| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:453 Nash-Williams/1950:399 RCAHMW/1925:1067(iii) |
| Site: | SNCL1 |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1690 Lhuyd, E. |
| History: | RCAHMW/1925, 379: `Leaning against the chancel wall are two other pillar stones, which formerly served as gateposts on the farm of Llandrudian'. Rhys/1898a, 54, 59, explains how SNCL1/1 was discovered by a postman. Following the discovery, Mr. H. Williams and Mr. W. Dunstan visited the site to take rubbings etc. While Mr. Williams was taking the rubbing of SNCL1/1: `Mr. Dunstan was looking round, and discovered another inscription, namely, on the opposite gate-post'. This was reported as a new find by Rhys in this paper, but it had been previously recorded by Lhwyd (RCAHMW/1925, 379), and was certainly unknown to Westwood etc. until this time. Macalister/1945, 429: `found acting as gateposts on the farm of Llanrudian...now preserved in the vestry of the parish church'. |
| Geology: | |
| Dimensions: | 1.35 x 0.38 x 0.27 (converted from Macalister/1945) |
| Setting: | in display |
| Location: | other Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Inside church, mounted on N. side of chancel'. CISP: [MH, 1997] the stone remains inside the church. |
| Form: | plain Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roughly quadrangular pillar-stone 53+" h. x 16 1/2" w. x 13" t.'. |
| Condition: | complete , some Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `with six gate-hanger holes in the face and three in l. side'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Rhys, J. (1898): | {N}ES{I} Expansion: NESI Rhys/1898a 59 reading only |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | {N}ES{I} Expansion: NESI Macalister/1945 430 reading only |
| Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950): | {M}E{L}{I} Expansion: MELI Translation: (The stone) of Melus (PN). Nash-Williams/1950 217 and Fig. reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | inc ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated Near the top of the broad face (from drawing in Macalister/1950, 429). Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Latin inscription (? incomplete) in one line reading vertically downwards'. |
| Incision: | inc Macalister/1945, 430: `pocked and rubbed'. Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `deeply cut'. |
| Date: | 400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950) 500 - 599 (Thomas/1994) Thomas/1994, 106, dates the inscription to the sixth century. |
| Language: | name only (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | Thomas/1994, 106, discusses this stone as a single-name inscription. |
| Palaeography: | Rhys/1898a, 59: `The letters which were thought decipherable, and which appear in the rubbing make ... Nesi with the tall so of the Greek {sigma} kind, and N of the same form as in Paani [ie. backwards]. Let me add from Mr. Williams letter, that between the N and the E there is room for an I, but that here unfortunately occurs a hole in the stone for the insertion of the hanger of gate. He thinks, however, that he detects the upper part of an U above the hole. In that case we have {N}IE{S}{I}, but as I am uncertain whether one should read Nesi or Niesi, and whether even that is more than the latter part of the original name, I abstain for the present from any speculation as to the identity of it. I ought to have said that the letter next after the E may prove to be a P or F. Since the above was set up, I have heard from Mr. Williams that there is no lettering before the N'. Macalister/1945, 430: `The inscription consists of four letters only...the N being reversed and the S half uncial. After the N there is a hole, which was made for gate-hanging. A stroke runs out of it, but this is of no significance. It misled Lhuyd, however, or his informant, into reading Wesi, and also a correspondent quoted by Rhys in 1898, who suggested Niesi as an alternative reading'. Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roman capitals, deeply cut in good style, with the letters inverted and reversed. The M has been partly defaced by a gate-hanger hole. The final -I is horizontal'. |
| Legibility: | some There is some disagreement as to whether a stroke that runs out of a gate-hole near the initial letter is part of it or not. Macalister/1945, 430, thinks not; Nash-Williams/1950, 217, thinks it is. |
| Lines: | 1 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |