Cornell Aniversity Library BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henry W. Sage 1891 ALOE DO2 Yefag-\ * me University Library a 14. “nT 3 1924 0 olin Overs - , | FELICESOLERVALOVINTAALIUGELALLLDUSILORCUS | EVMENLDESQVESATALTUALLARIVIER RANEEAN DO- | “COLVALQVELATETVMOVECAEATS NEVOMOQUELYPHOEL- ETCONIVAATOSCAELUALRESCLNDEREERATRES- - TEASUNICONATIINIONERELELEOOSSAAL 2 OL SCILICETAIQOSSAEERON DOSUAU NUERTERFOLY M2VAL TEALATEREXTAVCTOSDISIECITFULMINEMONTLS. SAEDTIMALOSTDECLMAALIELIXET2ONEREVITEAL ETLRENSOSDOMITAREBOVESETLICEATELAE ’ fy oe z *, e Ae AD Pee A ety a ce ne ADDERENONATVGAEMELIOKCONTAARLATURTLS: MWLTAADLOGELLDAMELIVSSENOCTEDE DER E- AVICUMSQLENOVOTERRASINRORATLOUS” : NOCTELEVES MELIVSSTLEVLAENOCTEARLDARRATA TON DENTUKNOCTISLENTUSNONDEEICIIVAIOR: | : ETOVLDAALSE ROSH BEANLADLIVAUNISIGNES: | LEAVIGILANTIERAOOVEEACESINSLICATACUIO: INTEREALONGVALCANTUSOLATALABOREAL ‘ AARGUTOCONIUNXPERCURALIDECTINETELAS 4 AVTDULCISALUSTIVULCANODECOQU IVMLOREM ET LOLILSUNDAALTELLDLDESIVALATAEN L: _ ATAVBLCUNDACEALSALEDLOSUCCLOLTVAAESTV sie eae ese ht ET MEDIOIOSTASAESTULEAITAREAERNGES. N VOUSARAS ERENV DUSTILEMISIGNAVACOLONO: | I. VeErRGIL: Palatinus, Saec. [1] -V’ INTER-COLLEGIATE LATIN SERIES UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF _~HAROLD W. JOHNSTON, Pu. D. PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA LATIN MANUSCRIPTS HAROLD W. JOHNSTON CHICAGO SCOTT, FORESMAN & COMPANY 1897 The Juter-Collegiate Latin Sevies LATIN MANUSCRIPTS AN ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO THE , USE OF CRITICAL EDITIONS FOR HicH ScHOOL AND COLLEGE CLASSES BY HAROLD W. JOHNSTON, Pu. D. PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA CHICAGO SCOTT, FORESMAN & COMPANY 1897 Dy, A.v0%062 Copyright, 1897, by SCOTT, FORESMAN & Co., CHICAGO, ILL. PRESS OF ROGERS & SMITH CO., CHICAGO. TO EDWARD B. CLAPP, PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. PREFACE. URING the last session of the Summer School of Indiana University I gave a course of lectures to the Teachers’ Class on Paleography, Hermeneutics and Criticism. My attention was then called to the fact that even in secondary schools many questions relating to Paleography and Criticism are asked by pupils who find different texts of the same author used in the same class. Some of their text books, too, go so far as to give and discuss various readings of difficult passages, as does Green- ough’s Cesar, for example. A wish was therefore expressed by several teachers of Latin that a manual might be published for the use of High Schools, answering the more common questions of this sort. In response to their wish I have prepared this volume. It gives a mere outline of the subjects of which it treats in broad strokes, but contains, I hope, all that students in High Schools and in the lower classes of Colleges will need in order to understand the critical notes found in the text books commonly used by these classes. For University use it should be supple- mented by lectures upon the several authors of the sort admirably illus- trated by Mr. W. M. Lindsay’s Lntroduction to Latin Textual Emendation, Based on the Text of Plautus (New York, 1896). The elementary nature of this manual excludes references to authorities, but I must mention some of the most important which were used in the preparation of the lectures from which these chapters are condensed. On ancient books the standard work is Birt’s Das anttke Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882). On the book trade in antiquity there are Haenny’s Schriftsteller und Buchhandler im alten Rom (Leipzig, 1885), and (to be used cautiously) Putnam’s Authors and their Public in Ancient Times (New York, 1894). On Paleography Thompson’s Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (New 7 8 PREFACE. York, 1893) is the best modern work; to supplement it the best collection of fac-similes of Latin manuscripts is, perhaps, Chatelain’s Paleographie des Classiques Latins (Paris, 1884, fol.). On Criticism there is a valuable article by Friedrich Blass in Iwan Muller's Handbuch (Vol. 1, Munich, 1892). For the use of young students teachers will find good material for parallel reading in Gow’s Companion to School Classics (New York, 1888), from which I have drawn several paragraphs, and in the Dictionaries of Antiquities, under the words charta, codex, liber, papyrus, volumen, etc. The illustrations are from the works mentioned above, and from Schreiber’s At/as and Baumeister’s Denkmaler. The plates are from Chatelain, except that of the Codex Romanus of Catullus, which was furnished by its discoverer, Professor William Gardner Hale, of the University of Chicago. Besides owing to Professor Hale the privilege of first publishing a facsimile of a page of the most important Latin manuscript discovered in many years, I am under obligations to Professor Edouard Baillot and Mr. Charles H. Beeson, of this University, and to Dr. Edward Capps, of the University of Chicago, for assistance generously given me. H. W. JOHNSTON. INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Feb. 5, 1897. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE I. THE HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS, §§ 1-89. THe MakInG or THE MANuscRIPTs, §§ 1-24 . 4 a) ze SoMa SEG Writing Materials, § 2. Paper and Vellum, § 3. Papyrus, §§ 4-13. Pens and Ink, § 5. Rolls, §§ 6-8. Reading the Rolls, § 9. Size of the Rolls, §§ 10-11. Preservation of the Rolls, § 12. Parchment, §§'13-24. Instru- ments for Writing, § 15. Books (Codices), §§ 16,17. Odd Forms, § 18. Size of the Books, §19. Parchment vs. Papyrus, §§ 20, 21. Tardy Use of Parchment, § 22. Age of Parchment Books, § 24. THE PUBLICATION AND DisTRIBUTION OF Books, §§ 25-41. . . . . . 27 The Authors, § 25. Copyright, §§ 26, 27. Plays, § 28. Uncommercial Publications, §§ 29, 30. Commercial Publications, § 31. Process of Publi- cation, § 32. Dictation, § 33. Rapidity of Publication, § 34. Cost of the Books, § 35. Stichometry, § 36. Correctors, §§ 37-39. Titles, §§ 40, 41. THe TRANSMISSION OF THE Books, §§ 42-67 . . . Hick Gok & 2.35 Period Covered, § 42. Period of the Decline, § 43. Public Libraries, § 44. Schools and Universities, § 45. The Classics, § 46. Scholia, §§ 47, 48. Glosses, § 49. The Grammarians, § 50. Opposition to Christianity, § 51. Subscriptions, § 52. Their Value, § 53. Summary, § 54. Lost Works, §55. The Dark Ages,§56. Indifference to Learning,§57. The Church, § 58, 59. The Revival of Learning, §§ 60, 61. Invention of Printing, § 62. Summary, § 63. Editiones Principes, §64. Ancient Manuscripts, §§ 65-67. Tur KEEPING OF THE Manuscripts, §§ 68-89 . . . . . . . . . 