(Gesail Gyfarch Stone; Gesail-gyfarch Stone)
Corpus Refs:Macalister/1945:397
Discovery:in/on structure, 1881 Griffiths, E.
History:Rhys was notified by J. Lewis of the find by Evans in 1881, and visited the stone in the following month (Rhys/1882, 161). At that time, and probably up until 1964, the stone lay by a wall near the house (Rhys/1882, 161, Macalister/1945, 372, Nash-Williams/1950, 93, Lewis/1964, 166).

Lewis/1964, 166, states: `The stone at Gesail-gyfarch has been raised on a dry bed and a stone shelter built over it'.

The stone had been removed from a demolished cow shed and was about to be built into a new wall when it was rescued, but not before the stone had been trimmed by masons (Rhys/1882, 161).

Geology:Rhys/1882, 162 & Fig (160): `It is greenstone from the intrusive rock overlying the lingula flags of the district, and most likely from the rock in the immediate neighbourhood'.
Dimensions:1.66 x 0.33 x 0.15 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in display
Location:on site
In 1964 the stone was placed in a protective shelter on the site (Lewis/1964, 166).
A slab of greenstone 10 to 14 inches wide and 6 inches thick. Measurements from the various sources vary slightly. The stone appears to have been extracted from just where the greenstone overlies `the lingula flags of the district' which has led to a hard patch in the middle of the inscription where the letters are faint or missing (Rhys/1882). The head and left side are damaged (Nash-Williams/1950, 93), perhaps to make it fit as a lintel (Macalister/1945, 372).
Condition:incomplete , some
The stone is damaged at the top, dating from either when it was about to be used in a wall (Rhys/1882, 161), or when it was used as a lintel (Macalister/1945, 372). In 1960 the Royal Commission noted its condition as `fair, suffering from exposure' (RCAHMW/1960, 95).
Decorations:no other decoration



PMRFA/1/1     Pictures


Cynllib's (PN) son Cynog (PN) lies [here] [no translation of CIVI BECCVRI offered].
Rhys/1882 162--165 reading only
The grave of Cunalip's (PN) son Cunac (PN): here he lies...
Rhys/1905 82 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):F/ILICVN/ALIPI | CVN/ACI[..]IACIT | BECCV/RI
Beccurus (PN) son of Cunalipus (PN) [son] of Cunacus (PN), lies [here].
Macalister/1945 372 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):FILICVN/ALIPI | CVN/ACI[..]IACIT | --]BECCV/RI
(The stone) of Cunalipus' (PN) son Cunacus (PN). He lies here...of Beccurus (?) (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 93 reading only
(The stone) of Cunalipus' (PN) son Cunacus (PN). He lies (here)...of Beccurus (PN).
RCAHMW/1960 95 reading only


Orientation:vertical down
Position:inc ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated
Macalister/1945, 372: `The letters were pocked and then slightly rubbed smooth'.
Date:500 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)

533 - 599 (Jackson/1953)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Rhys/1882, 164: `As a whole, however, it is to be compared with the one at Llanfaglan, reading FILI LOVERNII ANATEMORI'.

Rhys/1905, 82--84, provides a long dicussion of this inscription inscluding its possible metre (`accentual hexameter'), connection to Arthurian names etc. Much of the discussion of the names is a repeat of that in Rhys/1882 (see name memos).

Palaeography:Rhys/1882, 162--63, 165: `We found no indubitable trace of the letters IC or HIC; but there is room enough certainly left vacant for the former; and I think we noticed a part of the I, and a little part of what may have been a C. I have very little doubt that they were both once there. It so happens that at this part of the Stone there is a sort of patch, as it were in relief on the face of it. The inscriber was, however, not deterred by this, for he began his IACIT on it, though there is now very little left of the first I, and the A is partly gone. There were some letters before BECCVRI in the last line; but they are gone, excepting a trace of the tops of some of them, as the stone is chipped in that part...`As to the other characters, the FI consist of an F with a small I attached to its lower horizontal limb. The NA are conjoint in both lines. So far as the stone is concerned, it is difficult to decide beyond doubt as to the last letter but one of the first line, whether it is a P or an R. There is there all that is necessary to make P; but there is more, namely, a nearly horizontal bar proceeding towards the right from the lower end of the perpendicular, just as though the oblique line of an R had fallen down. On the whole, however, I am strongly inclined to think that the letter is to be read P, and that the rest is the result of a chipping of the surface of the stone...But I have not yet done with the letters. The first letter of CVNACI has lost its lower part, as it stood on a part which has been broken off, possibly before the stone left its original position on a grave. The first vowel of BECCVRI is somewhat rounded like a Greek [epsilon]; the second C is angular, like a very open V on its side; and the VR are conjoint. I do not know of any other instance of this; and it is possible that I have not hit on the right reading. The last part of the R is rather distinguished by colour than by any depression or groove, as the surface on both sides of it has flaked off. The possible remains of this line are, I think, BECC^LVR^B^PI'. [Name encoded according to CISP method as print version not possible.]

In Postscript: `We carefully examined the inscription again, and thought we found undeniable traces of the adverb IC. Moreover, it does not seem so correct to say that the A of jacit [sic.] has been partly worn away, as that it was never finished, owing probably to the hardness of the superficial patch alluded to. I believe now more firmly than ever that the letter I have ventured to read P cannot have been anything else; and Mr. Auden, after very careful examination of it with a glass, agrees with me. As a piece of guesswork, I may add that I find that CIVI would just fit the remains of the letters preceding Beccvri. It will be remembered that CIVE does duty for civis on one of the Penmachno stones'.

Macalister/1945, 372: `Rhys noticed traces of letters preceding BECCVRI, which he thought might be restored as CIVI, but I did not observe these'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Roman capitals with half-uncial B, E, and R (?), and three ligatures'.

RCAHMW/1960, 95: `The extant inscription is in Roman capitals in three lines...The B, E, and R of the last word are half-uncial and there are three ligatures...Nash-Williams, following Rhys, allows the possible insertion of HIC before IACIT, and of another word, now broken away, before BECCVRI, the whole to be read as two separate parts of three and four words. The HIC is unlikely as it would have had to be cut in a hard projection on the face of the stone and is not essential before IACIT, but the insertion of a nominative as a subject for IACIT would improve the reading. Rhys suggested CIVI, but no trace of it now remains...Alternatively, the second part may be an inscription, independent of the first; or the IACIT may be an insertion, as the separation of the word from the well-defined group at the upper end of the stone, and the poorer quality of the lettering would allow'.

The inscription is quite legible apart from a section in the middle where there is a change in the geology and a lump has `scaled' off (Rhys/1882, 162--163, Macalister/1945, 372).
Carving errors:0