the meaning ‘ queen-bee ’, the position they assign it in their
texts shows that it was equivalent to the North Welsh henlleu. There is no
distinction in them between modrydaf and henlleu : the latter term does not appear.
Redactions A and B, therefore, contain two inconsistent usages: according to
their glosses, modrydaf seems to mean ‘queen-bee’; according to their text it
means ‘ old colony ’ or ‘ parent hive ’. The evidence of the gloss in Redaction B
is particularly important since Redaction A’s mater appium could conceivably
refer to a parent hive, the mother of the swarms. A partial counterpart would
then be provided by Cornish: in Pryce’s Archaeologia Cornu- Britannica
(Sherbourne, 1 790) mam gwenen, literally ‘ mother of bees ’ is given as equivalent
to ‘ a swarm of bees ’. A counterpart to modrydaf in the sense ‘ queen-bee ’ is
APPENDIX 7
203
provided by Aelfric’s Old English Glossary, written in the late tenth century.
He glosses chosdrus vel castros by beomoder ‘ bee-mother \ His source must
be Isidore, Etymologiae, XII, viii, 3: Costros (v. 1. castros) Graeci appellant, qui
in extremis favorum partibus maiores creantur: quos aliqni reges putant. Isidore
himself takes the usual view that queen-bees were kings (XII, viii, 1 : exercitum
et reges habent ), but his quos aliqni reges putant allows room for differences of
opinion. Just such a different view is given by Aelfric’s beomoder which, given
the context of costros in Isidore, is probably a designation of the queen-bee. It
does not matter, for the purposes of this argument, that costros itself is an obscure
glossary word perhaps deriving from a scribal error. Aelfric’s beomoder must
represent a disagreement with the view reported by Isidore’s quos aliqni reges
putant. A further parallel is provided by the Irish Pseudo- Augustine who wrote
his De Mirabilibus Sanctae Scripturae in the 650s, at about the time at which
BB was composed. For him bees provided a natural parallel to the virgin birth
of Christ, for he believed the theory that bees ‘ grew without fathers in the
protection of the maternal body ’ (Migne, Patrologia Latina xxxv col. 2193
(= bk. Ill ch. 2)). He believes then in a mother of bees though he is ignorant
of the function of drones. One may contrast such ancient views as that reported
by Isidore (XII, viii, 1): Has (sc. apes) plerique experti sunt de bourn cadaveribus
nasci. The truth seems to be that in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages there
was considerable variety of opinion. Aristotle, for example, in his Historia
Animalium V, ch. 21 records that ‘ some people call them (the leaders)
“ mothers ”, implying that they produce the young .... Others maintain that
copulation occurs among these insects, and that the drones are male and the
[worker] bees female.’
What the values as a whole demonstrate is that there is at root a single
system of assessment based on 4d. and multiples of that figure. A single system
generally lies behind the sections which assess legal values for animals. If we
assume that these values were intended, in origin, to approximate to a typical
market price, then the date of the valuations can be approximately determined.
The Welsh used English coins and in some cases, such as cattle, the existence of
a trade in cattle into England during the thirteenth century will have kept Welsh
prices more or less in accord with English prices (H. P. R. Finberg, ‘ An early
reference to the Welsh cattle trade’. Agricultural Hist. Rev. ii [1954], 12-14).
These, however, were changing during the period, at least from 1180 until the
time of the earliest MSS in the mid-thirteenth century. The values given generally
correspond very well to English prices towards the beginning of the thirteenth
century. The virtual unanimity of the texts on legal values argues concerted action
by lawyers, perhaps taking advantage of the hegemony of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth,
to bring their values more into line with current prices. It may be significant
that the sections on the value of animals, gwerth gwyllt a dof, ‘ the worth of wild
and tame ’, form an important part of the Text Book, Llyfr Prawf, which is the
portion of Llyfr Iorwerth attributed to Iorwerth ap Madog in a number of MSS,
including C, one of the oldest of them all ( CLP 123-133).
