Corpus Refs:Macalister/1945:485
Discovery:first mentioned, 1868 Bannister, J.
History:Macalister/1945, 462--464: `A rubbing of this stone was exhibited at a meeting of the Royal Institute of Cornwall, 30 November 1868, when the following remarks were made upon it, contained in a letter from Rev. Dr. Bannister, St. Day, Scorrier:--

`As far as I am aware, this stone has never before been noticed...The rubbing is not a good one, as materials were not of first-rate order'.

This rubbing seems to be referred to in a letter written by the Rev. W Iago to Sir Samuel Ferguson, dated 8 December 1874, and at present in my hands...`In order to follow up these unsatisfactory data, I paid a visit to Tresco Island on 9 July 1929. I found, however, that the floor of the meagre remains of the Abbey was covered with earth; an enquiry of the head gardener of the demesne in which it stands, elicited nothing beyond the fact that the existence of the stone was then completely unknown. But the publication of my notes in AC (1929: 191) led to the satisfactory result of inaugurating a search for the missing stone by Major Dorrien-Smith, proprietor of the island; and in 1937 he discovered it'.

Okasha/1993, 304, summarises the above and states: `The stone has remained in the same position since 1869'.

Geology:Macalister/1945, 463: `The inscribed stone is, if I remember aright, a limestone'.
Dimensions:0.76 x 0.37 x 0.0 (Okasha/1993)
Setting:in ground
Thomas/1985a, 178: `it lies flat below the east jamb of the church's south-wall doorway (west of the south-wall crossing arch opening)'.

Okasha/1993, 304: `The stone is now in the ruins of St. Nicholas' Priory, Tresco. It is set flat into the ground beneath a doorway, just west of the only surviving large archway. One end of the stone is built under the eastern jamb of the doorway'.

Thomas/1994, 271: `The stone from the Isles of Scilly forms part of an archway paving at the ruined St Nicholas Priory church in Tresco Abbey gardens'.

Okasha/1993, 304: `The stone is uncarved and incomplete...Originally it was probably an erect pillar-stone'.
Condition:frgmntry , good
Macalister/1945, 463: `The inscribed stone...appears to have been scrawled, apparently to render it less slippery to persons coming through the door'.

Macalister/1945, 464: `From a measured drawing which he has kindly sent me, it is clear that Iago must have misunderstood the information which was obtained from Dean Alford: it is the uninscribed end of the stone which is concealed in the masonry; the stone is broken at the other end, and the letters come into the middle, not the end, of the step of which it now forms a part. There is, therefore, no hope of completing the inscription'.

Thomas/1985a, 178: `it was broken long ago and part of its inscription thereby lost'.


Macalister/1945, 463: `[The inscription] begins with a well-formed Cross, scarcely noticeable in the stone itself, but very plain in the early stages of the rubbing, though afterwards spoiled by the moving of the paper'.

Macalister/1945, 464: `Major Dorrien-Smith's diagram shows no cross, but his representation of the letters agrees very closely with Iago's diagram'.

Okasha/1993, 304: `uncarved'.



TRSCO/1/1     Pictures


Iago, W. (1874):--]THIFILI | --]COB
Macalister/1945 463 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1937):--]THIF/ILI | COC/{I}
Macalister/1945 463--464 reading only
Okasha, E. (1985):--.]HIF/ILI | --CO]B/{I}
[The stone] of [--]hus (PN), son of [--co]bus (PN).
Okasha/1993 304--305 reading only
Thomas, C. (1985):--]THIF/ILI | --]COG{I}
(Grave, or monument) of [...]thus (PN), of the son of [...]cogus (PN).
Thomas/1985a 178 reading only
Thomas, C. (1990):--]THIF/ILI | --]CO[L/{I}]NI
Thomas/1994 271, & Fig. 16.10 reading only


Orientation:vertical indeterminate
Position:n/a ; ind ; n/a ; undecorated
CISP: The script must have run vertically along the upright stone as it would have orignally been placed, but now is on top of the stone in its present use as a step.

Okasha/1993, 304: `It [the text] is set in two lines and originally probably read downwards facing left'.

Date:400 - 799 (Okasha/1993)
Okasha/1993, 305: `The stone belongs to Category 1a...[which] date from the fifth or sixth centuries to the eleventh century but this stone cannot be more closely dated. If the use of horizontal I were certain, this might suggest a sixth- to eighth-century date for the stone'.
550 - 600 (Thomas/1985a)
Thomas/1985a, 178: `The placing of the lettering down what would have been an upright pillar, the shape of certain letters and the probability that the final -I of the second name was set sideways are factors combining to favour a date between AD 550 and 600'.
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Thomas/1985a, 178: `This is a standard formula, with Latin fili, as genitive of filius, `son', having the sense of `(Grave, or monument) of X, of-the-son of-Y'. The personal names before and after FILI would be Latinised British names'.

Okasha/1993, 305: `with FILI for FILII'.

Palaeography:Macalister/1945, 463--464: `The second line, as reproduced in Iago's sketch, might possibly be cog: but the third letter resembles the B in MOBRATTI on the Phillack stone (471)...I suspect that the last letter of the second line was a C, attached to a horizontal I'.

Thomas/1985a, 178: `The last element is uncertain and could well, perhaps preferably, be read COCI or TOCI'.

Okasha/1993, 304--305: `It is possible that the final letter I is set horizontally, ligatured to the B, and that a vertical line below is an accidental mark. Alternatively, the horizontal `I' may be a flaw in the stone and the vertical line below read as I. The first legible letter is probably H, but N is also a possible reading...The penultimate letter seems to me, however, to be clearly B'.

Thomas/1994, 271: `A new and very careful attempt (Fig. 16.10), a last-chance effort, was made in 1990 and though any reading is now inconclusive it might be...THI FILI and (lower line)...COL{I}NI (Fig.) [sic]. The third letter is certainly no known form of G and an I, horizontally, may have been squeezed in between a curved L and a relatively certain NI'.

Macalister/1945, 463: `The rubbing is not a good one, as materials were not of first-rate order; as a consequence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make out the reading'.

Okasha/1993, 304: `The text is incomplete and slightly deteriorated'.

Thomas/1994, 271: `It is incomplete, and the lettering much eroded...any reading is now inconclusive'.

Carving errors:0