INTRODUCTION
MANUSCRIPTS
A The only complete copy of Bechbretha ‘ bee-judgments ’ is found
in H.2.15A pp. 20al9-26a7 (hereafter referred to as A), the oldest
surviving Irish legal manuscript. This manuscript is no. 1316 in the
Abbott and Gwynn Catalogue of the Irish manuscripts in the Library
of Trinity College Dublin. It was published in facsimile by Best and
Thurneysen ( Facsimile of the oldest fragments from MS. H.2.15 ,
Dublin, 1931). It is now in print in D. A. Binchy’s Corpus Juris
Hibernici pp. 423-562; Bechbretha (hereafter BB) is printed at
pp. 444-57 (vol. II).
The first fourteen leaves of H.2.15A (numbered 11-38 in the
manuscript — pp. 1-28 of the facsimile) are in the same hand,
hereafter referred to as the main scribe. Neither his name nor his
dates are known, but it is clear that he worked some time before
1350, the year in which the second glossator Aed mac Aedagain
(Hugh MacEgan) autographed the bottom of pp. 36-7. The manuscript was probably written at a law-school belonging to the
MacEgan family. A commentary in the top margin of p. 14 shows
it to have been present at the MacEgan school of Dun Daighre
(Duniry, Co. Galway) in 1575. It may also have been in a MacEgan
school in Ormond, Co. Tipperary: the fourth glossator gives Loch
Bel Set as an example of a lake in gloss0 to §49. This lake is probably
in the Galtee Mountains, Co. Tipperary — see note to §49.
The hand of the main scribe is clear and uniform, though it is
sometimes difficult to distinguish m from in or ni. He starts each
tract with a large illuminated capital of zoomorphic design. As well
as the first letter of our text, the initial of §42 has been given this
treatment — an error which must go back to the common source of
H.2.15A and H.3.18 (see Legal Introduction p. 31 note1). He uses
smaller capitals, usually illuminated, to indicate the beginning of a
new paragraph. In our edition we have divided the text into
fifty-five paragraphs against his thirty-five. Only once have we
amalgamated two of his paragraphs (§39, where Acht begins a new
paragraph in the MS).
2
INTRODUCTION
He does not give marks of length, nor does he mark lenition of
v and /(except in §49 dfirainn for diraimi). We usually introduce
these marks silently, but where there could be ambiguity we give
the MS reading. He (or a later scholiast) has tried to erase the / of
§42 (24a25) rofoiscet, perhaps to indicate lenition — see note.
He was not a particularly accurate copyist and there are a number
of cases where he drops words or parts of words from the text (these
omissions are usually supplied by later scholiasts). For example, in
§8 (20b20) he drops rosaig, in §11 (21a8) is, in §20 (21b24) crick ,
in §43 (24b3) do fi[u]r (by jumping ahead to the following
dodaetet), in §44 (24b9) the ti of hi tir, in §47 (25a 14) the -tha of
iarmotha, in §48 (25a22) trian, etc. Twice he repeats words through
dittography: §10 (21 al) deolaid and §29 (22b 18) ailes. For similar
copying errors by him in other texts in this MS, see Facsimile ,
Introduction p. x.
His normal method of cancellation is erasure, e.g. §31 (23a6)
conaill with the i erased, §41 (24a 12) bliadana with the second a
erased (for similar erasures elsewhere in the MS, see lla8, 15a5,
17b7, 18b24, etc.). In §5 (20b7) he wrote sil instead of seoil, but
corrected himself by erasing the -il and substituting -eoil. Where
other methods of cancellation are employed, it is probable that later
glossators are responsible. Thus at 21al3 a torad has been cancelled
by putting a dot inside each letter, and in §44 (24b7) dots have been
placed under the ch of rochlamethar . In §26 (22b4) a thin line has
been drawn through the -mu of fomamu (perhaps by the third
glossator, see p. 6 below).
He makes little use of suspensions or contractions and seldom
modernises the Old Irish spelling of the text. Consequently, most
paragraphs can be restored to Old Irish spelling by making a few
minor emendations. In those cases where an Old Irish spelling has
been modernised, it is of course impossible to say whether this has
been done by the main scribe himself, or whether it was already
modernised in his examplar.
