138 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



the correction which O'Donovan has made on the MS. — turning " 8 " to " 18 " — 

 does not make it right. We see from this that the total desti'uction of the 

 east end of the chancel, and tlie accumulation of debris, made accurate 

 observation impossiljle. On p. 167 below, will be found further evidence for 

 the dedication of the chancel to St. Colum : but doubtless the real dedication 

 was to the hermit < 'olum, not to the apostle of lona. It is quite possible that 

 the chancel was built on the site of the cella of Colum, and that this 

 alleged dedication is the last trace of a tradition to that effect. If so, the 

 sacred elm-tree probably stood close by. 



Lord iJunraven notes that the doorway was nearly destroyed, only about 

 three feet of the jamb remaining. He thus saw it in its most extreme state 

 of ruin, as did Brash. 



The Board of Works Eeport says : " The chancel arch was in such a state 

 that it had partly to be rebuilt, all stones disturbed being carefully replaced 

 in their positions ; the western doorway had fallen, and the chancel walls had 

 nearly disappeared. The interior was a mass of rubbish, which being removed 

 and carefully examined, gave nearly all the arch stones of the western 

 entrance ; these have been put in their places ; the stones of the altar were 

 also IViuud and re-erected, as well as portions of the chancel walls and windows 

 of same." 



This veiy fairly records what was done ; but it omits to mention that the 

 wrong spring-stone was put into the inner order of the doorway on the south 

 side, completely spoiling the effect of the arch. The rebuilding of the chancel 

 arch, which was confirmed by Delany, was necessary on account of the growth 

 of ivy, which was forcing the stones apart. The top of the window on the 

 south side of the chancel was replaced. 



I confess that I have gi'ave doubts of the propriety of inserting the three 

 heads as keystones on the orders of the doorway. To me these look like 

 corbels ; and I suspect that this is what they actually were, and that the two 

 heads now incongruously inserted into the reconstructed east (?) window, 

 described and illustrated above, belong to the same series, as well as a head 

 that forms part of the extraordinary structui-e above the altar in St. Mary's, 

 and another that has somehow found its way to the topmost course of the 

 south side of the same building. Where this row of corbels may originally 

 have been there is nothing to show ; they may have supported the trusses of 

 the roof of St. Cahnin's. Whether the grotesque head that now decorates the 

 chancel arch properly belongs there, is a doubtful question. The top of the 

 arch cannot be seen in Petrie's sketch, as he shows it concealed by the ivy. 

 In Hall's " Ireland," vol. iii, p. 4".i9, is a sketch similar to Petrie's, but without 

 the ivy. It does not show the head ; but the whole sketch is too summary to 