48 Care of the Manuscripts, § 68. Naming of the Manuscripts, §§ 69, 70. Descriptions, § 71. Important Libraries, §§ 72-80. Index to Collections, §§ 78-80. Symbols for the Manuscripts, §§ 81-83. First and Second Hands, §§ 84, 85. Collation of the Manuscripts, §§ 86-87. Uncollated Manuscripts, § 88. Critical Editions, § 89. Il. THE SCIENCE OF PALEOGRAPHY, §§ go-149. StyvLes OF WRITING, $$ 91-115. - ee ee ee Scope of the Science, §§ 9t, 92. Uses of Paleography, §§ 93, 94. Ancient Forms of Letters, §§ 95, 96. National Hands, § 97. The Majuscules, 9 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS. §§ 98-107. Capitals, § 100. Specimens: Square, § 102. Rustic, § 103. Uncials and Half-uncials, §§ 104, 105. Specimens: Uncials, § 106. Half- uncials, § 107. The Minuscules, §§ 108-114. Specimens, § 113. Abbre- viations, § 114. Summary, § 115. THE ERRORS OF THE SCRIBES, §§ 116-149 The Codex, §§ 116-118. Faulty Copies, § 119. The Classification of Errors, $120. Unavoidable Errors, §§ 121-124. Intentional Errors, §§ 125-127. Accidental Errors, §§ 128-146. Errors of the Eye, §§ 129— 136. Dittography, § 133. Lipography (Haplography), § 134. Skipping, §§ 135-136. Errors of the Memory, §§ 137-141. Transposition, §§ 138, 139. Substitution, § 140. Omissions and Additions, § 141. Errors of the Judgment, §§ 142-146. Wrong Division of Words, §§ 143, 144. Wrong Punctuation, § 145. Interpolation, § 146. Uncertain Sources of Errors, §§ 147-149. III. THE SCIENCE OF CRITICISM, §§ 150-208. METHODS AND TERMINOLOGY OF CRITICISM, §§ 150-160 . Subdivisions of the Science, $151. The Critical Doubt, §§ 152, 153. Causes of Doubt, §§ 154-158. Kinds of Criticism, § 159. Criterion, § 160. TEXTUAL CRITICISM, §§ 161-193 . Apparatus Criticus, § 162. The Manuscripts, § 163. Examination of the Manuscripts, §§ 164, 165. Possible Results, §§ 166-169. Stemmata, §§ 170-172. Uses of the Stemmata, §172. Ancient Translations, §§ 173- 174. Ancient Commentaries, §$ 175,176. Citations, § 177. Imitations, 178. Use of the Apparatus, §§ 179-187. Relative Worth of Manuscripts, §§ 183-185. Test of Worth, §§ 186,187. Conjectural Emendation, §§ 183- 193. Criticism and Conjecture, §§ 190, 191. Limits of Emendation, § 192. Opposing Views, § 194. INDIVIDUAL CRITICISM, §§ 194-208 Purpose of Individual Criticism, § 195. External Evidence: Manuscripts, § 196. Ancient Writers, §§ 197, 198. Internal Evidence: Historical, ‘$199. Individuality, § 200. Language and Style, §§ 201, 202, For- geries, § 203. Tests of Proposed Authors, § 204. Illustration of Proof, §§ 205, 206. Summary, § §207, 208. DESCRIPTION OF PLATES, §§ 209-224 INDEX . 79 95 « I00 . r14 « 125 - 132 Tue History or THE Manuscripts. THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS, THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS, THe History OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. ANUSCRIPTS and books were formerly studied as a part of Paleography, and were so treated by scholars until very recent times. At the present time separate treatment is given to this subject, although even now it may scarcely be regarded as a distinct branch, or discipline, of Philology. Under this head we have to consider the materials for writing, so far as these have to do with works of formal literature, the manufacture, distribution and sale of books, their destruction and preservation in the dark ages, and their present condition and keeping. WRITING MATERIALS.—We are concerned now with those mate- rials only, by the aid of which the literature of classical antiquity, chiefly Roman, was published to the world and afterwards trans- mitted to us. Almost all the substances for receiving writing known to the ancients were used at one time or another, for one purpose or another, by the Romans. Some of these were merely the makeshifts of rude antiquity and antedated all real literature, as, e. g., bark and leaves of trees, skins or tanned hides of animals, and pieces of linen cloth: all these are mentioned in works of lit- erature, but none were used to receive them. Others, such as stone, metal tablets, coins, etc., have preserved inscriptions of great im- portance to the study of antiquity and therefore of great interest to philologists, but belong rather to Epigraphy and Numismatics than to our present subject. Of more general use than any of these were the tablets covered with wax, which are mentioned so frequently by Cicero, and were used as late as the fourteenth cen- tury; even these are excluded, however, by our definition, as they were at best used for merely the rough drafts of literary composi- tions. For the publication of works of literature in classical times 13 I4 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. the one recognized material was Papyrus, and for their further transmission to our times Parchment alone need be considered. PAPER AND VELLUM.—While parchment (vellum) was known to the classical writers, and perhaps used to a limited extent instead of the bulky tablets, and while papyrus (paper) was occa- sionally used for works of literature until the seventh century and for correspondence until the thirteenth century, their general rela- tion to each other is correctly given above: papyrus was the stand- ard commercial material at the time when the classics were written, and the tough parchment, upon which these works were copied centuries after their authors had passed away, has preserved these works to us, and is the material of the manuscripts with which modern scholars work. ‘To Cesar and Cicero, for example, a parchment book would have been as great a curiosity as are to us the papyrus rolls that have lived through the centuries. This distinction is of great importance to the further study of this subject. ; Papyrus.—The manufacture of papyrus from the reed of the same name, which was known to the Egyptians from very ancient times, reached its height in that country under the earlier Ptole- mies (third century B. C.), and was improved and perfected in Rome. Ennius (239-170 B. C.) is the earliest Roman writer to mention the material and is supposed to have been the first to use it for literary purposes. The papyrus reed has a jointed stem of triangular shape, five or six inches in diameter, and grows to a height of six or eight feet. The paper (charta) was made of the pith by a process substantially as follows: Strips of the pith as long as the joints would permit were cut as thin as possible and arranged side by side, as closely as possible, upon a board. Across these at right angles other strips were laid in the same manner, with perhaps a coating of paste or gum between the two layers. The strips were then thoroughly soaked in water, and pressed or THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 15 hammered into a substance not unlike our paper. After this sub- stance had been dried, and bleached in the sun to a yellowish color, the sheets were rid by scraping of any irregular or rough places that remained, and were trimmed into uniform sizes depend- ing, of course, upon the length of the strips of pith which com- Fic. 1 PAPYRUS PLANTS. posed them. According to Pliny (23-79, A. D.) the quality of the sheets, which were sold under eight or nine special names, varied with their width. Sheets of the best quality were about ten inches wide, while the inferior sorts decreased to a width of six inches or less. The height of the sheets varied from seven and a half inches to twelve or thirteen. PENS AND InK.