« PreviousContinue »
occurred in several similar instances to Ogham memorials in Ireland. The inscription on this monument is an interesting
It contains, as in many other instances, the name of the deceased without his patronymic; But bearing IL
A CE N
I L F E
CUN certain words suitable to such a monument. This I
propose to read as follows:
CU NACEN NI FI ILL FETO,” i.e., “ Cu Nacen, a warrior pierced (by) many wounds (lies) beneath in silence.” Names with the prefix “Cu," I have already alluded to as being of a very common Gaedhelic type. “ Nacen ”is equally so, being a form of the well known Nechtan, Neachtain, Nochtain. Ni,” as I have before shown, signifies a hero, soldier, &c. “Fi,” signifies piercing, wounding, &c. (O'Reilly's Irish Dictionary.) “II, a particle in composition meaning great, much, many, (ibid.); “Fe, prep. under” (ibid.); “ Fo, a. dumb—mute." (ibid.)
We have here a rendering of the inscription consonant with what we might expect over the grave of a fallen soldier, in accordance with our knowledge of the Gaedhelic language, and without violence to the original, neither adding to, taking from, or altering a single letter. The connecting words in circumflexes are always understood on these monuments, as well as upon the archaic ones of Greece and other countries. The Roman inscription is well and clearly cut; Mr. L. Jones says, “ The inscription is thoroughly legible, and runs as follows:
The characters are carefully formed, evenly spaced, of nearly equal size, not much debased. Their palæographical character is closely similar to that of the Sagranus stone at St. Dogmaels; and it may be assigned to a
period between the fifth and seventh centuries. One peculiarity immediately strikes the antiquary; we have here the word FiLivs in the nominative case, put in apposition with the word CVNOCENNI, apparently in the genitive, and immediately followed by the same word in the same case. Either, therefore, some false and debased Latinity is to be found here, as patently as in the last word of the inscription, incit: or else we have here a proof that the first word, though ending in 1, is in reality a nominative case-the name of a person in its original orthoepy, and indeclinable; and if so, then this stone solves difficulties which have so often been met with in similar inscriptions now familiar to members.” The difficulty alluded to by Mr. L. Jones arises from the fact of the inscriber of the Roman legend having taken the proper name Cunacen, and the word ni, as one word ; and as a proper name Cunacenni he appears to have indifferently understood the Ogham, and to have been but a poor Latin scholar.
FARDELL STONE, NOW IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. Though not in the principality, the character of this monument is so identified with those of Wales, that I feel under the necessity of introducing it in this paper. The stone is carefully described and illustrated in the Archæologia Cambrensis, vol. viii, third series, p. 134. I shall, therefore, only refer to the inscriptions, which are again in two characters, Ogham, and Roman. The Oghams are inscribed on the two front angles of the monument, and are easily legible from the cut given herewith, that on the left is as follows,-S FAQQUCI; on the right, MAQI QI CI:
The Ogham, as usual, is written from bottom to top, leaving at the base a considerable space for fixing in the earth. In a drawing published in the Trans. of the R. 1. of Cornwall, and to be found in the Appendix, eighth vol. Arch. Camb., 3rd Series, a character, A, is introduced between the letters s and Fof the left hand line; but this, I am disposed to think, does not exist, as Mr. Longueville Jones, who examined this stone in the British Museum, does not give it in his drawing in Arch. Camb.; an engraving forwarded to me by the late Mr. Pettigrew does not shew it; neither is it given in a drawing made expressly for myself by Mr. Atkinson of the Department of Science and Art, and an accurate transcriber of Oghams. I am, therefore, bound to believe it does not exist. I read the inscription, “ San(lic) Faqquci maqi Qici,” i. e., sacred (stone of) Faccuci, the son of Cuici. We have, first, the letter S, which I have found in a similar position on other monuments, and which is thought to be the initial of the formula, “San lic,” i, e., sacred stone. This is, of course, conjectural, but not improbable. It is as likely that the Ogham inscribers would use the initial of a formula well known, where brevity was essential, as that the Romans would make use of the well-known initials, D.M., V.A., D.O.M., etc.
We have, then, on the right angle the inscription taken up with the well-known word “Maqi" in its most usual form, and the patronymic“ Qici” or “Cuici.” The names are singular, the termination of the first name being taken from the patronymic, as I have seen in other
Both of these names are of an unmistakably Gaedhelic type, as we find by reference to the index of the Annals of the Four Masters, where we find such names as Cucaich, Cucaille, Ceuciche; and as for the prefix
Fac," which with the patronymic forms the name of the person commemorated, it is also quite a common one, commencing with Fachtna Fathach, son of Ross, a son of Rugharaidhe, monarch of Ireland A.M. 5042-5047. (Ann. Four Masters). We have it also in such names as Fiachu, Fiachna, Fiachragh.