The following are the most common scribal modernisations found
in the text:
1. O. Ir. final -i after a palatal consonant usually becomes -e,
e.g. §16 diri (- e MS). O. Ir. final -e after a palatal consonant
occasionally becomes -i, e.g. §46 faithche (-/ MS). O. Ir. final -iu
is usually preserved, but sometimes becomes - e , e.g. §11 suidiu
(-e MS).
INTRODUCTION
3
2. Final -o after a non-palatal consonant always becomes - a ,
e.g. §15 fedo (- a MS). On one occasion the reverse change takes
place: §27 dam (-o MS). Final -u after a non-palatal consonant is
usually preserved, e.g. §§24 smachtu, 33 Ultu, but may become -a,
e.g. §7 smachtu (- a MS).
3. Final ~{a)e and -{a)i almost always become - a , e.g. §§24
techtae (- a MS), 36 tetechtai (- a MS), The only exception is §47
techtai (sic MS).
4. The O. Ir. diphthongs oi ( oe ) and ai ( ae ) are sometimes
preserved, e.g. §§15 soeras , 30 rochaecha, 39 foindil , 49 den-. O. Ir
oi becomes ai in §25 saire, and ui in §§ 4, 5, etc. suire, 23 somuine.
5. Frequently, /-glides are found where they would not be
present in O. Ir. orthography, e.g. §§16 comdiri { coim - MS), 18
derbfine ( deirb - MS), 42 arddnemed ( airdd - MS). In some cases an
/-glide has been written before a consonant which would have been
non-palatal in O. Ir. e.g. §§23 sorche {soirche MS), 49 agi ( aige MS).
Occasionally, /-glides have been put in incorrectly, e.g §§23 folongat
(- loingat MS), 41 bunadach {-aidach MS). After e, /-glides are sometimes omitted, particularly in the case of nom. pi. beich (for which
the MS has eleven cases of bech against four of beich), cf. § §7 foceirt
{-cert MS), 22 co mbeir (- ber MS).
6. O. Ir. nn is sometimes written nd, e.g. §§36 crainn {-nd MS),
37 cenn {-nd MS).
7. Nasalisation of t- is sometimes written dt- e.g. §37 a toraid
{a dtoraid MS).
8. Lenition of c and t is often omitted, e.g. §6 in chethardoit
{cetardoit MS).
9. In the O. Ir. Glosses, the definite article inna is occasionally
shortened to na. As our text was probably written nearly a century
before the Wb. Glosses, we restore the long form in all cases. The
MS preserves the long form only in §13.
10. O. Ir. air- and tair- [<*to-air-] are sometimes changed to
aur- and taur-, e.g. § § 1 taurgillib , 26 taurguille , 34 ciurthuch (but
§§1 tairgille , 45 ciirthiuch ). This change is quite frequent in later MSS
(see 1 OIL s. vv. airaiccecht , airchor , airdliged, airgart , etc. which may
be spelled with aur-). It presumably spread from words with preverbs
air-fo- and air-uss -, which may be written both air- and aur- in O. Ir.
e.g. aurlam, airlam < air-fo-lam {Grammar § 823 A).
11. The O. Ir. superlative ending -am is written -om, e.g. §§1
annsam {-om MS), 2 nescim {-om MS).4
INTRODUCTION
12. The 3 sg. and 3 pi. of deponent verbs have often been
considerably altered from their original O. Ir. forms, e.g. § §5
aithgenatar (- etar MS), 6 aithgenatar {-iter MS), 12 dilsigithir {-igthir
MS), -chuirethar {-ither MS), 34 -lamethar {-iter MS), 37 suidigetar
{-igther MS), 44, 45 suidigethar {-igther MS).
If we are right in dating the text to about the middle of the 7th
century (see p. 13) it is probable that the original had archaic spellings
such as toreth in §17 {torad MS ),fech in §30 {fiaeh MS), odib in §35
{uadaib MS), etc. However, unless there is evidence from glosses or
from other MSS, we do not restore archaic spellings.
