Irish bee

Ferocious Irish Bees, the Book Of Aicill, and the Origins of Money
In The Origins of Money (Philip Grierson. Research in Economic Anthropology,
Vol. 1, 1978, pp. 1-35), Grierson, in discussing the origin of monetary values, noted
that monetary pre-existed market economies and that monetary values were well-
attested as existing in “customary” and “command” pre-market societies. He stated
that “[i]n such societies [monetary values] provided a scale for evaluating personal
injuries in the institution which the Anglo-Saxons termed the wergild, and it is in
this institution that the origin of money as a standard of value must, I believe, be
sought. The practice of wergild, that of paying a compensation primarily for the
killing of a man but the term by extension covering compensations for injuries to
himself or his family and household, is most familiar to us in its Indo-European
setting” (p.12). Grierson proffers various supporting evidence for this thesis, but
one linguistic and one quite trivial and ancillary struck my fancy.
Grierson’s linguistic argument presents concisely and rather convincingly the
connection between monetary value and its compensatory use in its opening
paragraph:
“Our best approach to the problem is through the testimony of language, often the
most revealing key to the structure of early societies. It has naturally not been
neglected by writers on early money. Everyone is familiar with the connection of
pecunia and pecus – this was known to the Romans themselves – of fee and O.E.
feoh, cow (mod. Germ. Vieh), of the derivation of shilling and rouble (rubl’) from
verbs meaning to cut (skilja, rupit’. i.e., pierces of precious metal), of the
relationship of talent, lira, and pound with the process of weighing metal. What we
are concerned with, however, are not particular units but the notion of money in
general and how it was first used. Much of our own vocabulary is borrowed from
Latin by way of French and is not relevant to Germanic antiquities, though one may
note in passing that pay comes through Fr. Payer from Lat. pacare “to pacify” ‘to
make peace with,” and that behind the idea of appeasing your creditor lies the
more revealing pacere, to come to terms with the injured party. Si membrum
rupsit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto, “If a limb is injured, unless peace is made with
him (i.e., with the injured party, by paying compensation), there shall be
retaliation,” was the Roman doctrine, as set out in the Law of the Twelve Tables”
(footnotes removed, pp. 15-16).

After exploring his linguistic argument, Grierson noted that it might be difficult to
generalize from the available “compensatory law codes” for the pre-market
Germanic, Celtic and Russian societies to other early pre-market Indo-European
societies but he noted that the available codes provide an extraordinary wealth of
detail. In this regard, he noted that the compilers of the codes “sometimes seem to
be trying to provide for every contingency, of however improbable a nature.” “The
other is their occasional frivolity, for some of their provisions, especially in the
Celtic codes, must have been inserted more or less in fun. How else can one
explain … the responsa of Cormac Mac Art and Cennfaeladh in the Book of Aicill
providing compensations for bee stings – Irish bees were apparently of unexampled
ferocity – but allowing a deduction of the value of a bee from the compensation if
the bee was killed by the injured party? Clearly such provisions were not meant to
be taken seriously” (p 17).
The unexampled ferocity of Irish bees had me immediately scampering to find out
more about the Book of Aicill, its authors, and precisely what it said about Irish
bees and how their attacks were to be compensated. Having examined the Book of
Aicill, I would disagree that frivolity was intended. Either the section was intended
in earnest or was intended as an example of how an arbiter should reason through
similar, but perhaps more serious, injuries. For here is just part of what the pages
dedicated to the ferocious Irish bees said:
Injuries in the case of bees. That is, a hive is the fine for the blinding, and two hives for the
killing of a person; and a book mentions the hive for the blinding, and it does not mention two
hives for the killing; but as there is twice the 'eric’-fine due from a person for killing a person
that there is for blinding him, it is right from this, that it is twice the 'eric'-fine which is due from
a bee for blinding him that should be due for killing him. A man's full meal of honey is the fine
for drawing blood; a fifth of the full meal for an injury which leaves a lump, three-fourths of it
for a white blow which leaves a sinew in pain, or green, or swollen, or red; if it be one or two of
these injuries that are present, it (the penalty) is one-fifth with half one-fifth; one-fifth only for his
natural white wound. A hive is the fine for the death-maim necessitating the removal of a limb,
but if there be no removal of a limb, it (the fine) is a hive, less one-seventh; two-thirds of it for a
‘cumhal’-maim; one-third of it for a tent-wound of six 'seds'; one-sixth or one-seventh part is to
be added to it for the tent-wound of seven 'seds.'
From the owners of the bees these fines are due for the persons. What shall be due from the
persons for the bees? If the person has killed the bee while blinding him or inflicting a wound

