OGHAM- INSCRIBED STONES. 173 



Professor Ehys, still more recently, has visited me for a 

 second time, and adds that, having just seen the stone again, he 

 is of opinion that the Ogham characters upon it, instead of 

 representing "... RI " ( j j j j j ::::: ) as he at first supposed 

 (in 1875), stand for "....NI" ( ,, i,, ;;■.■, ; ) ; probably 

 part of LATIN I, which form of word appears, in Roman 

 letters, on the face of the stone. 



In 1892, Mr. Arthur Q-. Langdon, of London, (Author of 

 '< Old Cornish Crosses,") and, in 1894, Mr. F. H. NichoUs of 

 Lewannick, made other valuable discoveries of Ogham characters 

 in Cornwall, in both instances the stones being found at 

 Lewannick, near Launceston, and since described in our Journal. 

 (See Vol. XI, pages iv, 285, and the present number of Vol. 

 XII, pages 119-121 ; 169, &c.) 



All three of the Ogham stones so far discovered, are of the 

 class rightly or wrongly styled bi-lingual. 



The names of the three deceased persons, who are 

 commemorated by these bi-lingual or rather bi-literal stones, are 

 given, in the Eoman characters upon them, in the expressions : — 



(1) " Latini ic iacit, filius [&c.]" 



(2) " Ingenui memoria." 



(3) " . . . .c iacit VlcagniJ'' 



It is pretty certain that the second of these stands as the 

 genitive of " Ingenuus," and we should naturally suppose that 

 the others would be genitives of (1) " Latinus, or Latinius," 

 (both of which are regarded as classical), and of (3) "Ulcagnus, 

 or Ulcagnius." On this point, however, the separate views of 

 Professor Ehys and Professor Hiibner have to be considered. 

 The former has written thus : — 



" Latini, — a curious instance of a nominative in I. Nomi- 

 " natives in I are common in Roman inscriptions, according to 

 " Corssen (Aussprache, &c., p. 289), but whether I in such cases 

 '' stands for IS or not (Corssen mentions Anavis, Coecilis, Clodis, 

 " Eogonis, &c.) it appears that on Roman ground this I or IS 

 " is only to be expected instead of lUS ; but, as Latinius is 

 " unknown, one can only infer that the Welsh adopted the Latin 

 " nominative in I without any regard to the Latin restriction 



