Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:107
Discovery:first mentioned, 1860 Jones, H.L.
History:First mentioned by H. L. Jones, Arch. Camb. 1860, 314.

Brash visited the site in 1870 and published the first reasonable attempt at a reading (Brash/1872).

Rhys/1873, 5: `From Cilgerran we walked across the fields to Bridell, a distance of about a mile, to see the well-known Celtic inscription on a stone in the churchyard'.

Westwood/1876, 114: `The accompanying figure is copied from the illustration of the stone given by the Rev. H. L. Jones in his account of it published in the Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1860, p. 314. This figure was made after repeated examinations of the stone by Mr. Jones, and my own sketch of the stone...The late Mr. R. R. Brash, M.R.I.A., visited the stone in 1870, and published a memoir on it in Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1872, p. 24'.

Visited by the Royal Commission 3rd August 1914 (RCAHMW/1925, 31).

Visited by Macalister in July or August 1921 (Macalister/1922b, 21, 23).

Macalister/1945, 403, `in Bridell churchyard, south of the church'.

Thomas/1994, 73, shows the stone still within the churchyard.

Geology:Westwood/1879, 114: `It is from the porphyritic greenstone formation of the Preseleu hills'.
Dimensions:2.29 x 0.66 x 0.17 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in ground
Location:on site
Thomas/1994, 73, shows the stone standing within the churchyard.
Brash/1872, 251: `It is a rough, undressed flag, standing 7 feet 6 inches above the ground, 2 feet 1 inch by 10 inches at the base, and 5 inches by 4 1/2 inches at the top'.

Westwood/1879, 114: `tapering uniformly to the top, nearly covered with a thin grey lichen'.

Macalister/1945, 403: `A pillar stone...tapering almost to a point at the top'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Rough pillar-stone. 87" h. x25" w. x6 1/2--9" t.'.

Thomas/1994, 71: `looks like (and probably was) a menhir'.

Condition:complete , good
Westwood/1876, 114, states that the stone is `for the most part in excellent preservation'.
Crosses:1: equal-armed; outline; straight; plain; other; circular; none; none; plain

Brash/1872, 252--253: `I do not consider that the ornament incised in the face of the stone was intended to represent a cross; neither is it of remote antiquity. It is palpably a mediaeval quatrefoil, and cannot be older than the thirteenth century'.

Westwood/1879, 114, states that it has `on its northern face an equal-armed cross with the limbs rounded at the ends and inscribed within a circle, being evidently of a very early character'.

Macalister/1945, 405: `On the side of the stone is an equal-armed cross within a circle, erroneously described by Jones and Brash as mediaeval quatrefoil ornament. The error is corrected (1889) in terms rather too dyspeptically worded; for their contention that the cross was a later addition to the monument is quite sound, though they made it out to be far too late. It is low down on the side of the stone, in the place where it would be natural to cut it when the stone was already standing; not on the head of the stone, where it would have been placed if the monument had been meant to bear it from the first. This is practically diagnostic of later tampering'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Circle enclosing an outline cross with squarish limbs and rounded slightly sunk armpits (Fig. 5, 7), all very coarsely picked. The form of the cross appears to be late. 9th century (?)'.

Thomas/1994, 71: `An incised encircled outline cross was imposed on one face, probably in the tenth-eleventh century'.



BRIDL/1/1     Pictures


Neqasagrom (PN) the son of Mucoi Neci (PN).
Brash/1872 251--252 reading only
Macalister/1922b 23 reading only
Macalister/1945 403--404 reading only
(The stone) of Nettasagrus (PN), son of the descendent of Brecos (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 180 reading only
Thomas/1994 71 reading only


Orientation:vertical up
Position:NE ; arris ; beside cross ; undivided
Nash-Williams/1950, 114: `The Ogam inscription is incised along the l. angle of the face reading upwards'.
Macalister/1945, 403: `pocked'.
Date:400 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)

420 - 430 (Thomas/1994)
Thomas/1994: `could be as old as c. 420x430'.
Language:Goidelic (ogham)
Ling. Notes:Brash/1872, 254: `The finding of the name or designation Mucoi on this stone completes the identification of the Welsh ogham pillars with those of Ireland. I have found it on sixteen distinct inscriptions in that country'.

Westwood/1879, 115, states, `and in another note (Arch. Camb., 1874, p. 175) the Professor [Rhys] has found a solution of the difficult word mucoi, which, under the more ancient forms `maccu' and `mocu' and the modern Welsh `macwy', is to be translated `grandson''.

Thomas/1994, 72: `The inscription is wholly Irish, ogam with Irish names and words'.