—Only the upper surface of the sheet was com- monly written upon, the surface, that is, formed by the horizontal layer of strips, and these, showing even after the process of manu- 16 BRONZE STILUS. LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. Br: Re CITI TITAS Rees BOSSA: Ray Ty, GIT STIS. sehie PRTG DSTOONO ere 3) PENS, PEN-CASE AND CRAYON HOLDERS, INKSTAND. FIG. z. VARIOUS WRITING MATERIALS FROM WALL PAINTINGS. INSTRUMENTS USED IN WRITING. THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 17 facture, served to guide the pen of the writer. The pen (ca/a- mus or Calamus scriptorius) was made of a reed, and was shaped to a coarse point and cleft with a knife much as our quill-pens used to be. Quill-pens are first mentioned by Isidorus (+ 636 A. D.), a bishop of Seville, and cannot have been known to the classic writers. Metal pens, of one piece with the holders, were also used in ancient times, but cannot be accurately dated. The ink (atramentum) for papyrus was made of soot mixed with glue and thinned with water or vinegar. It was more like paint than ink, and was easily removed when fresh with a damp sponge which the writer kept by him for the correction of mistakes. Even when the ink had become dry and hard it could be washed (not scraped) away sufficiently to fit the sheet for use a second time. A sheet thus used a second time was called a palimpsest (cf. aber palimpsestus below), but its use was a mark of poverty or niggardliness (Cic. Fam. VII, 18). Of course the reverse side of charteg, which had served their purpose, was often used for scratch paper, as old letters and envelopes are used to-day, and rare instances are known of the original writing covering both sides of the sheet. Booxs.—A single sheet of papyrus might serve for a very brief document, such as a short letter, but for literary purposes many such sheets would be necessary. These were not fastened side by side into a book, as are the separate sheets in our books, or numbered and placed loosely together, as we arrange them in our letters or manuscripts. The papyrus book was really a roll as its Latin name (vo/umen) implies, made up of the necessary num- ber of sheets glued together at the sides (not at the tops), with the lines upon each sheet running parallel with the length of the roll, and with each sheet forming a column perpendicular to the length of the roll. It was necessary, therefore, to leave on the side of the sheet as it was written a broad margin, and these 18 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. margins overlapping each other and glued together made a thick blank space (z. ¢., a double thickness of papyrus) between the columns. When the sheets had been securely glued together in their proper order, a thin slip of wood was glued to the left edge, or margin, of the first sheet, and a second like slip (amdzlicus) was attached in the same way to the right edge of the last sheet, much as a wall map is mounted at the present time. The volu- men was then rolled tightly around the wood attached to the last sheet, the top and bottom (/rvontes) of the roll were trimmed smoothly and polished with pumice stone, and the roll was rubbed with cedar oil to protect it from worms and moths. For purposes of ornament the /rontes were sometimes painted black, and knobs, often painted or gilded, were added to the wmdzlzcus upon which the volume was rolled, or the wmbzlicus itself was made long enough to project beyond the /ronvtes and was carved at its extremities into horns (covmua). Even illustrations were not unknown; at least a portrait of the author sometimes graced the first page of the roll, and it is barely possible that the portraits found in late manuscripts may be copies of these and entitled to more respect than is usually paid them. To the top of the roll, that is, to the top of one of the sheets (probably the last), was attached a slip of parchment (¢z¢m/us) upon which was written the title of the work with the name of the author. For each roll a parchment case was made, cylindrical in form, into which the roll was slipped from the top, and above which the /z/u/us was visible. If a work ric.3. CASEFoR WAS divided into several volumes (see below) the rolls ROELS (a5). were put together in bundles (/asces) in a cylindrical wooden box (capsa or scrintum) with a cover, like a modern hat box, in such a way that the ¢ztw/z were visible when the cover was removed. THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. IQ READING THE RoLLs.—When a volume was consulted the roll 9 was held in both hands and unrolled column by column with the right hand, while the left rolled up upon the other slip of wood the part that was already read. When the reader had finished, it was customary to roll the volume tightly upon the wmdbzlicus by holding the roll beneath the chin and turning with both hands. In the case A of a long roll this turning backwards W and forwards must have required much time and patience, and at the same time Fic. 4. READING A ROLL. must have sadly worn the roll itself. These considerations bring us naturally to the size of the rolls. SIZE OF THE Roiis.—Theoretically there was no necessary 10 limit to the number of sheets that could be glued together, and consequently none to the size, or length, of the roll: all depended upon the taste or caprice of the writer. We should suppose that the author would naturally take as many sheets as were necessary to contain his work and make them into one roll, and this was undoubtedly the early custom. So we find that in ancient Egypt rolls were put together of more than one hundred and fifty feet in length, that in Greece the complete works of Homer and Thu- cydides were written upon single rolls (that for Thucydides accord- ing to careful calculation must have been fully two hundred and forty feet long), and that in Rome the Odyssey of Livius Andro- nicus (third century B.C.) was originally contained in one roll. Such rolls were found in the course of time to be inconvenient to read and liable to break and tear from their own bulk. The 14 Alexandrian scholars (about the third century B. C.) were the first to devise a better plan, and introduced the fashion of dividing literary works of considerable length into two or more parts, or 12 20 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. “books,” each of which was written upon a separate roll. So sensible a plan was sure to be followed in time by authors gen- erally, but its adoption was compelled, or at least hastened, by an innovation on the part of the manufacturers of papyrus, who began to sell their product not in single sheets, but in ready- made rolls of convenient lengths. These rolls varied in length according to the style of compositions for which they were intended: rolls intended, e. g., for poems and collections of letters were shorter than those intended to receive historical and scientific works. Of the former the roll would receive about one thousand lines, of the latter about twice as much. Authors had now to adapt their works more or less to an arbitrary standard, sometimes perhaps to the detriment of the quality of their writings (Martial I, 16), and some ancient works were divided for republi- cation into “books” which had not been so divided by their authors, e. g., Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon among the Greeks and Nevius (Suet. De Gram. 2) among the Romans. PRESERVATION OF THE RoLis.