BARM2/1

The `inscribed stone at Ceilworth' was visited by the Cambrian Archaeological Association in 1850 (Anon/1850, 317).

Anon/1866, 368: `...an early inscribed stone, which about 1858 was removed from the seashore to the parish church of Llanaber, and which since the restoration of that church has been erected therein.'

Westwood/1876, 162: `This stone...was formerly used as a foot-bridge over a brook, and afterwards lay on the sea-beach, just above highwater-mark, under the farmhouse called Kid Wart, in the parish of Llanaber and hundred of Ardudwy, to the north of Barmouth, where it became buried in the sand and its locality lost. It was however removed to the church of Llanaber in August 1855, where it is now safely imbedded in the inside of the wall of the church close to the north door. It was first described in Gough's Camden, iii. p. 173, and by Pennant in his Tour in 1781, p. 109 (4to. edition)...

`This is doubtless one of the stones in the sands of the Bay of Abermo, with inscriptions in Roman characters upon them, mentioned in Waring's Life of Iolo Morganwg, p. 202.'

Macalister/1945, 390--391: `... according to a note dated 1849 (published in Bye-gones relating to Wales, 12 June 1895), it was then at Ceilwarth, parish of Llanaber, about a mile from Barmouth. Acording to Pennant it served as a footbridge over a stream in the middle of the eighteenth century: the inscription is in consequence worn, especially the third line...'.

`[l] The gigantic dimensions of the stone given by Hubner, Inscr., p. 46, No. 131, are those of the Llech Idris. (See Arch. Camb., 1846, pp. 423, 424.)'

Nash-Williams/1950, 167: `Rough pillar-stone. 51 1/2" h. x 22" w. x 11" t.'

Rhys/1873, 11: `A stone in Llanaber Church, near Barmouth, reads CA/ELEXSI MONEDORIGIl i.e., `Ca/elex, king of the mountains', rather than king of the Isle of Man, as some seem to have supposed; but who was this monarch of the mountains?'

Whitley Stokes' copy (UCL library) of the above reference has the S underlined and T? as a marginal note.

Westwood/1876, 162: `In the Arch. Camb., 1866, p. 369, an anonymous correspondent suggests the connexion of the stone with the Isle of Man---Mona, in the name Monedo Rigi...

`Prof. Rhys (Arch. Camb., 1875, p. 195), referring to the connexion of this stone with Mona, the Isle of Man, and suggesting that Righmonaidh is the name of a monastery in Scotland, mentioned in the Irish MS. of the Fehire Aengus, says, `Righmonaidh probably meant `king of the moor or of the mountain' and is exactly the analysed form of our compound Monedorigi on the stone of Caelextis.' In his Notes (p. 11) he prints the name as `CAELEXSI MONEDORIGI, i.e. Caelex, king of the mountains, rather than king of the Isle of Man, as some seem to have supposed. But who was this monarch of the mountain?' In his Lectures (sub No. 24) he reads the first name correctly as Caelexti. Huebner, however (I. C.), adds, `nunc mecum (Rhys) putat simpliciter esse Caelexti pro Caelestis aut Calixti (filius) Monedorigi; patris nomen potest fuisse aut Monedorix aut Monedorigix [Hubner/1876, 45, actually reads Monedorigus] Rhys ipse comparat Dumnorix, Dumnorigis formas.'

Dr. John Jones (Hist. Wales, p. 38) has a surprising translation of the inscription, `Here lies the boatman to King Gwynddo,---from which it appears the proper name of Garan Hir was Gwynddo, and not Gwyddno'.

Macalister/1945, 391: `The Kingdom of Caelextus has variously identified with the Isle of Man, or more vaguely with `the mountains' (Welsh mynydd). I prefer to leave the question open'.

Nash-Williams joins lines 2 and 3 to make a single name: Monedorix) (Nash-Williams/1950, 167).

`The accompanying figure has been drawn from rubbings sent me by Mr. W. W. E. Wynne and the Rev. H. L. Jones, who read the last letter but two as I in Rigi, not Regi. The fourth and fifth letters of the second line are nearly effaced by the tread of feet when the stone was used as a foot-bridge. (H. L. J. in litt., Feb. 28, 1864.)

`It closely corresponds with the figure given by Huebner (Inscript. p. 45, No. 128), except that in the last letter of the second line appears a mark like an x, and that a crack on the face of the stone renders the first letter of the third line incomplete.

`[2] The last two words have been read as intended for Moneta(rius) regi(s), the king's moneyer or coiner'.

Macalister/1945, 391: `...the reading is certain...Westwood shews a cross inside the second O, which, however, was not intended by the stone cutter: the vertical line might be artificial, but the horizontal line certainly is not.[1] The G looks at first sight like a `sickle' G, but this is only the effect of an accidental diagonal mark, no part of the writing. There is another, similar, flaw a little after the final I. Gough erroneously prefixes HIC IACET to the inscription.'

Nash-Williams/1950, 167: `Roman capitals...with one ligature.'

CISP: cf BARM1/1 for another, local, ligature of comparable form (as noted by Macalister/1945, 392).

Nash-Williams/1950, 167: `...partly defaced by weathering'.