Palaeography:Brash/1872, 250--52: `The whole of the inscription was evidently intended to refer to the front angle, which runs pretty evenly from bottom to top. If additional space had been required, the right hand angle, according to universal usage, would have been selected for its continuance: in truth, a portion of the former is left uninscribed at the top shewing that the inscription is complete, with room to spare on one angle...The Ogham inscription is on the left angle of one of the faces, commencing 12 inches from the present ground-level, occupying 5 feet 3 inches of the angle, and finishing within 1 foot 3 inches of the top.

The first score of the first letter is faint. In the third character there is some trace of a sixth score, which I believe to be but a fray in the stone. My copy agrees with Mr. Jones's in the first nine letters. To the tenth he gives the value of H. It is true that the part of this score below the line is worn, and almost indiscernable; but taking the five previous letters into combination, it is quite evident that the whole formed the Proper name, SAGROM. The eleventh, to which he also gives the value of H, is undeniably an M, the score crossing the line or angle. This, with the three following letters, form the word MAQI. The fifteenth character is an M, the lower half of which is defaced. That such is its value there can be no doubt, as the following four letters, with it, form a word so remarkable, and so often found in these inscriptions, the word MUCOI'.

Rhys/1873, 5: `It was growing dark, so that we could not do much then, but we could see at once that Dr Ferguson was right in reading Netta against Brash, who read Neqa.'

Westwood/1879, 114--115: `The accompanying figure is copied from the illustration of the stone given by the Rev. H. L. Jones in his account of it published in the Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1860, p. 314. This figure was made after repeated examinations of the stone by Mr. Jones, and my own sketch of the stone, and its Oghams, agrees with that of Mr. Jones. There are, however, several difficulties in deciphering these Oghams which led Mr. Jones to defer attempting a reading of them. The late Mr. R. R. Brash, M.R.I.A., visited the stone in 1870, and published a memoir on it in Arch. Camb., 1872, p. 24. He considers that the difficulty pointed out by Mr. Jones, arising from the prolongation of some of the upper and crossing consonants to an angular projection on the eastern side of the stone, giving some countenance to the idea of a second line of inscription, does not in reality exist, and that there is no second line of inscription intended; indeed, had a continuation of the main line of Oghams been required, it would as usual have been carried on to the north-west or right-hand angle of the stone. The Oghams occupy 5 feet 3 inches of the north-east angle...Dr. Samuel Ferguson (Proc. Royal Irish Acad., vol. xi. p. 48) reads the Oghams as NETTASACHROHOCOUDOCOEFFECI, i. e. `Netta Sagro hoc or Sagromoc oudoco effeci', there having been a Bishop Oudoc of Llandaff in the seventh century; which reading is controverted by Mr. Brash (loc. cit. supra) at great length.

In a subsequent note (Arch. Camb., 1872, p. 355, and see Arch. Camb., 1874, p. 92) Dr. Ferguson partly admits the incorrectness of his reading, especially as regards the Oudoc part of the inscription as pointed out by Mr. Brash, but adduces other peculiarities in support of other portions of his reading. To these again Mr. Brash replied in Arch. Camb., 1873, pp. 103, 285, especially insisting on the prefix Nec instead of Netta.

Prof. Rhys (Arch. Camb., 1873, pp. 76, 197, 386, and 1874, p. 90) adopts the reading of the Oghams: `Nett a Sagrom Maqui Mucoi Greci '; and subsequently (Arch. Camb., 1874, p. 21): `Nettasagru maqi Mucoi Breci'; thus thinking `both Neci and Greci unwarranted''.

Rhys/1918, 187: `Westwood made a hopeless attempt to reproduce it all in his plate 54 and Mr Allen [Allen/1896?] on his part fails to indicate any of the vowels as doubtful, though several seemed to me to be so, when I saw the stone long ago'.

Macalister/1922b, 23: `I read the Bridell stone NETTASAGRI MAQI MUCOE (sic) BRICI. I could find only four scores in the last vowel of the third word: there ought to have been five. The last word is certainly BRICI, not BRECI. It might have indeed have been BRIACI, as there is a fracture on the edge that would contain an A notch, but I incline to the reading given above.'

Macalister/1945, 404--405: `The angle is broken after the first R. Only the first three scores of the following I are clear, but the other two, though faint, are traceable, and the letter should not have been read U, as in previous decipherments. The third word is, I think, MUCOE, an error for MUCOI. The H-half of 2R is chipped away, and the fracture extends over the part of the angle immediately following. There appears to have been six vowel-notches here, practically equidistant: the proper spacing is suggested by the BRIACI of Brawdy No. III (424)'.

Brash/1872, 251: `It requires close and careful examination, as the characters are injured in many places, and the angle generally much worn'.

Westwood/1879, 114: `Ogham markings...for the most part in excellent preservation'.

Macalister/1945, 403: `[it is] much worn and clogged with lichen. Some of the scores are injured by chipping'.

Carving errors:0