—The number of papyrus rolls preserved to us is quite considerable, although none of them con- tain any complete Latin work of importance and most of them are in a badly damaged and fragmentary condition. There are large collections, owned by the state, in London, Paris, Berlin, Naples and Vienna. Most of them came from Egypt, but many were found in 1752 in the ruins of Herculaneum so badly burned that they were taken at first for charcoal and have not yet been fully deciphered. Of all that are preserved to us the oldest is at Paris, and was written fully twenty-five hundred years before Christ, while the most important perhaps is one containing a copy of Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens, a work. which had been totally lost for over a thousand years. This roll came into the posses- sion of the British Museum in 18g0, and contained the accounts of a farm bailiff, or steward, in Egypt, rendered in the reign of THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 21 Vespasian, 78-79 A. D. On the back of this worthless document some unknown scholar had written, or caused to be written, a copy of this work of Aristotle for his own use. ‘This recovery of a lost classic of such traditional fame is one of the most notable events of the sort of the nineteenth century, and gives new hope of regaining from the tombs of Egypt other works of Greek and Roman writers, which scholars have given up as lost forever. Should this hope be realized parchment may have to yield to papyrus its claim to the honor of preserving to us the literature of classical antiquity (§ 3). PARCHMENT OR VELLUM.-—It has been remarked above (§ 2) that the use of skins or hides to receive writing was not unknown to the Romans before the dawn of literature: we are told by Dionysius (+ 7 B. C.) that the treaty between Tarquinius Super- bus and the people of Gabii (Livy I, 54) was written upon a leather covered shield. The revival of this ancient material after papyrus had been introduced was due to an improvement in the treatment of the skins which made it possible to write on both sides of them. Pliny (23-79 A. D.) asserts upon the authority of Varro (116-28 B. C.) that this improvement was made in the reign of Eumenes II (197-159 B.C.), King of Pergamum in Asia Minor, and was due to the rivalry between the libraries at Alex- andria and Pergamum. The King of Egypt, he says, tried to embarrass the rival library by forbidding the exportation of papy- rus, and the scholars of Pergamum were driven to invent a sub- stitute. The story is untrue, but shows that in Varro’s time Pergamum was noted for its parchment (membrana) and explains the name by which the material came to be known in much later times, ergamena, from which our own word parchment (see Web- ster) is derived. Parchment was known to the Romans at an earlier date even than Varro’s story would imply, but was used merely for temporary purposes side by side with the wax-tablets, 13 14 ~ 15 16 22 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. because the form (see below) was more convenient than the papy- rus roll, and the writing could be easily and repeatedly erased. INSTRUMENTS FoR Writinc.— The parchment, unlike the papyrus (§ 5), had to be ruled to insure straight lines. For this purpose the position of the lines was marked with a pair of dividers by means of punctures on both sides of the page, and the lines were drawn with the aid of a ruler and a bodkin (stzlus). Sufficient pressure was put upon the Fic. s. DivipERs From s/2/us to cause the line to show through upon ia the reverse side (where it would be raised above the surface), and to save the trouble of repeated measurements and rulings several sheets were often laid one upon another and all ruled at once. The pen was the same as for papyrus, but the smoother surface of the parchment made it possible to use a sharper point, and as a result to make finer strokes and get more letters into a line. The ink for papyrus was not suitable for parchment, and recourse was had to gallnuts, which contain tannin, and are still used for making inks and dyes. Vitriol was added in later times and heat applied (encaustum, whence the Italian zuchzostro, French engue, encre, and English zz). Various colors were manufactured, of which black was used for ordinary purposes, and for ornament red and gold. The parchment ¢talz (§ 8) for papyrus rolls were in red. PARCHMENT Booxs.—As the parchment could be written upon on both sides, the sheets were put together as are the sheets of paper in modern books. This form resembled that of the wooden tablets covered with wax, and hence the parchment book received the same name, codex (originally, “a block of wood”). The sheets were of various sizes, but the most common dimensions were such as to give a page of what we now call quarto size, being about as wide as long. As the flesh. side of the parchment ~ epee ~agpers sae: a * g 2 pe | if ~ ay s E Onsg ~ Zo = thee : tSEIS co 1 j he oe ersnagl sole nie eprom aes A > Stoneaacentan VUPS r. ESI iach > NT>S openbonsidhanSicipaticnuch meets sy i "Reels “ee erenene meet ct te , * enaanacte SORE pagopia Apa ath ACO Cony | oe G pe eat jee osececgeh gbos. cysts re ae ‘ oe q 1 rk COORES BOW Sie: us ‘ ae crete Sioa eras Nepudndve chee, Be Me steds | AID ae oncexp org ops angers | tN eeaS Tex: Mec oN et = we ‘ | neniomdsiaurty be ht SALE oes TOMER ETT wid ofp ape 2 SNES ne G as = c Ee lee oe CIS GRANCEST Sangin agealeuisesn| CE ERs Fay SSSR Mg MH yaddcl re iLenecst, Novhbetligsta), hd B in NAKTIES Fe COE NASY Gif oie em are COO CLANTE OST UM TUOAOD & Squads: ese , | PikGhnoameredphdabs Y a “pts wa 2K , 2 vt De MQAPA) BAVARIA ICO DE : wu eae penalonr eke Sa NOdR sowqpoeceya cwallspessuspyonige nase en tgs : EG : . a te «ce 4 Se < a : ‘ yy * “a oy \ to aA t & -; oa % 8 ae BN Gece s > i wer ; ‘ ug ae ek = . . * 7 uate § > * * 5A wets " by é ey st is i go . . aid me © elle | one lie, ali he wee wecancente Raae FS a II. Cicero: Seheduc FMaticauac, Suee. FIT" THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 23 was almost white and the hair side a light yellow, care was used in arranging the sheets. Ordinarily the book was made up of quires of eight leaves (sixteen pages), composed of four folded sheets. The first of the four sheets was laid with the flesh side e 2 ¥ @ > ° + 2 2 a Q ° ° 2 \\ gS ola Oto at olta fof Oo} suf of utc B. 9 Ba a) at Qo Q 0°90 Paes 6 o | oo oo 5 Q pS oo 2 0 00 og 9 a *» * @. a0 ao o Q oo oo . o 20 2° eC Q Pia? 20 % 0 20 a9 2 a a0. a0 2 9 vo ae 8 a ve 58 9 0 20 20 3 o ro 90 » 0 20 SS 2 Qo o° a0 99 9 90 . af a o Qa 9 Qa 6 i wo}, q 0.0 ° ° ° ° © © o 2 2 © a 2 A? WW, Bee So 24 5 9556559203919; ao, < Fig. 4. BOOKCASE AND WRITING MATERIALS. down, upon it the second with the hair side