105 
In reference to either or both the renderings to which I allude, al- 
though they severally rest on different grounds of interpretation and 
reading of the symbols, still, if either were sustainable by the litere 
sculpte of the stone, this monument would be, as Mr. Windele calls it, 
‘“one of an interest far beyond anything of the kind hitherto presented 
for consideration,’’—and if I might allow the wish to be father to the 
conclusion, I would gladly accept either version as establishing in our 
Glen a piece of Ogham evidence of remarkable value for settling a re- 
markable controversy ; but in the mere fidelity of an observer, pretend- 
ing to no Ogham knowledge save such as a spelling out of Mac Curtin’s 
Alphabet (confirmed, as it now stands, by the high analytic investigations 
of Dr. Graves) could afford me,—I am compelled, as a true deliverer of 
what I have seen, to state that both these interpreters, to arrive at their 
several senses of this inscription, are forced to take liberties with their 
text which are scarcely warrantable ; they seem to me each obliged, in 
order to sustain their conclusions, in more than one instance -to read 
letters as flattering painters draw pictures, for what “they ought to be, 
not what they are.’ Sometimes a well-defined, connected, and clear-cut 
group is broken up so as to make two letters, where the stone gives but 
one. Again, a letter is assumed to be above or below the fleasgh, which 
is clearly upon it; and again I find some of the marks read for letters, 
for which I can find no warrant anywhere in Mac Curtin’s chapter on 
Ogham ; and in reference to these emendations I adopt, altogether, Mr. 
Windele’s sound canon of interpretation, where he writes to me as fol- 
lows :—‘‘ I confess I dislike arbitrary dealing with the letters where we 
find a group of scores well defined, and so unconnected with any others 
at either side,—so isolated as to warrant the conviction that it has been 
carefully and well expressed, or where its direction, whether vertical 
or oblique, is expressed with similar care, I am disposed to be very 
jealous of any intermeddling with it, and am disposed to protest against 
any arbitrary forcing or dislocation.” 
_ The Ogham characters of this inscription, as I copy them, are eigh- 
teen innumber. The sixteenth group is cut where a natural inequality 
in the stone renders it doubtful whether the points are to be read as 
two vowels or one ; if the former, the number of characters will be nine- 
teen. All the other characters are perfectly clear and legible, so far as 
Ogham can be said to be legible. 
On the flat surface of the stone is cut a small and rude cross, as in 
the drawing I offer; but it seems to me impossible to look on this mark 
without feeling convinced that it is not of the same age, nor cut with 
the same care as the Ogham characters; it seems of ruder, later, and 
hastier workmanship altogether. 
It will be observed that while the first vowel o is expressed by 
lines, all the rest are given by points, or dots. I can suggest no reason 
for this, except that the fleasgh line becoming rather blunt, or broad, 
it was found easier, and less liable to weather-wear, to work by dots 
than lines upon it. 
Referring to the diagram No. 1, I am obliged to object to Mr. Casey’s 
reading as follows :—I cannot understand how the fifth and sixth groups 
