| Corpus Refs: | Huebner/1876:120 Macalister/1945:350 Nash-Williams/1950:116 |
| Site: | LDEWB |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1699 Lhuyd, E. |
| History: | Gruffydd/Owen/1962, 231, states that Edward Lhuyd had sent a letter with a drawing of this stone to Bishop Humphrey Humphreys in 1699. Anon/1932, 390--91: `apparently, first observed by Lhuyd, above the entrance to the chancel of the old church: and fortunately copies, apparently accurate, are given in Gough's and Gibson's Camden. The two fragments which remain, so far as they go, confirm them. The stone was moved from the chancel arch to the north window of the chancel, and thence to the cemetery, where it was appropriated by the masons of the new church, and broken up into building-stones'. Macalister/1945, 335, identifies two fragments, built at an inaccessible height into the N.W. angle of the nave of the church, as all that remains of this stone. The fragments remain built into the church. |
| Geology: | |
| Dimensions: | 0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown) |
| Setting: | in struct |
| Location: | on site Nash-Williams/1950, 98: `built (upside down) in the external wall of church'. Macalister/1945, 335, identifies two fragments, built at an inaccessible height into the N.W. angle of the nave of the church, as all that remains of this stone. The fragments remain built into the church [1999]. |
| Form: | fragment |
| Condition: | incomplete , poor Macalister/1945, 336: `the stone was broken up by the masons for building materials'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Lhuyd, E. (1695): | +HICIACETIDNERTFILIVSIACOBI | QVIOCCISVSFVITPROPTERPREDAM | SANCTIDAVVID Expansion: + HIC IACET IDNERT FILIVS IACOBI QVI OCCISVS FVIT PROPTER PREDAM SANCTI DAVVID Camden/Gibson/1695 col. 644 reading only |
| Huebner, E. (1873): | HICIACETIANERTFILVSI[ACOBI] | QVIOCCISUSFVITPROPTERP[REDAM] | SANCTI [DAVID] Expansion: HIC IACIT IANERT FILIVS I[ACOBI] QUI OCCISVS FUIT PROPTER P[REDAM] SANCTI [DAVID] Huebner/1876 42 reading only |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | [--][CIACET.]DNERTFILIVSI[.-- | --]OCCISV[S.]VITPROPTERPR[-- | [--] Expansion: [HIC IACET I]DNERT FILIVS I[-- QVI] OCCISVS FVIT PROPTER P[--] SANCTI [--] Macalister/1945 336 reading only |
| Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950): | [+HI]CIACET[I]DNERTFILIVSIA[-- | QUI]OCCISV[SF]VITPROPTERPR[AEDIUM | [--SANCTI] Expansion: [+ HI]C IACET [I]DNERT FILIVS IA[--] [QVI] OCCISV[S F]VIT PROPTER PR[AEDIVM?] [-- SANCTI] Translation: Here lies Idnert (PN), son of Ia[...] (PN), who was killed near the farm of the holy... Nash-Williams/1950 98, Fig. 94 reading only |
| Orientation: | Indeterminate |
| Position: | n/a ; ind ; n/a ; undecorated |
| Incision: | inc |
| Date: | 500 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950) 600 - 699 (Jackson/1953) Jackson/1953, 346, note 2: `The inscription belongs to the seventh century'. 625 - 675 (Jackson/1962) Jackson/1962, 233: `middle of the seventh century'. |
| Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | Rhys/1905, 44--46, provides a long discussion of the metre of this text, and speculation as to who Idnert was. Macalister/1945, using Lhwyds reconstruction, states that it sounds like `an experiment in two metrical lines, with a quasi-Sapphic rhythm'. He discusses this at greater length in Anon/1931, 391. Thomas/1996, 136--183, gives a full discussion of this stone and argues that it is an example of Biblical style. Howlett/1997, 80--81, argues that the inscription is in quantitative verse meter. |
| Palaeography: | Macalister/1945, 333: `On the shaft of the cross is an inscription in half uncials'. Nash-Williams/1950, 98: `Mixed Roman capitals and half-uncials (D, E, L, N, T)'. |
| Legibility: | good Gruffydd/Owen/1962, 231, reproduces the drawing by Lhuyd of the inscription before it was broken up. There is little doubt about the reading. |
| Lines: | 3 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
Macalister, cited in Anon/1931, 391, disputes the identification with the Bishop and states it is `high time to let it be forgotten'.