down, the third as the first and the fourth as the second. These were then folded down the middle, and the quire was ready for ruling as ex- plained above. When a quire was arranged in this way the colors of every two adjacent pages would be the same, no matter 17 18 19 20 24 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. where the book was opened, and the loss of a sheet would be at once detected by a difference in the color. The sheets were sometimes arranged in quires of three, five and even ten sheets. The quires composing a book were lettered consecutively to assist their arrangement in the proper order, and sometimes the pages of the several quires were numbered. ‘The writing was done after the quire was put together, vertical lines being ruled upon the page to keep the horizontal lines of the same length and to insure a uniform margin. The writing sometimes ran across the full page, exclusive of these margins, but was more frequently arranged in narrow columns, usually two ‘o the page, but sometimes three or even four. When the work was finished the quires were stitched or glued together, and the book thus formed, if intended to be preserved, was protected by a covering of the same material, not unlike our own flexible bindings. Opp Forms.—Mention is made occasionally by good authori- ties of parchment books put up in rolls like papyrus, and con- versely we know that papyrus sheets were sometimes stitched or glued together in codex form, strengthened in rare instances by the insertion of parchment leaves. Such arrangements were probably merely the caprice of the writer, and are not to be considered even a passing fashion. SIZE OF THE CODEX.—The parchment was so thin and light that a single codex could contain the complete works of an author, or even of several authors, that in papyrus form had to be divided into several rolls: all of Vergil, ¢. g., made a codex of very con- venient size, and Catullus is commonly joined with some other author or authors. PARCHMENT vs. Papyrus.—The superiority of parchment over papyrus is obvious: it was more durable and did not become frayed at the edges; both sides were available; more words could be written in a line of the same length; works of large compass could be comprised within a codex of moderate size; the codex could be read more easily and consulted more conveniently, with Los ey Sseiiqtig SAONNaAT, UII i ’ vane loti pan NOTOPIAWY: ane pte oo ONY giyoIoly? YEOTUWIONT ZA) SPYCLDNOW VEIN OUTIIDSY SON SLM OGOTYIONDIIS ets rgUAVET BLE OLE SI TOM ILYVI OT19002, rtte: oo SUINVSIUT TEBE yin aebees SUOLIS @ ee “AVTAWIWWLID ID IN YA LOIN WOISIIAD — yybaeywhiv99279; Jah onsiivaTivou2 LWHONTINYHS : OUIUNYS Sigel VOINDU YY TSS1OVYDSSCINON ish aT NCH gFOIRAYZODINASLESIN UE , (SSN TLNOINORSISET PAVED SIWOIIOIN Vv Pa A aE” OLDE. proud asians SINDEN 7 yt BUANGG 1 Wa dtFOg INE VATVAN IDWS onigiva | Wy Astivs VY. Pe | “pee, AVNOSI 307) vorsisarn aby oft WISI DIS iNIYS | EEETENUIAY TOWING GAVDITON IAW Y 2h Hiern OID _ patio agVOLT go agp . ot _S7EVN NOMAD Wy 12 20sNWTVIINGII1UGIDD | a oye siMsT ne 30u YiNaSsN] ShNIWOHTTWhscINEN OMLYDS tes: ee aryorly i wae ONY IVE VIS OMWIYIVISI DKS vain GWvVva! = ek OW WAN TITAN) VN Waa Jars OUOW Va ANE! Dvd vid338 TOG VIG 511 0T 250, DINOMITS FOSLTY OIQTBOOT To -Twvragoim onvanasqasay Y VLD ISIS! NDONVTANIORISER'S ° A NOTIVsiINTIWOM. | | SNVIIONTY TStuNYT YDS ara WS MOU VAivad VenNNsbNys : Xb CSHAWWO LITINTOUINS IG 30 AVANSTLYaOMDOISIN STNINVONGAE (a> ays UVISISIVTAVIYIVHOVDOINVAWVTYHTT yevaouiais Dyigngs. § IV EvIIWhieN SF ipyivond ayn ooo » SMI ISNN1OYT WI VINOD AVON) Y ULRESESVANOOINOFT. oo QPWVIGN DI SNTTDWISS ISI NILAWISS10 DTU VOITTLD BO SaODOSOVVAINIT GT ITEIVION DN STONVIIINDINTT WASVTI NSE “CIM INVINIODDN EON NV WLI M TTT AS OVI 1.20 \ &* ACTAVTWIVSIV TD WILT TATE ANVEV TA WON DNDNYRC m, 4 a “ AVIGN SOL Nah ieproma yap nach WIYIONTWAM ? ‘. agate oe = SOTTO TS TR ee “PAD TTCIND AIST SVN VISE AYE OYHDDNDINY ns wegen eset Evol nnn NL INNN2g Lshisy, oan SSIYDVITIND Won ¢ — SEUNTNSAIOWAVOS | KE OMAYVINO & SayyoHRd Jus avanvsoninavvseNnwvns SHON SUANDSSOINON J Ji SWwhYsh 90 TANWITHIN: ssinyaiwave) ay 5 os AMDT WI SSTTIVINY TI DV AUD LNIOTN OYA DIS NON 17738 St: ‘ VOUIVYLIG WEI SST MAD ctv LT I Sass yy Oe ae HYULAVYINTIONTNVOGOLVORD NOLS VI 1th 1013 NIAUINE® PPINSTSIDAWW ANY WAV INDIES ICT EOIV PRYIDIUIASING re BS a : COTRWIDHON IIE LVIRV ION WD stena sy" IN) BAR AMMAN IO J SON OILY TOU V EIST IVINS IDR 7 Thagayt YIU WH OMTIIONNO WV TISINV EZ 3TH . hae eine ID ny SHINDSIINOV shiv aia ae haz > HUNVENDSY ESD ONLI OVE Yvan 3159 21 ORE SLT TOD : ct wee ene MIE > 4. _ eo sae ayyoul wine LER Gane gl oe A = oe : dos ual “some cadet 8 se a a eee THE MAKING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 25 no time to be lost in rolling it up and restoring it to its cover; besides, as it would lie open of itself, the hands of the reader were free to copy from one codex to another, if he pleased, with- out assistance. Despite these numerous and manifest advantages, parchment was slow to supersede papyrus. In classical times it was used merely for accounts, notes, letters, etc. Martial (40-102 A. D.) is the first to mention parchment copies of works of literature, and even his words (XIV, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192) are not decisive in the opinion of certain scholars. ‘The fates seem to have decreed that papyrus should be the perishable material for pagan literature, and parchment reserved for the Christian world. We find, as a matter of fact, that Bibles were early written in the codex form, and that the works of bishops and saints were soon spread upon the same material. The great law books, following upon the compilations of Theodosius and Justinian, demanded a more convenient form than the volumen, and seem to have been pub- lished from the first as codices. The law and the gospel! Next came what we call the great classics, that is, the choicest works of Greek and Roman literature, and from the third century of our era parchment was the favorite for current publications. By the seventh century papyrus had practically retired from the field (§ 3). Tarpy Use.—The slowness of parchment to supplant papy- rus is not satisfactorily accounted for by the natural conser- vatism of the Romans. It can be explained, perhaps, by sup- posing that parchment was much more expensive than papyrus, but no proof can be adduced to support this supposition. In fact, what little we know of the relative price of the two sub- stances seems to indicate that papyrus was more expensive than parchment. The real reason is yet to be discovered. PaLImpsEsts.