510 Scientific Proceedings, Royal Dublin Society. 



is on the edge of the great granite tract of Gralway, yet the eon- 

 tractor elected to bring the stone from Bullock, Co. Dublin — a stone 

 he was accustomed to. "We find also the same thing in earlier 

 times. The Normans, for dressing and other cut-stone purposes in 

 their castles and cathedrals, brought from their native country, Caen- 

 stone into England, while their descendants, the Anglo-Normans, 

 did the same in regard to Ireland. 



[It seems to be the general opinion that there is no home stone at present in the 

 market equal to the Caenstone for fine inside wort ; hut during the late restoration of 

 Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, some of the old cut-stones (a.b., 1008) were found, 

 which the architect seems to have insisted were " Caenstone." But the builder (Mr. 

 Sharpe) was not of this opinion, and, after considerable research, he was able to prove 

 that the stone was procured in a once famous quarry at Eyebridge (?), about twelve miles 

 from Glastonbury, Somersetshire. He visited the place, and the stones seem to have 

 been brought from the quarries by a canal, the remains of which can be traced. From 

 Mr. Sharpe's practical knowledge he is convinced that this stone was used in Mellifont 

 Abbey, Co. Louth; St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin; and St. Kevin of Glendalough, Co. 

 Wicklow— stones which in general are supposed to be Caen-stone. Mr. Woodward, 

 the author of the Geology of England, in reply to inquiries, states : — " The stone 

 you inquire about must be the Doultery stone, east of Shepton-Mallet ; used largely 

 in the construction of Wells' Cathedral and Glastonbury Abbey.] 



But the pre- Anglo-Norman builders in Ireland, as already 

 mentioned, as also many of the early Anglo-Normans, used the 

 native sandstone. It is conspicuous in different places, as here- 

 after mentioned, that although the local sandstone used in building 

 of the earlier structures was good, yet all the later structures are 

 built of limestone brought from a greater or less distance. 



Other reasons for the introduction of limestone may have been 

 that the builders early understood the crushing stones were capable 

 of bearing, 1 and were aware that if a column in a building was to 

 be massive, they might use sandstone ; while if the column had 

 to be slender, and at the same time support an equal weight, 

 limestone was preferable. This is illustrated, as pointed out by 

 Wyley, in the small limestone columns of Jerpoint Abbey, Co. 

 Kilkenny. 



They also must early have learned that limestone could be 

 more finely, more easily, and more cheaply worked than the 



1 Yet Wilkinson specially points out that some builders had no such knowledge, 

 and illustrates instances in which buildings had failed through the want of knowledge 

 as to the crushing the stone would bear. 