on him until it reaches bleeding, a proportion of the full meal of honey equal to the 'eric’-fine
for the wound shall be remitted in the case; the remainder is to be paid by the owner of the bee
to the person injured. If the person killed the bee while inflicting a white wound upon him, they
(the fines) shall be set off against each other. If the person killed the bee while inflicting a lump-
wound on him, four-fifths of the fine shall be remitted, and one-fifth paid. If it was while
inflicting a white wound which left a sinew under pain, or green, or swollen, or red, he killed the
bee, three-fifths of the fine are to be remitted, and two-fifths paid. If it was while inflicting one or
two of them (the wounds) he killed the bee, half one-fifth is to be remitted, and one-fifth paid.
From the owners of the bees these fines are due for the persons, and from the persons for the
bees. What shall be due from the owners of the bees for the animals injured, and from the
owners of the animals for the bees? If the bee has blinded or killed the animal, what shall be the
fine for it? The proportion which the hive that is due from the owners of the bees bears to the
fine for their blinding the person, or which the two hives that are due for their killing him bear
to the natural body-fine of the person, is the proportion which the full natural dire-fine of the
animal shall bear to that fine which shall be due from the bee for blinding or killing it (the
animal). One-half of what is due for killing it is due for blinding it, or inflicting a death maim
which necessitates the removal of a limb; if there be no removal of a limb, it (the fine) is one-
half, less half one fifth, if it be a quadruple animal; or one-half, less the half of one-half, if it be
an animal of double. Two-thirds of this are due for a 'cumhal’-maim; one-third for a tent wound
of six 'seds’; and an equivalent of a sixth or seventh part is to be added to it for a tent- wound of
seven 'seds,' over and above what shall be due for the tent-wound of six 'seds.'
What shall be due from a bee for making the animal bleed? The proportion which the full meal
of honey that is due from a bee for making a person bleed bears to the hive that is due from it
for killing him, is the proportion which the 'eric'-fine for blinding or killing the animal bears to
that which will be due from a bee for making it bleed, i.e. four-fifths is the proportion for its
lump-wound, three-fifths for its white wound which leaves a sinew in pain, or green, or swollen,
or red. If it be one or two of them that are inflicted, it (the fine) is two-fifths and half one-fifth.
Two-fifths is the proportion for a natural white wound. From the owners of the bees these fines
are due for the animals. What shall be due from the owners of animals for the bees? If the
animal killed the bee while in the act of blinding it, or killing it, or inflicting a wound upon it
until it reaches bleeding, a proportion of the ‘eric'-fine for the wound equal to a full meal of
honey shall be remitted, and the remainder shall be paid by the owner of the bee to the owner
of the animal. If it was while in the act of causing the animal to bleed it (the animal) killed the
bee, they i.e. the bleeding of the animal and the killing of the bee, shall be set off against each
other; or else, indeed, according to others, the difference which is between causing a person to