—The word palimpsest has been explained already (§ 5). It has also been remarked (§ 14) that parchment was used at first for note books and memoranda because the sheet could be cleaned easily and used repeatedly by washing off the writing 21 22 23 24 26 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. when it had served its purpose. This statement is true only of the inferior ink employed in earlier times. As the ink was gradually improved in course of time (§ 15), it became almost indelible, especially when fixed by age, and even rubbing and scraping, to say nothing of washing, failed to remove all traces of the earlier writing. In such cases the second copy was some- times written between the lines of the older copy, and both writ- ings may now be read under favorable circumstances. This fact is of great importance to scholars, as will be explained hereafter. A book thus rewritten is called ber palimpsestus or codex rescriptus. AGE OF PARCHMENT Booxs.—From the history of the intro- duction of parchment (§ 13) it will be understood that the oldest parchment books (codzces) which we possess are of a very late date as compared with the papyrus rolls (volumzna) which are still extant (§ 12). Our very oldest codices do not go back beyond the third or fourth century of our era, and very few are older than the ninth. This will be considered more fully hereafter. THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS. HE AUTHORS.—The men whose names are famous in the history of Roman literature may be divided into two classes. Some were men of high position in society and in the state, to whom literature was but one form of a many sided activity: such men are Cesar and Cicero and Sallust. Others are persons of distinctly inferior station, freedmen perhaps, or sons of freedmen, who won their bread by their pens: such persons are Terence and Vergil and Horace. One fact in regard to the authors of the second class forces itself at once upon our attention: Each is attached to some powerful friend, to whom he seems to owe all his material prosperity. This fact is the more striking, because the works of many authors of this class, of all of those whom we have directly mentioned, were widely read during their lifetime, and must have had a ready sale and considerable market value even then. We should expect such poets as Horace and Vergil to have had a generous income independent of the bounty of their patrons. It seems to have been otherwise. CopyriGHT.—The natural inference is that the author had little pecuniary interest in the sale of his works. There is no direct evidence, z. é., no statement in the works of such authors, to support this assertion, but there is none to controvert it. As each copy of a book was made by itself, page by page, with pen and ink, as no costly plant was necessary to multiply these copies, and no special skill, it is hard to see how the author could retain any control over the reproduction of a work when it had once got into circulation. Even in our day any one may make a manu- script copy, or any number of them, of any book which he is unable to buy, whether the author likes it or not. This seems 27 25 26 27 28 29 28 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. to have been the case in Rome, and this state of helplessness fully accounts for the dependence of the poet upon the patron, and the absence of any feeling of shame or degradation, on the part of the dependent. The first copy of his book he could sell, or aS many copies as he could make, or have made, before any left his possession, but these would at best be very few. That even this chance, poor as it was, was precarious is shown by. the theft of Cicero’s De Finzbus (Att. XIII, 21, 4 and 5) in advance of publication. Worse than this, the hapless author had not even the privilege of deciding whether a book that he had written should be published or not: at least Ovid declares (Trist. I, 7) that he had intended to destroy his Metamorphoses, but the work was published from copies taken by his friends without his con- sent or knowledge. Cicero let the first draft of his Academica get out of his possession while he was considering a different form for the treatise, and the consequence was that two very different ver- sions were circulated at the same time. PLays.—The fact that a dramatist received pay when one of his plays was presented at the public games has nothing to do with the question of property rights in works of general literature. As a matter of fact the attacks made upon Terence by rival dramatists show that they were acquainted with his plays before they were put upon the stage, and justify the suggestion that they may have been in more or less general circulation for the purpose of private reading. UNCOMMERCIAL PUBLICATION.—Every Roman of position kept in his employ several trained scribes (/brarzz), usually slaves or freedmen and often highly educated and accomplished, who served him as amanuenses, secretaries, etc. Under the Republic the author must have had his book copied by these /bvarzz, either his own or his patron’s. Many of these copies would be intended for dedication or presentation purposes, but some would find their way into the market. These were sold in book shops (/aberne hibrari@, Cic. Phil. II, 9, 21), which were set up in Rome long THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS. 29 before there was any organized publishing business. The first impulse toward such an enterprise may have been given by the bringing to Rome by Sulla and Lucullus of whole libraries from Greece and Asia Minor. It at once became the fashion to make large collections of books, and in Cicero’s time no house was com- plete without a spacious library fully stocked with books, although the owner was often wholly ignorant of their contents. Cicero had great numbers of books not only in his house at Rome, but also at each of his half dozen country-seats. He was assisted in collecting them by his friend T. Pomponius Atticus, a man noted as much for his love of literature and learning as for his vast wealth and far reaching business enterprises. He seems to have had a commission from Cicero to buy for him every book that could be bought, and to make copies of those that were valuable or rare. Atticus had numerous /zbrvarzz (Nepos XXV, 13, 3), and these he employed also in making copies of Cicero’s works and of such others as Cicero recommended to him. All these he sold to good advantage (Att. XIII, 12, 2), but the gain was merely incidental and by no means the object he had in view. His success, how- ever, added to the constantly increasing demand for books, seems to have led to the establishment of the business upon a commer- cial basis, and in so far as this is true it is permissible, perhaps, to speak of Atticus as the first of Roman publishers. CoMMERCIAL PusBLicATIon.—Under the Empire the business seems to have reached large proportions almost at a stride. The publishers were at the same time wholesale and retail dealers in books. Their establishments were found in the most popular and generally frequented parts of Rome, were distinguished by the lists hanging by the door of books kept for sale, and soon became the resort of men of culture as well as of those who sought merely after the novel and the entertaining. Even under Augustus (29 B. C.