SPTTL/1

Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:35
Macalister/1945:454
Nash-Williams/1950:402
RCAHMW/1925:1089
Rhys/1905:14
Site:SPTTL
Discovery:first mentioned, 1861 Jones, H.L.
History:Westwood/1879, 109: `In the churchyard of this place, and on the east side of the south porch of the church, stands a tall stone...which the late Rev. H. L. Jones, to whom we are indebted for a figure and description (Arch. Camb., 1861, p. 302, and here abstracted), regards as one of the earliest in Wales'.

Rhys/1897, 330: `THE SPITTAL STONE which has always stood near the door of the parish church, has now had a porch built over it. For this we have, I believe, to thank the liberality of the resident squire, and the advice of Mr. Henry Owen'.

Macalister/1945, 430: `formerly in the churchyard, now in the porch of the parish church'.

Geology:Westwood/1879, 109: `of the porphyritic greensand formation from Preselau'.
Dimensions:1.47 x 0.53 x 0.46 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:unattch
Location:on site
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Inside church porch'.

CISP: [MH 1997] the stone remains in this position.

Form:plain
Westwood/1879, 109: `a tall stone...nearly square, with the faces smooth'.

Macalister/1945, 430: `A block'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roughly quadrangular pillar-stone'.

Condition:complete , good
Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


SPTTL/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Jones, H.L. (1861):EV/ALIFILIDENO | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENO CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Rhys/1874 332 reading only
Westwood/1876 109 reading only
Rhys, J. (1874):EV/ALIFILIDENCV{I} | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENCVI CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Rhys/1874 332 reading only
Allen, R. (1896):EV/ALIFILIDENCV{I} | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENCVI CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Allen/1896 303 reading only
Rhys, J. (1905):EV/ALIFILIDENOV{I} | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENOVI CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Translation:
The burial place of Eval (PN) son of Denov (PN), Cuniovende (PN) his mother set up the stone.
Rhys/1905 34 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1922):EV/ALIFILIDENCV{I} | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENCVI CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Translation:
Evalos (PN), son of Dencuos (PN) (and) Cuniovende (PN) his mother.
Macalister/1922 32 reading only
Macalister/1945 430--431 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):EV/ALIFILIDENCV{I} | CV/NIOVENDE | M/ATEREIVS
Expansion:
EVALI FILI DENCVI CVNIOVENDE MATER EIVS
Translation:
(The stone) of Evalus (PN), son of Dencuus (PN). Cuniovende (PN), his mother (?set it up).
Nash-Williams/1950 217 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical down
Position:S ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated
Westwood/1879, 109: `bearing an inscription on its southern side'.

Macalister/1945, 340--341: `The inscription is in three lines...running downwards'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Latin inscription (Fig. 252) in three lines reading vertically downwards'.

Incision:inc
Macalister/1945, 431: `pocked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `fairly neatly cut'.
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

466 - 499 (Jackson/1953)
Jackson/1953, 512.
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Westwood/1879, 109: `The stone therefore gives three new names: Evalus or Evalius, his father Denocunus, and his mother Ovende, the addition of the words `mater ejus' to the third name being of very rare occurrence'.

Rhys/1905, 34, considers this stone to be an example of `accentual hexameter'.

Macalister/1922, 301--302, notes that comparatively more women are mentioned on Welsh stones than Irish stones, and that this stone is one of the examples.

Macalister/1922a, 32: `Some have supposed an ellipsis of POSVIT [Stone] of E, son of D: C, his mother [set it up]. This seems unnatural, however; it would not be obvious, even to the contemporaries of the persons concerned, that such was the intention. The simplest, and I believe in every way the best, interpretation is arrived at by regarding the second and third lines as a later addition.

The stone was first set up to commemorate Evalos, son of Dencuos. Accordingly, his name was cut in one line, running symmetrically down the middle of the stone as though no other inscription had been intended. When, at some later time Cuniovende died, her memorial was added in the vacant space between Evalos's epitaph and the edge of the stone. The stone [wa]s still recognised as Evalos's; therefore while his name is in the genitive, hers is in the nominative. It is as though we construed it `Stone of E.; here lies also C.'. It is impossible to determine whether the word EIVS belongs to Evalos or Dencuos. Perhaps the balance of probability inclines to the latter; it seems psychologically more natural that the two inscriptions should be drawn up with the same person in genitive relationship. At least in such a modern inscription as `Here lies Thomas, son of John Smith...also Mary, his mother', we should naturally refer `his' to John, rather than to Thomas. Had Cuniovende been wife of Dencuos and mother of Evalos we should have expected `uxor eius' rather than `mater eius''.

