BRYNK/1

Corpus Refs:Macalister/1945:380
Nash-Williams/1950:84
Site:BRYNK
Discovery:recognised, 1902 unknown
History:The stone was brought to the attention of Rhys in 1902 by Mr. R. Pritchard Evans, but none of the reports mentioned exactly who first noticed the inscription, which was revealed when the stone was moved. It was possibly the tenant farmer who had moved it, Evan Jones (Rhys/1903, 255--256, see below). All the earliest photographs (e.g. Anon/1903, 289; Rhys/1903, 257) show the stone with the text horizontal at the top, but when Rhys first saw the stone it was set on the present right-hand edge, on which is found the ogham inscription (Rhys/1907, 97). Before publication of the stone, it was moved again and the photographs taken, but the ogham is not visible in these pictures (Rhys/1903, 258). In 1904, during a visit of the Cambrian association (Anon/1904, 149), the `Venerable Archdeacon Thomas' noticed the ogham (Rhys/1907, 97). Rhys managed to visit the stone again in September 1904 by which time it had been moved once more to the farm-house (Rhys/1907, 97).

Rhys/1903, 256: `The stone may be said now to be a gate post, except that there is no gate there; in fact, it forms the end of a hedge where a gate or hurdle might be set up. The farmer found it at a spot not far off, which he showed us; it lay flat with one of its corners protruding inconveniently near a gap in the hedge. So he undertook to remove it, but he was surprised to find it so large and heavy, and when he got it clear he thought it would do for the unsafe position where I saw it, so he had it placed on a sledge and moved thither without any damage, so far as he knows, occuring to it'.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `A large stone was found ca. 1901 embedded by a gateway...and was set up for use as a gatepost. A Latin inscription was noticed, and later, when the stone was moved...for safety and set the right way up, an Ogam inscription became visible'.

Geology:Rhys/1903, 256: `He [the farmer who found the stone] calls the material carreg dn, a `fire-stone', by which he seems to mean a kind of granite which when struck readily yields a spark, but I have had it since on the authority of an expert that it is `a stone of granitic texture, which is to be found in situ in the Bethesda district'.

Macalister/1945, 361: `close-grained granite'.

Dimensions:1.02 x 1.09 x 0.36 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in ground
Location:Llsytyn-Gwyn farmyard; SH 4834 4541 (RCAHMW).
RCAHMW/1960, 95, `The stone now stands in the farmyard of Llystyn-gwyn'.
Form:plain
Rhys/1903, 256--7: `The surface measures parallel to the inscription about 3 feet 6 inches by 3 feet the other way, and in point of thickness thins out from rather more than a foot to 6 inches at the edge farthest from the lettering. As it then stood [after its first move], the writing read downwards, near and parallel to the thickest edge of the stone; the opposite edge was both thinner and more irregular, as if the stone had been longer originally in that direction. The following rough sketch will explain what I mean:

a+----------------------------------------+b

| ICORIFILIVI |

| POTENTI |

| NI |

| |

| |

| |

| |

c+----------------------------------------+d

The edge ab is the thick one and cd the thinner and more irregular, which makes me fancy the stone has been shortened by the breaking off of a piece along cd...There is...no certain sign of [the stone] having been broken off along bd. In fact that edge together with ab and ac seem to me to show, with the exception of a certain breakage near the top of bd, such rounding that one cannot help concluding that it was so, speaking roughly, when the letters were cut and long before.

The later find of ogham on edge bd shows that the stone had not been broken or trimmed along that edge'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 86: `Rough pillar-stone'.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `rough pillar-stone of slab shape'.

Condition:complete , good
Despite odd positioning of the text, the stone is probably complete. It was perhaps inscribed when partly buried.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `Condition: fair'.

Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


BRYNK/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Rhys, J. (1902):ICORIFILIV[.] | POTENTI | NI
Expansion:
IC ORI FILIV F POTENTINI
Translation:
Here is the burial place of Ore (PN), he was the son of Mac Ceithernagh.
Rhys/1903 259 reading only
Rhys, J. (1904):ICORIFILIVF | POTENTI | NI
Expansion:
ICORI FILIV F POTENTINI
Translation:
Icorus (PN), son of the Son of Potentinus (PN).
Rhys/1907 100 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):ICORIFILIVS | POTENTI | NI
Expansion:
ICORI FILIVS POTENTINI
Macalister/1945 361 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):ICORIFILIVS | POTENTI | NI
Expansion:
ICORI(X) FILIVS POTENTINI
Translation:
Icorix (PN), son of Potentinus (PN) (lies here).
Nash-Williams/1950 86 reading only

Notes

Orientation:horizontal
Position:inc ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated
The text is squeezed into the top right hand corner of the stone. That the stone read horizontally is suggested by the placing of the ogham [BRYNK/1/2] on the top right hand arris.

