Graves—On Monuments bearing Ogam Inscriptions. 287 
reigned about the year 500 or somewhat later. rca, daughter of 
Loarn, King of Scotland, appears to have been Saran’s legitimate 
wife; but when she eloped from him with Muircheartach mac 
Kogain, grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, Saran took to wife 
her sister, whose name was Pompa or Bebona, by whom he had four 
sons, Luireg, Cairnech, Bishop Dallan, and Caemlach. Of these, 
Luireg, the eldest, having succeeded to his father, was murdered 
at the instigation of his brother Cairnech, by Muircheartach mac 
Erca, King of Ireland, the son of Erca, Cairnech’s aunt. In the 
latter part of her life, after she had been united to a third husband, 
Fergus, son of Conall Gulban, she became a penitent, and haying 
placed herself under the ministrations of her nephew, Cairnech, be- 
queathed to him a territory, from the history of which we gather the 
means of ascertaining the date of his death. He must have died be- 
fore the year 545, if we take the dates of O’Flaherty, or before the 
year 539, if we adopt with Colgan the chronology of the Four Masters. 
Colgan has given us a life of him at the 28th of March, which 
was kept as his festival. 
It is with this Cairnech I identify the Carantorius of the monu- 
ment. In the first place, I regard the difference between the termi- 
nations of Caranrortus and Carantocus as of little consequence in a 
case of this kind. The persons who latinized the names of Celts were 
free to do so in an arbitrary manner, consulting their own taste or 
fancy. In the instance before us we have seen that the same Cairnech 
is called Carnecuus and Carantocus, names which appear more differ- 
ent from one another than the latter is from Carantorius. It would 
- be easy to multiply examples of the same kind. The Latin name of 
Ronan was Phocas or Phocianus. Muiredhach was called Pelagius, 
and Warianus Muician’s name was translated into both Porcianus and 
Subulcus. 
But next, I regard the fact that the name of Cairnech’s mother 
was Pompa, as almost certainly completing his identification with 
Pompeius Carantorius. The coincidence is so remarkable as to fall 
little short of demonstration. Ifit had happened that the inscription 
which we are considering had presented to us nothing more than 
Pymprrivs Caranro...., the identification would probably have re- 
mained unquestioned. As the matter stands, I see no reason to 
abandon my conjecture until some Briton is found who has a better 
right than Cairnech to the two names Carantorius and Pompeius. 
I fear it may be thought a waste of time for me to notice the 
observations made by Mr. Brash on this monument. His copy of the 
Ogam inscription is tolerably accurate, so far as regards the characters 
which still remain legible, but he has not correctly indicated the 
spaces between them, and he has fallen into the error of reading the 
inscription upside down. He differs from Professor Rhys and me in 
his conclusion that ‘‘the monument isnot bilingual.” ‘‘ The inserip- 
tion in Roman letters,’’ he says, ‘‘is in no way represented in the 
Ogam.” To this he was probably led in consequence of his having 
