| Corpus Refs: | Davies/etal/2000:C3 |
| Site: | SMGRV |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1716 Le Pelletier, L. |
| History: | Davies et al/2000, 154--155: `The evidence for this inscribed stone is a hand-written note inserted into the 1716 manuscript of Dom Louis Le Pelletier's Dictionnaire de la langue bretonne. The information was incorporated into the preface in the later `Lesquiffiou manuscript' of the dictionary but was omitted from the final printed version. The stone and its inscription therefore remained unknown until the reference was rediscovered by G. Le Menn and published by him in 1981, Gildas Bernier also discussing it the following year. The only known illustration is Le Pelletier's sketch of the lettering, which exists in two versions, both reproduced by Le Menn, who suggests that since the note is on an inserted leaf it must have been written after the manuscript had been completed. When Le Pelletier saw the stone, perhaps shortly after 1716, it was set at the corner of a house in the rue du bourg of Saint-Michel-en-Grève. The bourg of Saint-Michel is ranged on either side of an old road, today known as la voie romaine, `the Roman road', with the churchyard lying at the southern end of this street. The site was visited by members of the CISP team in April 1997, October 1998, and June 1999'. |
| Geology: | Davies et al/2000, 155: `granite'. |
| Dimensions: | 0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown) |
| Setting: | Lost (present 1716, missing 1981) |
| Location: | Davies et al/2000, 154--55, notes that it was only ever seen by Dom Louis le Pelletier soon after or in 1716. Davies et al/2000, 154--155: `When Le Pelletier saw the stone, perhaps shortly after 1716, it was set at the corner of a house in the rue du bourg of Saint-Michel-en-Grève. The bourg of Saint-Michel is ranged on either side of an old road, today known as la voie romaine, `the Roman road', with the churchyard lying at the southern end of this street'. |
| Form: | plain Davies et al/2000, 155: `In Le Pelletier's view the stone was a sea-worn granite boulder. He gives no dimensions, describing it merely as flat and tapering to a rounded point, with its edges `eaten away' as if by the action of the waves. His illustration depicts the lettering only and no further indication is given of the size or appearance of the stone'. |
| Condition: | incomplete , some Davies et al/2000, 155: `In Le Pelletier's view the stone was...`eaten away' as if by action of the waves'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Bernier, G. (1982): | [M]AELDOI IAH SUDLA Expansion: MAELDOI IAH SUDLA Translation: Maeldoi (PN) [--]. Bernier/1982 169 reading only |
| Davies, W. et al. (1999): | M/AELDOI IA[...] PM{L}A | [-- Expansion: MAELDOI IA[CIT] PLUS MINUS L ANNOS [-- Translation: Maeldoi (PN) lies (here), in his 50th year, more or less [-- Davies/etal/2000 156 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | n/a ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated Davies et al/2000, 155: `Le Pelletier drew the inscription as a single line of text, commenting that there was another line "almost completely worn away" … He does not say how the text was oriented but it seems as if he was describing the familiar `two-lines reading vertically downwards' layout'. |
| Incision: | n/a |
| Date: | 650 - 699 (Davies/etal/2000) Davies et al/2000, 160: `The combined implications of the letter forms, the phonology, and the abbreviations suggest that Le Pelletier recorded a stone with a late 7th-century inscription'. |
| Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | Davies et al/2000, 158: `The lack of hic in the phrase hic iacet is paralleled elsewhere, as in the following examples from Britain, France, and the Rhineland: ECMW [Nash-Williams/1950] nos. 26, 92, 106, 122, 126, 128, 313; CIIC [Macalister/1945] no. 487; RICG vol. 1 [Gauthier/1975] no. 157. … PM is an abbreviation for plus minus, an expression which is found at least 131 times in France and the Rhineland, 85 times in Spain, and twice in Roman Britain; 15 of these occurrences (which are extremely rare after the 7th century) use the abbreviation PM: NR [LeBlant/1892] nos. 212, 216; RICG vol. 1 [Gauthier/1975] nos. 140, 158, 200, 219; RICG vol. 15 [Descombes/1985] no. 171; ICERV [Vives/1969] nos. 144, 146, 494; RIT [Alföldy/1973] no. 958; [L']A[nnée] E[pigraphique] (1993) no. 1071; SFGK [Schmitz/1995] no. 4; RIB [Collingwood/Wright/1968] nos. 787, 955'. |
| Palaeography: | Davies et al/2000, 157: `The inscription is in capitals. Some of the letters, such as the first M, the As and possibly the I, may have been serifed. The O is shown as square, and is paralleled elsewhere in Brittany, France, and the Rhineland, while the E is curved and the D is angular, with the bow tapering to a point. The L is backward, and is another example of the backward and retrograde letters known elsewhere in Brittany. In the upper drawing AEL is drawn as conjoined, while in the lower it is only EL that is conjoined. The joining of letters in this way would be unusual, to say the least, and it looks as if the joining lines may have been added by the draftsman, which would thereby bring into question the detail of the drawing. Nonetheless, the M/A ligature is found elsewhere in Brittany, as in one inscription from Bais [BAIS/2]. The drawing of the three angle-bar As, and the square O, as well as the fact that the inscription is largely intelligible, inspires some confidence; indeed the combination of serifed capitals, with rounded E, angular D, and square O, point to a date of carving in the second half of the 6th or the 7th century'. |
| Legibility: | poor Davies et al/2000, 155--156: `Le Pelletier drew the inscription as a single line of text, commenting that there was another line `almost completely worn away', of which only a few light grooves could be discerned. … Le Pelletier's sketch shows the letters arranged into three clearly separated groups. His second copy, in the Lesquiffiou Manuscript, is very close and adds little. ... It remains easier to make sense of the stone, however, if read as Le Pelletier presents it'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
-DOI may correspond to Middle and Modern Breton doue `god' < Indo-European *deiwo-, giving OW duiu and OIr. día; compare also doiuis `goddess'. This element is attested in early Breton personal names, but is not very common: for example, Doenerth in the Cartulary of Quimper, the same name as Duenerth in the Cartulary of Quimperlé < Celtic *dewo- + *nerto- `strength, strong'. That name occurs in Wales as Dounerth, Deunerth, and Duinerth for an individual flourishing in the earlier 8th century. (The reading Duiu-uuoret of CR no. 162 is an error for Dumuuoret.) The final -i could be read either as part of the native word doi or as a fortuitous coincidence of the Breton root and Latin second-declension genitive ending.
As to dating by phonology, Mael- from older Magl- does not appear before the later 6th century; nor does the syncope from the older *Maglo-de:wos. Celtic dewo- became Brittonic doiu or duiu in the mid-7th to mid-8th century, according to Jackson. Therefore, if this element does correspond to later Breton doue, a date later than c. 650 is indicated'.