First Glossator. The great majority of the glosses in pp. 11-38 of
H.2.15A are in a distinctively spikey and angular hand which has
been identified as that of Lucas 6 Dallain, who worked in the first
half of the 14th century (see Facsimile , Introduction p. x and
Analecta Hibernica x 301 f.). His hand is remarkably uniform but
there are occasional lapses into a more careless scratchy style of
writing, e.g. 21a22 (where he is trying to fit the end of a gloss into a
small space) and 25b9-ll (where he seems to be having trouble with
his pen).
Lucas seems to have made only one correction on the text: the
insertion of trian in §48 (25a22). Most of the marginal commentary
is in his hand and is given in Appendix 1.
For the sake of clarity we restore lenited / and nasalised b , both of
which are frequently omitted in Lucas’s glosses and commentary,
e.g. 48f doir ind eraind = do fir ind feraind, lb na meach = na mbeach.
He sometimes uses/ to indicate nasalised f e.g. 44a i fear and , 46e /
faghabar. He also uses i for ts, e.g. 45e in saithe (glossing in taithi of
the main scribe), 48 d, 49b in sleibe (For confusion of ts and s, see O
Cuiv, Celtiea x 125).
Second Glossator. The second glossator, Aed mac Concubair mac
Aedagain, wrote his autograph on the bottom of pages 36 and 37 on
Christmas Eve 1350 A.D. when he was twenty-one years old. His
death nine years later is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, where he
is described as adbur suadh re breithemhnus ‘ the makings of a master
of law.’ He also wrote his autograph at the end of commentary in
the margin of p. 22 naming his source as Leabnr Dub [ ]. TheINTRODUCTION
5
last word is very faint, and Best ( Facsimile , Introduction p. ix) makes
out . . . artain. The last letters might rather be -gain, suggesting that
his source was Leabur Dub Mic Aegain ‘ The Black Book of
MacEgan.’ No such book is known to have existed, but Keating
refers to Leabhar Ruadh mic Aodhagain ‘ The Red Book of MacEgan ’
( Foras Feasa ar Eirinn , ITS vol. ix p. 26) and Leabhar Breac mic
Aodhagain ‘ The Speckled Book of MacEgan ’ (ibid. pp. 294, 362).
Both these books are lost: the latter is to be distinguished from the
Leabhar Breac , whose earlier name was Leabur Mor Duna Daidhri
‘ The Great Book of Duniry.’
Aed’s hand is variable, ranging from neat and sometimes ornate
(pp. 17-19 bottom margins) to loose and untidy (p. 19 left margin).
His most distinctive letters are g and d. His rather ill-proportioned
g usually has a long top-stroke and the tail of the letter has a small
closed bow which extends well to the right. Typical examples can
be seen in the first line of his commentary on the bottom of p. 18.
His d is usually flat-topped but he frequently uses a form like a Greek
delta. Occasionally the upright of this d is almost vertical, e.g.
p. 20a 19 (gloss) doilig. Also distinctive is the heavy triangular serif
of his b, h and /.
It is probable that it was Aed who inserted do fir in §47 (25al5),
as the cross-stroke of the / is slightly sinuous. He seems to be the
only scribe who uses this type of /in pp. 11-38 of the manuscript,
e.g .faiche at the end of the first line of commentary on the top of p. 25.
In our edition Aed’s glosses and commentary are marked <II>.
Ill Third Glossator. The hand of the third glossator is more
distinctive than that of the second, and is described by Best as ‘ a
beautiful pointed hand, that of a rapid writer [who] never lapses into
carelessness.’ The top-strokes of letters such as g and t usually slope
upwards at an angle of between five and ten degrees, as do /7-strokes
and suspension strokes. The upper stroke of his 5 often loops over
the following letter e.g. p. 20b 13 (right margin) leastar.
This glossator wrote his name Cairbre (a common name among
the MacEgans) on the bottom margin of p. 14. In the Facsimile,
Introduction p. xi, Best tentatively dated his hand to the 15th century.
