CALDY/1

Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:94
Macalister/1945:427
Nash-Williams/1950:301(a)
RCAHMW/1925:94
Site:CALDY
Discovery:non-arch dig, 1810 workmen
History:The stone was visited by Rhys on Aug. 20 1873 where he read the inscription, noted the ogham, and also commented that one corner of the stone was already loose (Rhys/1873, 7).

Westwood/1879, 106: `the discovery of an inscribed slab of stone, dug up in the ruins of the priory, subsequently used as a window-sill, and which, in 1810, was found in Mr. Kynaston's garden (Fenton's Pembrokeshire, p. 458), for an excellent rubbing of which I am indebted to Mr. Mason of Tenby. And it is here proper to remark upon the value of these rubbings, since Mr. Mason informs us that during the short period which has elapsed since the rubbing was made the stone itself has been rendered much less legible than it then was, from exposure to weather since its removal to its present position, having been built into the wall of the chapel on the suggestion of the Rev. Mr. Graves' (Repeated from Westwood/1855b).

Macalister/1945, 405: `[the stone was ]dug up in the priory grounds some time before 1811...Used for a time as a window-lintel; then as a garden seat; and finally clamped against the inside face of the restored priory chapel, where it is now, at the E. end of the N. side of the nave'.

Geology:Westwood/1879, 106: `red sandstone'.
Dimensions:1.73 x 0.41 x 0.1 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in display
Location:on site
Macalister/1945, 405: `it is now, at the the E. end of the N. side of the nave'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 182: ` Inside the Priory church, at E. end of nave on N. side'.

Dark/1992c, 32--33, states the stone remains inside the church.

Form:cross-marked
Westwood/1879, 106, `the stone is a red sandstone, 5 3/4 feet high and 16 inches wide, the top of the incised cross reaches to the top of the stone, and with the inscription itself occupies three feet of the upper part, leaving the remaining lower portion plain, apparently for the purpose of being affixed in the earth similar to the head-stone of a modern grave.' (Repeated from Westwood/1855b.)
Condition:incomplete , good
Macalister/1945, 405: `The top of the stone has been trimmed away'.
Folklore:none
Crosses:1: latin; linear; straight; bifid; plain; none; none; none; n/a
2: latin; linear; straight; bifid; plain; none; none; none; n/a
3: latin; linear; straight; bifid; plain; none; none; none; n/a
4: latin; linear; straight; bifid; plain; none; none; none; n/a
Decorations:

Westwood/1876, 106--107: `...the top of the incised cross reaches to the top of the stone, and with the inscription itself occupies three feet of the upper part...Its Christian character is at once shown by the plain Latin cross, a foot in height, incised on its upper portion. The extremities of the two limbs of the cross, which remain perfect, are dilated and somewhat furcate. The simple plainness of this cross offers a remarkable contrast with the usual style in which this sacred emblem is represented, the most elaborate interlaced patterns being ordinarily employed upon it in stones contemporary with the one before us' (Repeated from Westwood/1855b).

RCAHMW/1925, 40, is the only publication to show the cross on the back of the stone (Fig. 80).

Macalister/1945, 405: `...and on each of the four sides a plain two-line cross with expanding ends. These crosses are doubtless a later addition: they were cut when the stone was prostrate, and the carver stood at the upper end when making the cross on the sinister side, so that this cross is upside-down when the stone stands erect'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 180--182: `The face of the stone bears a large well-cut linear Latin cross (incomplete), with slightly splayed terminals (Fig. 6, 8), placed centrally at the top... A Latin cross similar to that in front, but smaller (Fig. 6, 1), is incised on each of the other faces'.

References


Inscriptions


CALDY/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):MAGL[I]DUBAR ||| [--] ||| [--]QI
Expansion:
MAGL[I]DUBAR [--]QI
Macalister/1945 405--406 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):MAGL[--]DUBR[--] ||| [--]INB
Expansion:
MAGL[IA] DUBR[ACUNAS MAQI] [--]INB
Translation:
(The stone) of Maglia-Dubracunas (PN), son of [--].
Nash-Williams/1950 180 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical up along down
Position:n/a ; arris ; mixed ; undivided
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `The Ogam inscription (incomplete) is incised along both angles of the face (? and originally across the top), reading upwards on l. and downwards on r'.
Incision:inc
Date:400 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)
Language:Incomplete Information (ogham)
Ling. Notes:Westwood/1879, 108: `He [Rhys], however, considers that the Latin inscription on the stone is a continuation of the Celtic one, in consequence of the former commencing with the word et, although `those who believe the Celtic method of writing to have been exclusively pre-Christian will have other accounts to give of this matter'. In his Lectures he however reads the Ogham as MAGOLITE BAR---CENE (List of Inscriptions, Pembrokeshire, No. 78)'.
Palaeography:When Rhys visited the stone in 1873 he was unable to read the Ogham as the stone was set into a wall (Rhys/1873, 11).