bleed and causing an animal to bleed is the difference that shall be paid by the owner of the
animal to the owner of the bee. If it was while inflicting a lump-wound on it the bee was killed,
four-fifths shall be remitted, and one-fifth, the difference, paid. If it was while inflicting a white
wound which left a sinew in pain, or green, or swollen, or red, the bee was killed, three fifths
shall be remitted, and two-fifths, for the difference, paid. If the bee was killed while inflicting
one or two of them (the wounds), two-fifths and a half shall be remitted, and two-fifths and a
half, for the difference, paid. If the bee was killed while inflicting a natural white wound on it
(the animal), one fifth shall be remitted, and four-fifths, for the difference, paid.
If there were many gardens, or if there were many bees, lots are to be cast to discover from
which garden the injury was done; and when it shall have been discovered, if there were many
possessions in that garden, lots are to be cast on them till the particular possession be discovered
from which the injury was done; and when it shall have been discovered, if there were many
hives' in that possession, lots are to be cast upon them until the particular hive from which the
injury was done shall have been discovered. And the reason why this is done is, that a bad hive
may not be given in place of a good hive, or that a good hive may not be given in place of a bad
hive; but that the very hive from which the injury was done may go for the injury. If it was
intentionally or inadvertently in unlawful anger the person killed the bee, a man's full meal of
honey shall be given as compensation, and four full meals as dire-fine. If it was inadvertently in
lawful anger he killed the bee, a man's full meal of honey is given as compensation, and two full
meals as dire-fine. If it was through unnecessary profit he killed the bee, only a full meal of
honey is given as compensation. This is due from the bees of a native freeman for a person; the
half thereof from the bees of a stranger; a fourth of it from the bees of a foreigner; there is
nothing due from the bees of a daer-person, until it reaches sick maintenance or compensation,
or, according to others, even when it does. From the bees of a native freeman this is due for a
person; four-sevenths thereof from the bees of a stranger; two-sevenths and one-fourteenth from
the bees of a foreigner; there is nothing due from the bees of a daer-person, until it reaches sick
maintenance or compensation, or, according to others, even when it does. From the bees of a
native freeman this is due for a cow; the half thereof from the bees of a stranger; a fourth of it
from the bees of a foreigner; and there is nothing from the bees of a daer-person until it reaches
sick maintenance or compensation, or, according to others, even when it does. From the bees of
a native freeman this is due for a horse; half thereof from the bees of a stranger; a fourth of it
from the bees of a foreigner; and there is nothing due from the bees of a daer-person until it
reaches sick maintenance or compensation, or, according to others, even when it does. From
the bees of a native freeman this is due; a fourth thereof from the bees of a stranger; a half and a
seventh from the bees of a foreigner; an exact half from the bees of a daer person (Ancient

Laws of Ireland, Vol. III, Dublin, 1873, pp. 443-441).
Laurence Ginnell (Laurence Ginnell. The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook . T.
Fisher Unwin, London, 1894), provides a colorful, even if antiquated background,
for both The Book of Aicill and its authors:
The whole of the Book of Aicill is composed of the opinions or placita of two
eminent men, illustrious in law and in other respects: The first was King Cormac
mac Airt , otherwise called Cormac ua Cuinn; the second was Cennfaeladh the
Learned. Cormac was one of the most deservedly celebrated of the monarchs of
ancient Erinn. He was Ard-Rig from A.D. 227 until 266 (according to others from
218 until 260). He was, as his names signify, the son of Art and the grandson of
Conn of the Hundred Battles, both monarchs of Erinn, and he was the father of
Cairbre who may be said to have succeeded him, the very short reign of Eochaidh
alone intervening. He was also the father of Grainne, celebrated in the Fenian
poetry of Oisin and his contemporaries. In youth he was violent enough, perhaps
unscrupulous in pursuit of power; but his subsequent life proved that his ambition
rose from the solid basis of ability to rule men; and to this extent, as also by the use
he made of power when acquired, he justified himself. He was a great reformer of
the national institutions of his time, civil and military, including the Feis of Tara;
and most of the traces of its former greatness now existing at Tara are attributed to
his time. Consistently with his reforming spirit, he was a great patron of literature,
art, and industry, the first of whose patronage we have undoubted evidence. He
either wrote himself or procured the writing of several works on law, history, and
other important subjects. Some of these works on subjects other than law were still
extant so late as the seventeenth century, but appear to have been since destroyed
or lost. Among the useful things for which the country was indebted to Cormac was
the introduction of the water-mill. He had the first mill erected on a small stream
on the slope of Tara. He was a man in many respects far in advance of his time.
Though living long before Saint Patrick's arrival, and king of a pagan nation, there is
reason for thinking that he was a believer in Christianity before his death. He at all
events ceased to believe in the pagan gods.
….
According to one Gaelic authority Cormac was the author of the text of the Book
of Aicill throughout, and Cennfaeladh afterwards modified and commented on the
whole of it, besides adding some of the case law which had grown up in the interval.