However, in his Addenda and Corrigenda in Analecta Hibernica x
302 he suggested that Cairbre may have been the son of a MacEgan
called Flann mac Cairbre, who wrote a note on the top margin of
6
INTRODUCTION
p. 191 of the Leabhar Breac in 1514 A. D. If this is so, our Cairbre
lived in the 16th century. Alternatively, he may be the Cairbre Mac
Egan who signed a legal document in 1584 (ed. MacNeill Gaelic
Journal viii 86-9). Unfortunately, this document was destroyed when
the Public Record Office was blown up in 1922, so the signatures can
never be compared. That Cairbre worked later than the second
glossator Aed is proved on p. 25 (top margin) where his commentary
is crammed between the text and a well-spaced commentary by Aed.
As well as glosses and commentary, Cairbre is responsible for a
number of minor corrections to the text itself. Already mentioned
on p. 2 are the insertion of rosaigh in §8 (20b20 right margin) and
dofir in §43 (24b3 above line). Other insertions which we believe to
be by him are the -e of §5 suire (21a27), the -e of §29 sede (22b 17),
the s of §35 dilse (23a24), the ti of §44 hi tir (24b9) and the -ta of
§47 iarmota (25al4). He may be responsible for the marginal
insertion of u in §26 lasambasu (22b2) giving lasambausu. He is also
probably responsible for putting a line through the -mu of fomamu
in §26 (22b4), as the ink-colour seems the same as his marginal gloss
no is rogo. Finally, the erroneous title De Fuillemaib geall (partially
erased) above §42 (24a 19) is in his hand. (In fact the law-tract
Bretha imfuillema gell begins at 28al 1). One can compare the titles
of the other law-tracts De fodlaib cineoil and Di dlig- raith -j somaine
la fl- which he has correctly inserted at 13b 19 and 15a26 (left margin).
Though most of Cairbre’s corrections to the text are indicated
by the context and/or Lucas’s glosses, it is possible that he had access
to another copy of BB , which he collated with A. Thus his glossh
A. toich aslaiet on §39 docoislet may have been taken from another
MS which had the earlier spelling to-choislet ( toich is the regular
‘ etymological ’ gloss on toch-).
In our edition Cairbre’s glosses and commentary are marked <III>.
Fourth Glossator. A number of glosses towards the end of our
text were added by an unidentified scholiast who must have worked
after the third glossator. His hand is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the second glossator, and Best took them to be the
same. However, the order in which certain glosses were written
shows this to be impossible. The clearest example is glossd of §52
(25b 17) where the text has direnar landire which is glossed A. icaidh se
laneneclann by the first glossator. To this the second glossator adds
INTRODUCTION
7
im cetharda , then the third glossator adds a ceathair i ncen -]
letheneclann , and finally this glossator adds A. ceth-e a ncen (which
appears to contradict both previous glosses). Similarly, in glossd of
§53 (25b23) this glossator adds ./. cethr-e a ncen after im cetharda of
the second glossator. Other evidence that this glossator cannot be
identified with the second glossator is provided by §42f (24a25)
where the sense shows that he must have added acht a mbeth isin
crand etc. after the third glossator’s ni dlig sim ni. Likewise, in §45 e
(24b28) the final word amach (written am-ach on two lines) was
obviously fitted in by this glossator after the third glossator’s ona
comichib (glossh).
Glosses which we believe to be by this glossator are marked <TV>.
There are a number of features which distinguish TV’s hand from
that of II. Most characteristic is his frequent use of open-topped a ,
which is not found in II. His a (of both closed and open-topped
variety) almost always finishes with a pronounced tick, rare in II.
His b and / often have an unusually shaped serif (e.g. in the gloss
int isil above 24a23) which is also sometimes discernible in his i. The
second down-stroke of his h curves back to the left (whereas II’s is
generally straight) and the body of his g is squarer. The top of his c
is rounded, whereas II’s is usually pointed. Finally, he uses
abbreviations and suspensions more frequently than II, and his
/n-suspension is shaped like a tilde (^), contrasting with the simple
curve commonly employed by II (e.g. in the commentary on the
bottom margin of p. 22).
As well as glosses, two additions to the text seem to be in his
hand. The first of these is §20 crich (21b24) which has been added in
capitals at the end of a line. Its c and h are more like those of IV
than of any of the other glossators. Secondly, in §21 (22a 1) the
main scribe’s coma has been altered to commaith (see Notes). The
h and the m-suspension seem typical of IV.