Westwood/1879, 108: `On the upper left hand of my figure will be seen six short oblique strokes which have proved to be Oghams, as noticed by the late Rev. H. Longueville Jones (Arch. Camb., 1869, p. 262); and Professor Rhys (ibid., 1874, p. 19), who has examined the stone more recently, found traces of Oghams all round the upper part of the stone, but as it is fixed in a wall he could make but little of it'.

Macalister/1945, 405: `Rhys's restoration is very probable; MAGLI-DUBARCUNAS, followed by MAQI and a name ending in QI (not NI). These two letters, on the sinister angle, terminate the inscription'.

Legibility:some
Macalister/1945, 405, speaks only of `relics of a much broken Ogham inscription'.
Lines:1
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References


CALDY/1/2     Pictures

Readings

Westwood, J.O. (1855):{*}SINGNOCR | UCISINILLAM | FINGSIROGO | OMNIBUSAM | MULANTIBUS | IBIEXORENT | PROANIMA | CATUCONI
Expansion:
& SINGNO CRUCIS IN ILLAM FINGSI ROGO OMNIBUS AMMULANTIBUS IBI EXORENT PRO ANIMA CATUCONI
Westwood/1855b 258--261 reading only
Westwood/1876 107 reading only
Rhys, J. (1873):E/TSINGNOCR | UCISI{N}ILLAM | FINGSIROGO | OMNIBUSAM | MULANTIBUS | IBIEXORENT | PROANIMA | CATUOCONI
Expansion:
ET SINGNO CRUCIS IN ILLAM FINGSI ROGO OMNIBUS AMMULANTIBUS IBI EXORENT PRO ANIMA CATUOCONI
Translation:
And I made it with the sign of the cross on it: I ask all who walk here that they pray for the soul of Cadwgan (PN).
Rhys/1873 7 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):{*}SINGNOCR | UCISI{N}ILLAM | FINGSIROGO | OMNIBUSAM | MULANTIBUS | IBIEXORENT | PROANIMA/E | CATUOCONI
Expansion:
ET SINGNO CRUCIS IN ILLAM FINGSI ROGO OMNIBUS AMMULANTIBUS IBI EXORENT PRO ANIMAE CATUOCONI
Macalister/1945 406-407 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):E/TSINGNOCR | UCISI{N}ILLAM | FINGSIROGO | OMNIBUSAM | MULANTIBUS | IBIEXORENT | PROANIMA/E | CATUOCONI
Expansion:
ET SIGNO CRUCIS IN ILLAM FINXI ROGO OMNIBUS AMBULANTIBUS IBI EXORENT PRO ANIMAE CATUOCONI
Translation:
And by the sign of the Cross (which) I have fashioned upon that (stone) I ask all who walk there that they pray for the soul of Catuoconus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 180--182 reading only

Notes

Orientation:horizontal
Position:n/a ; broad ; below cross ; undivided
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Below [the cross] is a Latin inscription in eight lines reading horizontally'.
Incision:ind
Date:600 - 899 (Westwood/1876)
Westwood/1879, 107--108: `Independent of the form of the cross, the formula, orthography, and c. of the inscription and the name of the person commemorated therein, and the locality of the stone itself, we have its palaeographical peculiarities to assist us in arriving at the age of the inscription; and from these I do not hesitate to consider this stone to be not more recent than the ninth, and possibly as old as the seventh century' (Repeated from Westwood/1855b).
800 - 833 (Nash-Williams/1950)

700 - 799 (Jackson/1953)
Jackson/1953, 291: `eighth century', and in note 2: `The lettering is not likely to be later than the eighth century. (Nash Williams now writes, 30th November 1950: `Epigraphically, this stone might easily go back into the eighth century. I dated it early ninth because the formula used is attested for that period. But it might have been in use earlier'.'
Language:Latin (rbook)
Ling. Notes:Rhys/1873, 7, suggests that the `et' with which the Latin inscription begins implies that it was a continuation of the Ogham inscription.

Westwood/1879, 107: `Notwithstanding the conjunction `Et' at the commencement of the inscription, which might be supposed to indicate it to be the continuation of a paragraph commenced on the other side of the stone, I am inclined to think, from the evident faults both grammatical and orthographical in the inscription, that we have before us the whole, and that the meaning of the introductory formula is an entreaty, to all passers-by, in the name both (et) of the Cross itself and of Him who was fixed thereon, to pray for the soul of Catuoconus. The word `fingsi' (finxi), it is true, might be supposed to allude to a figure of the Saviour sculptured on the cross, as in one or two rare instances in other parts of Wales, as at Llangan, but this stone bears the plain cross, and cannot therefore be supposed to have been surmounted by a sculptured crucifix. We have before us also a very early instance of the supplication of prayers for the soul of the deceased, and the word employed for that purpose, `exorent,' is a very unusual one in these Welsh inscriptions. This branch of the subject offers interesting material for enquiry in connexion with the question of the age of the inscription itself' (Repeated from Westwood/1855b).