Macalister/1945, 431: `The first of the three lines of the inscription runs down the central axis of the inscribed face, and must be taken as the original legend. The other three words are in two lines, squeezed in at the side, and certainly added later, as the result of a subsequent death in the family. The lettering would have been laid out differently, and most likely the formula would have differed to some extent, had the inscription been cut all at one time. Cuniovenda was probably mother of Evalus, and presumably wife of Dencuus; but as the inscription stands it is not clearly defined to whom eius refers'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `For the formula of filiation cf. No. 258'.

Palaeography:Rhys/1874, 332: `The stone...seems to read in the first line EVALI FILI DENCVI. At any rate Mr. Llywarch Reynolds, of Jesus College, Oxford, who assisted me in the inspection of this stone, agreed with me that there can be no doubt as to the V{I}, which Mr. Longueville Jones had missed. As to reading C instead of his O, I am not certain, and even Q might be possible'.

Westwood/1879, 109: `The letters are somewhat debased Roman capitals rather finely cut. Several of the letters are conjoined, and the whole is to be read --

EVALI FILI DENO

CVNI OVENDE

MATER EIVS

In the first line the letter O seems to be the last in it, because the sinking away of the surface with an edge running across the stone is evidently older than the letters themselves, and hence Mr. H. L. Jones was inclined to think the word to which this letter belongs was contained [continued] in the second line...The V and A in the first line and the V N of the second line are conjoined in the usual manner'.

Rhys/1897, 330--331: `Mr. Edward Owen...rather shook my confidence, as he read the first line EVALI FILI DENOV{I}. To understand the difference it is necessary to mention that between the C and the V there is a sort of step across a part of the face of the stone, so that the letters V{I} are on a lower level than the preceding ones; and if I remember rightly, they do not appear in the version in the Lapidarium Walliae (pl.52, fig 2). Now the C ends on the step I have mentioned, and the edge of the step is uneven and probably a little damaged of old. So here comes the uncertainty whether one is to read C or O; but in favour of the former I may observe, that it would be very similar in shape to the C in the name Cuniovende. Other points worthy of notice in connection with this inscription are, that the V of DENCV{I} and of EIVS has its second arm curved...and that in the former instance the first arm is also curved to a slight extent. Lastly, the V of EVALI forms a conjoint character with the A, but the L is a separate letter in this case'.

Rhys/1905, 34: `There is a doubt as to the first O, since it is imperfect, but the last time I looked at it I thought it too nearly a complete circle to be a C, to which I had been in the habit of giving the preference'.

Rhys/1918, 188: `A sketch of the Evali inscription at Spittal, which Mr. Allen reads EVALI FILI DENO | CVNIOVENDE | MATER EIUS, that is, with the ligatures resolved...I read it differently, for I take his first O to be C, and near it comes a small step beginning a slightly lower level of the surface. Beyond that little step I found the letters V{I}; that is, the reading would be DENCVI, which as De~n-cu~- I should equate with a Mediaeval Irishman's name Díanchú. Philologically Deno looks rather intractable, Denovi would perhaps be less so; but no consideration of that order can be allowed to rule the reading. The stone must be examined again.[1]

[1] Since the above was written I have, thanks to Mr. Henry Owen and his motor car, had another opportunity of looking carefully at the stone. We came at once to the conclusion that nobody had any excuse for omitting the V{I}, since, in spite of the little step in the surface, the V begins very close to the top of the C. The only point on which there could possibly be a doubt is whether instead of the C in question we should read O; my own view is that the C is practically certain. When we returned to Poyston we looked up Mr. Allen's list [Allen/1896]...and found that he had by that time convinced himself that the reading of the name was DENCV{I}'.

Macalister/1922a, 32: `certainly not DENOVI'.

Macalister/1945, 431: `Roman capitals...The VA in Evali and the VN in Cuniovende are ligatured. The C in Dencvi is of a peculiar spiral shape, resembling a lower case E (e): but it should never have been mistaken for an O'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roman capitals, fairly neatly cut, with horizontal final -I and two ligatures. MA in l. 3 is. conjoined'.

CISP: [MH] the so-called `spiral C' of the first line is the same as a common form of Q used on the continent.

Legibility:good
Macalister/1922a, 32: `The reading is easy enough'.

Macalister/1945, 431: `They are quite legible, though worn'.

CISP: [MH] the inscription remains clear.

Lines:3
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References