The fourth glossator may have worked in a MacEgan school in
Ormond, Co. Tipperary, as he gives Loch Bel Set (probably in the
Galtee Mountains) as an example of a lake in glossc to §49. He
is likely to have lived in the second half of the 16th century.
V Fifth Glossator. Another hand contributed a gloss on §34 of
our text (23al2, both margins). This is the seventh hand which Best
distinguished in this manuscript (fragment I) and he described it as
l
8
INTRODUCTION
‘ an elegant pointed hand ’ (. Facsimile , Introduction p. xi). Outside
our text it is also found in pp. 30a (above the last three lines), 3 1 al 8
(both margins), 34bl Iff; etc. We mark this hand <V>.
There are forty short quotations from BB in H.3.18 pp. 397al398a3 (hereafter B) = CIH 923.17-924.25. This MS is no. 1337 in
the Abbott and Gwynn Catalogue of the Irish manuscripts in the
Library of Trinity College Dublin. It is a collection of fragments,
mainly legal in character, from the 15th and 16th centuries.
The BB quotations are interspersed with glosses and commentary.
The initial of the word or phrase excerpted is usually written in a
small capital (almost always illuminated). In a few cases, however,
the beginning of the quotation is not marked in any way.
The text used by the excerptor seems to have been quite close to
A, though independent. In both MSS the initial of §42 is written
with a large capital as if it were the beginning of a fresh tract (see
Introduction p. 31 note1). In §40 they agree (< oirngne A, oirgne B)
against arafogna H. In §42 they both have doetegar against
doetagear O’Dav., and in §26 they have similar readings ( lasambasu
A, lasmbiasa B) against lasa nasa O’Dav.
Generally, B’s readings are better than those of A, e.g. § §6
ccain B ( chain A), 7 ind noircne B {rind oirggne A), 15 soeras B {-es A),
29 in mbech B {in bech A). On a few occasions, however, A has better
readings, e.g. § §5 seoil A {seol B), 39 coir A {coire B). In the variants
we normally give B’s readings only when they differ from A. For the
complete text of B (text, glosses and commentary) see CIH 923-4.
The glosses and commentary in B are valuable as they are
considerably earlier than those which normally accompany a lawtract. Dr. Binchy has pointed out {Celtica x 72) that most of them
seem to belong to the 9th century. Old Irish features include the
following:
1. The neuter definite article is attested four times. The
examples are §§6C a timgaire, frisa tuisech , 24d a llestar (with which
the neuter anaphoric son agrees), 29 e i (read a) llestar. Elsewhere it
has been replaced by in, e.g. 3d in tairgilli, 17c in tir , 34e in lestar. In
Saltair na Rann (probably composed in the 10th century) there are
only fourteen instances of the neuter definite article.
2. The short neuter nominative plural is probably to be found
in 18a. Here finntiu grian is glossed ./. in domsod i mbid bich .i. aittINTRODUCTION
9
a mbici a lleastar (which we would restore as ./. in domsad i mbicit
beich ./. ditt (or att) i mbiat a llestar) ‘ the abode in which bees are,
i.e. the place in which their hives are.’ As lestar is a neuter o-stem
(cf. 24d, 29e) we take a lle{a)star to be a short nom. pi. and translate
’ their hives.’ We cannot take it to be singular unless we emend the
preceding verbal form a mbid (= O. Ir. i mbiat ) to i mbi. No short
plurals of lestar seem to be recorded elsewhere. Thurneysen
0 Grammar §280.4) takes the nom. pi. lestrai Ml. 101 d4 to be
borrowed from Britannic, cf. Welsh llestr, pi. llestri. On the other
hand, DIL takes lestrai in this instance to be nom. pi. of the collective
lestrae [f. ia].
If we are right in taking 18a le(a)star to be a short plural, this is
evidence that the B glosses were composed in the O. Ir. period, as
such plurals are rare in Mid. Ir. (see Strachan: ‘Middle Irish
Declension’, TPS 1905, p. 19). In 24d, B has acc. pi. lestra , perhaps
emended from an original lestar.
