By C. H. Talbot. 147 



The inscription (expanding the contractions) is as follows : — 



TUC lACET ILBEKTAS ])E CHAZ BONITATK KEFERTVS 

 QVI CVM BROTONA DKDIT HlC; PKRPLVRIMA DONA. 



which commemorates tlie grant, by the deceased, to Monktou 

 Farleigh Priory, of land, in the parish of Broughton Griiford, 

 wliicli still bears the name of Monkton. The only point which has 

 been disputed, in the inscription, is whether ohaz or (;hat is the 

 right reading. I hope to be able to sliow that the former is correct. 

 The memorial is of the twelfth century, and the original inscription 

 is cut, on the flat upper surface of the stone, in an extraordinarily 

 contracted manner (letter within letter), and, if it were not already 

 known, would be very difficult to read. Partly for this reason, in 

 all probabiHty, it has been re-cut, with only a few contractions, in 

 the hollow of the moulding on the edge of the stone, the first part 

 of this added inscription, however, being on a second stone. When 

 this was done, the whole monument probably stood against a nortli 

 wall. 



Canon .Jackson says : — 



" It was found north-west of the chaucel, aud, from the way iu which the 

 marginal inscription is cut, evidently stood against the church wall ; perhaps was 

 built into the wall under an arch. When found, it looked 'like a .seat' in the 

 north angle" 



The late Prebendary J. Wilkinson, in his " Ilktonj of Broughton 

 Gijford," 1 who describes the stone erroneously as being in the 

 refedorij of Lacock Abbey, instead of the chapter-hoim\ says : — 



*' Mr. Bowles in his History of Lacock (or rather Mr. Nichols, who did all the 

 real work in the book) is of opinion that tlie name of the person commemorated 

 is different in the two injcriptions. He supposes it z in the original, and T in 

 the. copy. Careful examination leads me to the conclusion that it is t in both, 

 and that the apparent difference in the original inscription solely arises from a 

 slip of the tool (probably owing to the grain of the stone and the unskilfulners 

 of the artist) in forming the lower part of the letter." 



This is a little hard on the sculptor. He then adds, in a note : — 



" The letters Sic Jacet Hbc, are now in the same straight line with the ref;t 



of the inscription, but their original position was clearly at the head ; where they 



could, from the deep shade in which that part of the tomb lies at Lacock, have 



hardly been decyphered." 



Now this is entirely a mistake. It was evident, as the monument 



' Wnts Arch. Mag., vol. v., p. 329. 