-14 A. D.) the works of Roman authors were read not only 30 31 32 33 34 30 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. in Italy but also in the provinces, and even crossed the sea. Public libraries were established in many places, and in the schools the antiquated works that had been the text books for generations (e. g., the Twelve Tables and the translation of Homer by Andronicus) began to give place to those of contemporary authors. ProcEss OF PUBLICATION.—It is evident that the publisher had no more control over works once in circulation than the author had (§ 26), and he must therefore have relied upon the elegance, correctness and cheapness of his editions of the classics to insure their sale, and in the case of a new work upon the quickness with which he could supply the demand. ‘The general process was something like this: The book to be copied, furnished by the author if a new work, bought or borrowed or hired (see below) if an old one, was read to the scribes, some of which were the slaves of the publisher and others perhaps hired for the occasion, but all trained copyists. Other slaves arranged the sheets in the proper order as fast as they were written, pasted them together (Cic. Att. IV, 4 b.), mounted them and supplied them with their parchment ¢z/w/z and cases (see § 7). Errors were then corrected and the book was ready for sale. DICTATION.—No ancient authority can be quoted in sup- port of the statement that the books were copied from dicta- tion, but this must have been the case in all large establish- ments. To say nothing of the fact that even private letters were usually dictated, and of the difficulty of managing the roll, which served for copy, while writing ($ 20), the slowness of the other method, if but few slaves were employed, and the impracticability of furnishing copy to a large number without great loss of time, seem enough to justify the statement. In later times, especially during the middle ages, the scribes worked independently. RAPIDITY OF PUBLICATION.—Cicero tells us (Pro. Sulla, XIV, 42) that Roman senators could write fast enough to take down evidence verbatim, and the trained scribes must have far surpassed them in speed, even if the system of shorthand often mentioned THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS. 31 by ancient authorities was not used for books intended for gen- eral circulation. Martial tells us (II, 1, 5) that his second book could be copied in an hour. It contains ninety-three epigrams amounting to five hundred and forty verses, which would make the scribe equal to nine verses to the minute. It is evident that a small edition, one, that is, not many times larger than the num- ber of scribes employed, could be put upon the market much more quickly than it could be furnished now. When the demand was great and the edition large (Pliny, Ep. IV, 7, 2, mentions one of a thousand copies) the publisher would put none on sale until all were ready, thus preventing rival houses from using one of his books as copy. If he overestimated the demand, unsold copies could still be sent to the provinces (Hor. Ep. I, 20, 13) or as a last resort be used for wrapping paper (Mart. III, 2). Cost oF THE Booxs.—The cost of the books varied, of course, with their size and with the style in which they were issued. Martial’s first book, containing eight hundred and twenty lines and covering twenty-nine pages in ‘Teubner’s text, was sold (Mart. I, 66; 117, 17) at thirty cents, fifty cents, and one dollar; his Xenia, containing two hundred and seventy-four verses and covering fourteen pages in Teubner’s text, was sold (XIII, 3) at twenty cents, but cost the publisher less than ten. Such prices are hardly more than we pay now. Much would depend of course upon the demand, and very high prices were put upon particular copies. Gellius (II, 3, 5) mentions a copy of Vergil, supposed to be by his own hand, which had cost the owner over one hundred dollars, and copies whose correctness (see below) was attested by some good authority were also highly valued. The same circum- stances would increase the price of modern books materially. STICHOMETRY.—The ancients did not measure their books, as we do, by the pages, but by the verse in poetry and the line in prose, and the number contained in the work was written at the 35 36 37 32 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. end of the book. ‘The Alexandrian librarians seem to have entered the number along with the title of the work in their catalogues, and to have marked the number of lines, at every fiftieth or hun- dredth line, in their copy of the book. ‘This system of measure- ment was carefully employed by the publishers, and furnished an accurate standard by which to fix the price of the book and the wages of those scribes who were not slaves. For this purpose they selected the hexameter verse as the unit for poetry, and as its equivalent in prose a line of sixteen syllables or thirty-five letters. This standard line, were it actually written, would require one of the broader sheets mentioned above (§ 4), but such a sheet was not necessary and perhaps not usual. It was merely neces- sary to find the ratio of the line actually written to the stand- ard line, for the scribes were careful to keep their lines of the same length, and the number of lines on the page constant, throughout the work upon which they were engaged. Frequently we find the number of lines written very much greater than the number registered at the end of the roll, because the page was too narrow to contain the standard line from which the registered number was calculated. We do not know the price paid for ordinary works of literature. CorrRECTORS.—The very rapidity with which the scribes worked would lead us to look for many mistakes in their copies, and from the earliest times authors and scholars have complained of their blunders. Cicero says (Q. Fr. III, 5, 6) that he knows not where to turn for books: they are written so badly and put upon the market with so many imperfections. He took every precaution to have his own books as free from errors as possible. His famous freedman, Tiro, read the copy carefully before it was sent to Atti- cus, and Atticus had each book examined and corrected before it passed out of his keeping. Even after the earlier copies were sent out he introduced improvements in the later editions at Cicero’s suggestion, THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS. 33 Similar precautions were taken by at least the best commercial houses. They had competent correctors in their employ, but as each copy had to be examined independently, the labor was far greater than that of the modern proof-reader, and the results much less satisfactory. Martial (II, 8) warns his readers that the errors which they may detect in his books are to be ascribed to the publisher, not to him, and elsewhere (VII, 11) he gives us to understand that authors corrected with their own hands the copies which they presented to their friends (cf. Gell. II, 3, 5). Quin- tilian prefaces his Institutions with a letter to his publisher, beg- ging him to issue the work as free from blunders as he can, and Irenzeus, bishop of Lyons, 177 A. D., urges that each copy of his work be compared with the original. Persons buying books sometimes had them examined first by a competent critic (Gell. V, 4, 2), or corrected by comparison with a copy known to be accurate. Such standard copies were not always to be had, but were consulted if possible to decide disputed readings (Gell. I, 7), and were sometimes hired for this purpose (Gell. XVIII, 5, 11) at large expense. It is beyond question that errors in the codices of later times, which have descended to us, are in some cases derived from blunders made at the time when the books were first published. TITLES.