3. The highly problematic gloss 25a (see Notes) has the spelling
ess, which seems to be 3 sg. masc. -neut. of the conjugated preposition
a ‘ out of ’. Thurneysen ( Grammar §436) takes <?s(.s) to be the archaic
form of ass. However, the B glosses can hardly be earlier than the
9th century. The example of es cited by Thurneysen is from §2 of
‘ Finn and the Man in the Tree ’ ( RC xxv 346 = CIH 879.38). This
tale seems to belong to the Class. O. Ir. rather than the archaic
period. Its spelling atecobor ( CIH 879.33) for Class. O. Ir. atacobor
is not sufficient evidence of archaism as later scribes sometimes
substitute -de- (- te -) for the infixed pronoun -da- (- ta- ) as a pseudoarchaism.
We therefore take ess to be a scribal variant of ass influenced by
forms such as 2 sg. essiut , 3 sg. fern, essi, 3 pi. essib. There is also the
possibility that it could be an O. Ir. dialectal form.
4. An O. Ir. date of composition is indicated by 29 e adbela
(perhaps originally atbela), 3 sg. pres. subj. of at-bail{l) ‘ dies ’. In
Mid. Ir. there is a strong tendency for subjunctive stems in -e- to be
replaced by the vocalism of the pres, indie, e.g. 2 sg. pres. subj.
adbala, Anecdota i 7.9.
5. Another early form is 12c fegar, 3 sg. pres, indie, pass, of
fjgid ‘ weaves ’. In Mid. Ir. a passive figtlier with weak conjugation
would be expected.
6. The nasalisation of the adv. etir ‘ at all ’ after the acc. sg.
iarmoracht in 12d would not be expected in Mid. Ir.10
INTRODUCTION
7. The O. Ir. superlative ending survives in 5d gnaithem , but in
7b O. Ir. Siam has been replaced by sirem.
8. In 44e the verbal noun of the substantive vb. has the O. Ir.
spelling buith. In Mid. Ir. the usual spelling is bith , also beith (see
DIL s.v. buith). SR has twenty examples of bith , two of bid, two of
beith, and none of buith.
9. Finally, the occasional use of Latin glosses also indicates
an early date, e.g. 5C in primo anno, 35b similiter (ur) canes -j sues.
The later law-schools seldom use Latin for glossing purposes. Their
main use of Latin is in quotations, often incorrectly transmitted
and full of misspellings.
Even where B does not quote the text of BB its glosses and
commentary can provide evidence towards the reconstruction of
the original. Thus the glosses on §10 alith and cobdailib crich
indicate that the word deolaith may have preceded a saithib in the
original (see Notes).
C Five short quotations in modern spelling are found with
commentary in Egerton 88 f. 8a-c (hereafter C) = CIH 1286-7.
This British Museum manuscript was written by Domnall O’Davoren
and various pupils between 1564 and 1569 (O’Grady: Catalogue of
Irish manuscripts in the British Museum vol. i pp. 85-141). We print
and translate these quotations with their commentary in Appendix 2.
D H.3.17 cols. 430-2 (hereafter D). This 15th- 16th century
composite legal manuscript in Trinity College Dublin (no. 1336)
contains §1, the first five words of §24 and the first seven words of
§46 with commentary on each (partly illegible). In Appendix 3 we
print and translate the legible part of the commentary which follows
§1. We do not print any of the commentary which follows the
quotations from §§24 and 46 as it is very similar to commentary in
A (Appendix 1) and L (Appendix 4). In CIH 1916.36-1917.20 Dr.
Binchy prints §1 and the legible part of its commentary.
E A version of §§30-35 is found in H.2.12 No. 8 (iii) 11. 37-41
(hereafter E), a single leaf of unknown date in Trinity College
Dublin (no. 1308). Some words are illegible. It is printed in CIH
2205.31-39.
INTRODUCTION
II
The same passage is found in H.3.17, p. 435 (CIH 1924.28-36)
and in the Royal Irish Academy manuscript 23 Q 6 p. lb 19-30
(CIH 1140.19-27). The readings of these two MSS (both dating
from the 15th- 16th centuries) are almost identical, so we refer to
them collectively as F. In the variants we give the readings of H.3. 1 7,
as it is the more accurate of the two, e.g. §§32 ri (against rig 23 Q 6),
33 noch asi (against nocho a si 23 Q 6).