Macalister/1945, 406--409: `But the sense of the inscription, owing to its illiterate Latinity, is not easy to grasp, and calls for more detailed discussion than the rest...The latter part, from rogo onward, is fairly easy, the only difficulty being the sense ascribed to ibi. Is it a mistake for hic, `here'? Or does it mean what it says, `there'? Remembering that the stone came from an island, within sight of the mainland, we can understand how to the dwellers on the island, `there' would become a natural expression for `the mainland'...one who wished for prayers might well express the hope that all those who came on pilgrimage to the island, and who returning `walked over there' (as he expressed it in bad Latin), should not forget him: and, moreover, that they should carry out the duty fervently, which presumably is what he meant by ex-orent.

As to singno crucis in illam fingsi, we must understand illam as referring to the stone, and may explain its femininity by remembering that in Welsh, the language in which the writer was doubtless thinking, llech is feminine. Singno, in which the attraction of the legitmate n has nasalized the preceding g, may be interpreted in one of three ways: `By the sign of the cross which I have fashioned, I pray' -- a formula of adjuration; as an ablative: `With the sign of the cross I have decorated it'; or as a mistake for the accusative: `I have fashioned the sign of the cross upon it'. The last is preferable as the simplest of the three possibilities: and the standard of Latinity which it assumes is not too low for our author.

What then, of et? It implies that something has gone before L but it certainly does not link on to the Ogham, with which it has nothing whatever to do. Rather does it appear to link to the destruction of the Ogham. We may picture the writer as a hermit on the island, occupying an anchorite cell which preceded the twelfth-century priory. He discovered, and so far as he could, destroyed the heathenish monument, left behind by some Goidel to pollute the sacred island. Before doing so he `disharmed' the paganism of the Ogham by surrounding it with crosses on all sides, as his fellow-anchorites did on Inchgoill... If the space on the stone had permitted, and if his Latinity had been equal to the strain, what he would have said would have been something like this: `[See, I have purged this stone of heathenism], and have fashioned the sign of the cross upon it. I pray to all who return to the mainland to make fervent prayer for the soul of me, Catuoconus'. By this interpretation, the inscription is not the memorial of a dead Catuoconus, but of a Catuoconus no doubt well meaning, but from the standpoint of an epigraphist rather too much alive.

In a previous publication I suggested that the inscription made a triad of three metrical lines rhyming in -i...I was inclined afterwards to doubt whether the writer's scholarship was equal to such a tour-de-force, but Prof. I. Williams has assured me that he feels no such uncertainty'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 182: `Animae (Ablative), if not accidental, shows the substitution of ae for a occasionally met with in early inscriptions. The form singno (for signo) probably follows contemporary pronunciation...The formula used in the epitaph is akin in type to that employed on No. 125'.

Palaeography:Westwood/1879, 107--108: `Although offering a certain amount of regularity to the eye, the letters themselves of the inscription are for the most part rudely formed, and about 2 1/2 inches in height, with very little space left between the lines.

With the exception of the simply-formed I, C, R (in the first line only), O and F, which are Roman capitals (and even of these, the lower oblique right-hand stroke of the R not carried down to the line, and the upper cross-stroke of the F forming an angle at its origin with the top of the upright stroke, indicate an approach to the minuscule forms of these two letters), the whole of the inscription is in that curious mixture of minuscule and uncial letters transformed into capitals which became general soon after the departure of the Romans, and which is found in all the oldest inscriptions and manuscripts both in Great Britain and Ireland. The conjoined et (&) in the first line and cx in the sixth line are especially interesting from their agreement with such ancient documents; the a like two C's conjoined together, the b slightly variable in form and sometimes scarcely distinguishable from the g, the best formed one being in the fourth line; the e like a c, with a central cross bar free at its extremity; the F almost F-shaped, and not carried below the line; the g especially remarkable, particularly in the first line, where it is reduced in size from the proximity of the foot of the cross; the l formed like a L, with the angle rounded off and the top of the first stroke inclined to the left, although in the fifth line it almost looks like a c; the m invariably m-shaped; the n either like a capital N but with the oblique stroke reversed, or like a H; the p P-shaped, and not carried below the line; the R either R-shaped or like a cursive n, with the second stroke carried down obliquely nearly to the bottom of the line; the s f-shaped, but not carried above the line; the t like a c with a tranverse bar at the top, and the u invariably u-shaped. All these peculiarities indicate the occurrence of a period between the departure of the Romans and the time when this stone was sculptured. But I think, from a comparison of this inscription with other early monuments, both lapidary and manuscript, in England, Wales, and Ireland, that we cannot err in affixing to it the date given above. (J. 0. Westwood, Arch. Camb., 1855, p. 258)'.

Macalister/1945, 406: `The letters are half-uncial on the whole, but the N's are H-shaped capitals. Most previous decipherers have overlooked the monogram AE at the end of line 7; otherwise all but one, misled by a squeeze, are agreed on the transcription'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 182: `Round half-uncials (mainly) and capitals (C, F, N, O, P, R), carefully cut in good style. The angular form of the G's is distinctive'.

Legibility:some
Lines:8
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References