Yet even if the values are the upshot of concerted action in the face of an
inflation that was rapid by medieval standards, the texts must be older than the
thirteenth century, Some of them, at least, must have reached their present
form by the revision of values in pre-existing texts. If this were not so then we
should hardly have the range of textual variation that in fact exists. They would
differ only in the way lor. I differs from lor. II if the texts, as well as the values,
had stemmed from a concerted revision in the early thirteenth century.
204
APPENDIX 7
In their present form, these texts demonstrate one thing above all else: the
economic importance to the bee-keeper of swarms. If we take Red. D’s
information (also in Llyfr Cyfnerth ) on the value of the parent hive after swarms
have left, then events proceed as follows:
value of
value of
value of
parent
swarm1
previous
total
hive
swarms
before 1st swarm:
24d.
—
—
24d.
after 1st swarm:
20d.
16d.
—
36d.
after 2nd swarm:
16d.
12d.
16d.
44d.
after 3rd swarm:
1 2d.
8d.
28d.
48d.
The increase in total value declines by 4d. with each successive swarm. Nevertheless the final total figure of 48d. compares quite well with the 60d. assigned
to an adult milch cow or to an ox. The increase of 100% over the whole period,
taking no account of the honey, is healthy. All these swarms have left the parent
hive by the 1st August; hence the period in question is about three months. If,
then, a bee-keeper had a hive that sent out three swarms before the 1st August
he was handsomely rewarded for his labours. That bee-keeping was widely
spread in Wales during the twelfth century is suggested by the inclusion of mead
as a standard item in the gwestfa, the food-render due from free vills (e.g. Llyfr
Iorwerth §96; honey WML 56.3, GwC II .xxxiv. 1). This is supported by the
evidence of Doomsday Book for parts of the Welsh border. The pressure in
favour of bee-keeping may have relaxed in the thirteenth century as a consequence
of a general commutation of food-renders to money-rents; but its economic
importance in the earlier period is clear enough. As a triad has it: Tri pheth ny
werth tayci6c heb ganhat y argI6yd : march a moch a mel (‘ Three things that a
villein does not sell without the permission of his lord: horse and pig and honey ’)
WML 57.24-58.1.
The short tract to be found only in Redaction E (the E tract) is, as has been
stated already, closer to BB in its scope than the other texts on bees. It may be
divided into three sections: El-5 is concerned with injury to trees committed by
someone seeking bees; E6-9 is concerned with homicide by bees; El 0-1 3 is
concerned with ownership of a swarm and its honey as between the claims of
the owner of the land where they have settled and the owner of the hive from
which they have come. El-5 may be compared with BB §§14-17; E6-9 with BB
§§27-35; El 0-1 3 with BB §§36-45. The E tract’s treatment of the issues is
notably more sketchy than that of BB, especially in E 10-1 3, but there are,
nevertheless, interesting points of comparison.
Unfortunately there is no obvious way to date the text. It is true that the
penalties for injury to trees correspond fairly well to those found in texts of
Cyfraith Hywel (for example, Llyfr Iorwerth §138). This, however, only shows
that there is nothing here to suggest a late date. The practice of placing a cross
to affirm ownership, alluded to in El 3, appears to have gained in popularity in
the fourteenth and fifteenth century (cf. AL1W ii pp. 254, 268, 470, 712-18),
but it goes back to an earlier period {LI. Iorwerth §157.11 ; WML 29.6-7; 143.6-9;
DwC 136, 162, 258). Moreover, the date of Redaction E is itself quite uncertain
(see LTWL p. 82). The text, then, shows only that some lawyer at some date
and place in Medieval Wales, both quite uncertain, interested himself in issues
comparable to those that exercised the author of BB.
1 The value of a swarm in Ireland is given as 12d. in a fragment of a court
roll dated 22nd June, 1401 {Calendar of Ormond Deeds vol. ii p. 253).