Rhys/1903, 259--260, discusses why the inscription is squashed into the top right hand corner suggesting that it is either because the carver did not lay out the inscription first and misjudged the space required, or that the left portion of the face was covered by another stone when the text was cut. The latter hypothesis was strengthed when the ogham inscription was later found (Rhys/1907, 100).

Incision:pocked
Macalister/1945, 361: `pocked and rubbed'.
Date:500 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Rhys/1903, 259--262, gives a long discussion of this inscription offering several different ways of breaking it down into words, and detailed linguistic comments. This is largely made redundant by the later discovery of the ogham inscription which confirms the reading of the first word as a single name, and the reading of the final letter as a half-uncial S.

Rhys/1907, 100, says, `it is impossible to regard IC as standing here for the Latin hic, as I wrote before seeing the Ogam'.

Palaeography:Rhys/1903, 258: `Now as to the letters themselves they are on the whole fairly well cut, and there is nothing peculiar about their form, excepting that the connecting bar of the first N joins the perpendiculars at some distance from their nearest ends respectively; the result is somwhat of an approach to an H. And I should have said that the other N is considerably wider than the first. There is a difficulty, however, about the reading of the wider N, for the first part of the letter is not clear, owing to the stone being uneven at that point and slightly damaged, probably when it was recently removed to where it is. There is another imperfect letter, namely the last in the first line. It is here represented provisionally as an I, but that is not the reading, as it has a line at right angles to it suggesting the lower bar of an F, but as the top is gone it might just as well be the first portion of a P, or even of an A, excepting that one would hardly expect the first limb of an A to be perpendicular, which is the case here. Unfortunately, the epitaph supplies no A for one to compare, but instances undoubtedly occur of the letter A having its first limb perpendicular or very nearly so. Whatever the imperfect letter was, I see no possibility of reading it as an S of any kind, though that would have completed the word filius and spared us some serious difficulties, among them that of fixing how many letters followed, if any, and which they were. At all events I think that the inscriber must have tried to finish the word following FILI on the edge, so that he cannot have had many letters to write there...When Mr. Evans sent me a facsimile I felt certain that there must have been a line before the one beginning with ICORI, but the first glance at the rounded form of the top of the stone and its thickness showed me how that is utterly impossible'.

Macalister/1945, 362: `The S of FILIVS is half-uncial, and is dropped a little beneath the line to which it belongs. It has an extension upward, running into a natural fracture, which makes it look like an F. The last two letters are below, in a third line: the first upright of the N is injured by flaking'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 86: `Roman capitals, with half uncial s'.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `The top right-hand corner of one face bears the inscription...in Roman capitals with half-uncial S, crowded to the edge of the stone. The last N is disjointed and could be a V with a natural mark to the left'.

Legibility:good
Macalister/1945, 361: `Inscription pocked and rubbed: worn, but otherwise in fair condition...The Roman is a little less certain'.
Lines:3
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References


BRYNK/1/2     Pictures

Readings

Rhys, J. (1904):ICORIGAS
Expansion:
ICORIGAS
Translation:
(Of) Icoris (PN).
Expansion:
ICORIGAS
Translation:
(Of) Icorix (PN).
Rhys/1907 100 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):ICORIGAS
Expansion:
ICORIGAS
Macalister/1945 361 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):ICORIGAS
Expansion:
ICORIGAS
Translation:
(The stone) of Icorix (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 86 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical up
Position:inc ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated
Rhys/1907, 98: `The reason why AC [the left edge] had not been used was probably the same as for crowding the Roman letters into the right top corner. That reason cannot, I think, be other than that more than one-half of the stone must have been covered by other heavy stones before either inscription was carved'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 86: `The Ogam inscription is incised along the upper right-hand angle of the face reading upwards'.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `The ogam...is incised on the right-hand edge, almost interlocking with the Latin'.

Incision:pocked
Macalister/1945, 361: `pocked and rubbed'.
Date:500 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)
Language:name only (ogham)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Rhys/1907, 100: `Some of the vowel notches are indistinct, but there is no serious difficulty as to the reading. It is right to say that the two inscriptions come in one another's way'.
Legibility:good
Macalister/1945, 361: `Inscription pocked and rubbed: worn, but otherwise in fair condition. The Ogham reads...quite clearly'.
Lines:1
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References