It is clear that E and F go back to a common origin, as they agree
in many details against A, e.g. §§31 omission of im chinta beck
EF ; 32 assa flaith A, against asa [ ]mnas E, asa flaitheamhnus F;
34 i suidiu A, against do suidhiudh E, do suidhe F; nad A, -j na(d)
EF. As B gives only two short quotations from the text in §§30-5
it is not possible to determine its relationship to E and F. Thus in
§35 B agrees with EF in having do- (against A’s direnar) and uil-
(against A’s uile), but it omits in fer (present in AEF). The other
quotation (§34 amal mart) is the same in ABEF.
In general the O. Ir. of our text is better preserved in A than in E
or F, e.g. §§30 i suidiu A, a suidiudh E, a suidhe F; a did A, aile EF;
31 caechsite A, caochsat EF. Sometimes, however, A can be corrected
from E and F, e.g. §§31 cetaraced A, cetarug- EF; 33 batair A, -ar
EF; finiu A, feine EF; 34 foruchatatar A, for(f)uachtadar EF.
Where E and F diverge, E’s readings are usually better, e.g. §§30
lestar E, least r- F ; 33 innso E, annsin F ; imbe E, uime F ; 34 naonfir
E, an aonfir F. But occasionally F is superior to E, e.g. §§30 cidbe
E, cip F ; 34 foragar E, forregar F.
The clause ar ni fulaihg nech na deolaith diaraili is quoted from
§10 of our text in Gubretha Caratniad (ZCP xv 319 §12). The only
MS which contains this section of the Gubretha is Rawlinson B 502
(f. 63ra 21 = CIH 2194.3) which Meyer dates to the 12th century in
his introduction to the facsimile p. iv.
A slightly different version of the Heptad quoted in §§39-40 is
found in Rawlinson B 487 f. 62c (hereafter H). It is printed in AL
v 318 and CIH 55.1-6. Eight words, apparently from this version,
occur in Eg. 88 f. 46a (CIH 1402.39).
The first twenty words of the above Heptad are quoted in H.3.17
col. 521 (hereafter J) = CIH 2005.32-4.
12
INTRODUCTION
K The words mad nech nad dam - coir from the above Heptad are
quoted in H.3.18 p. 383a (hereafter K) — CIH 906.24.
L The commentary which we print from H.3.18 p. 425ab in
Appendix 4 (hereafter L) contains some readings which help to
establish the text of §§46-9. ( CIH 959.17-31).
Dav. O’Davoren’s Glossary, written in 1569 A.D., contains four
quotations from BB. These are nos. 1417, 985, 713 and 723 in
Stokes’ edition {ACL ii) corresponding to parts of §§12, 26, 39 and
42 of BB. No. 713 is found in both MSS of O’Dav. (Egerton 88 f.
84e, H.2.15B p. 123 (48) col. a) but the other quotations are from
Eg. 88 only. In H.2.15B, No. 985 is absent and Nos. 723 and 1417
are completely illegible.
We also include in the Appendices some material which does not
contain any quotations or commentary from BB but which provides
further information on the early Irish laws relating to bees. In
Appendix 5 we give a restored text and translation of a short Old
Irish passage on caithchi bech ‘ trespass-penalties of bees ’ (E.3.5
p. 3a, H.3.18 p. 12b). In Appendix 6 we quote with translation an
Old Irish passage on athgabal bech ‘ distraint of bees ’ from ‘ a text
on the forms of distraint ’ edited by Dr. Binchy in Celtica x 72-86.
In Appendix 7 we give for the purposes of comparison some of the
Welsh legal material relating to bees.
We do not give the long and largely irrelevant commentary on
cin bech ‘ injury by bees ’ from E.3.5 pp. 50b-51b {CIH 316.37318.29) as it is adequately translated in AL iii 432-40. (The first
line of this commentary appears also in glossd on §30). We do not
give the portions of commentary in Rawl. B 506 ff. 26ab and 32c
{CIH 105.1 1-36; 120.23-121 .8) as they are close to other commentary,
esp. App. 2 (b)-(h).
LANGUAGE
BB is cast in fairly uniform O. Ir. prose, which does not differ
much from that of the 8th century Wurzburg Glosses. However,
the presence of some early forms and spellings shows that BB is