—As in the papyrus roll the title was no part of the work itself, but rather of the mounting (§ 8), so in the later parchment codex it was the ancient custom to write the title, together with the number of the lines ($ 36), at the end, instead of at the beginning where we should look for it. This must be explained, of course, from the standpoint of the scribe, who was concerned only with what he had written and how much, and left the purchaser to mark the volume or leave it unmarked at his pleasure. The manuscripts of the middle ages usually have the title both at the beginning and at the end of the book, frequently 38 39 40 41 34 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. adding a word of good omen (/fe/zczter), or an expression of grati- fication at the conclusion of the task (see Plate VIII). These titles vary greatly in different manuscripts of the same work, sometimes even in the same manuscript, and suggest that the classic writers were far less anxious about getting good titles for their works than modern authors are, and may perhaps have pub- lished them without any formal titles at all. Cicero refers to his essay on Old Age indifferently as the Cato Maior (Off. I, 42, 151) and De Senectute (Div. 2, 3). If Macrobius (Sat. I, 24, 11) is to be trusted, Vergil seems to have spoken of the Aeneid by its hero’s name Aeneas (cf. Hamlet, Ivanhoe, etc.). Sallust’s mono- graph on the Conspiracy of Catiline is called in the best manu- script Bellum Catulinarium at the beginning and Bellum Catzlinae at the end. Quintilian (35-100 A. D.) calls it Bellum Catzlinae, and so does Nonius (beginning of fourth cent.); Servius (end of fourth cent.) has the shorter title Catelina (cf. Aeneas and Cato Mazor above), Priscian (sixth cent.) has Bellum Catelinarium, and in other ancient authorities we find Azstorza Catilinae. ‘The best form nowadays is Bellum Catelinae, which is rapidly driving out the De Coniuratione Catilinae Liber of our school books, just as Belli Gallict Liber I. (L1., I/1., etc.) is displacing the Commentartus De Bello Gallico Primus (Secundus, Tertius, etc.) familiar to us all. No title is absolutely certain. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. ‘THE PERIOD COVERED.—The creative genius of the Ro- 42 mans ends, so far as literature is concerned, with the reign of Trajan (97-117 A. D.). From this time until the invention of printing the preparing and publication of books did not vary from the methods described above, except so far as the parchment codex differed in form from the papyrus roll. During this period of about thirteen centuries we have now to consider the fates of the published works, or in other words of the manuscripts that con- tained them: the means that were taken to preserve them, how they were lost, and then after nearly a thousand years partially recovered. This period may be naturally divided into three very unequal portions: 1. The Period of the Decline, extending roughly to the Germanic invasions of about the fifth century; 2. The Dark Ages, extending to about the thirteenth century; 3. The Revival of Learning. It must be remembered that we are con- cerned with the social, political and literary history of these times so far only as it relates to the Transmission of the Manuscripts. THE PERIOD OF THE DECLINE.—It is a fact well known to all 438 students of literature that at the time when genius is least pro- ductive and originality most torpid the masterpieces of an earlier day will be most carefully studied and appreciated. This is emi- nently true of Roman literature: its darkest period saw the estab- lishment of public libraries, the growth of schools and universities on humanistic lines, the rise of the grammarians, and the classics made the last defense of paganism against Christianity. All these agencies made for the preservation of literature, so far as it was preserved at all, and must be examined therefore in some detail. 35 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. ‘THE PERIOD COVERED.—The creative genius of the Ro- mans ends, so far as literature is concerned, with the reign of Trajan (97-117 A. D.). From this time until the invention of printing the preparing and publication of books did not vary from the methods described above, except so far as the parchment codex differed in form from the papyrus roll. During this period of about thirteen centuries we have now to consider the fates of the published works, or in other words of the manuscripts that con- tained them: the means that were taken to preserve them, how they were lost, and then after nearly a thousand years partially recovered. This period may be naturally divided into three very unequal portions: 1. The Period of the Decline, extending roughly to the Germanic invasions of about the fifth century; 2. The Dark Ages, extending to about the thirteenth century; 3. The Revival of Learning. It must be remembered that we are con- cerned with the social, political and literary history of these times so far only as it relates to the Transmission of the Manuscripts. THE PERIOD OF THE DECLINE.—It is a fact well known to all students of literature that at the time when genius is least pro- ductive and originality most torpid the masterpieces of an earlier day will be most carefully studied and appreciated. This is emi- nently true of Roman literature: its darkest period saw the estab- lishment of public libraries, the growth of schools and universities on humanistic lines, the rise of the grammarians, and the classics made the last defense of paganism against Christianity. All these agencies made for the preservation of literature, so far as it was preserved at all, and must be examined therefore in some detail. 35 42 43 1h 2 { Ss iM oe :POSV IN SAIN} R sai ide QVOTE M PORE PRI MW ML 2 “— ;DEROMIONY MCV MENPIDESIAGENVITENORBE 4 VY NDEHOMINESN ATIDV RVMGENVSERGOAGHIER&x: | Pop SGV ESOLV ALPRIMISEXTEMLIOMENSTB ANNI “4 - FORTESINVERLANTIANRIGLAEBASQ.IACENTIS. | eR EGY EPSRC IMATE Se KESTAS. ~ “ALSINO ONIVERITLELLVSEECNN DASYBIPSVM ARCIVRVMIENVIS AT ERLISVSLEN DERESNLCO © “iLlicort ICIANTLAELISN EERNVGIBNSHERBAE a ICSTERI LEALEXIG NSNLDESERAFYMORHARING re ‘EE LR .ISL DEMLONSASGESS ARENG ONALIS. | ts FAA VAST RISAIN DVRESCERECAM PVAT” bain ANILBIELAVASERESS NIATOS IDEREIARRA ; UN DEPRINSLALETY MSILIQYV AMONASSANTELEGVME NR WITIENIWESEETVSNI Ici NETRISTISQ.LYPINE. Lal ee f TISEGN FAIPATIERES a DVRESGERECAMEN wv - Se NESATY: RARER MO PINGVI eye ELLECOTEICH ANTILAE i. LLCSTERS LEALEXIG NENUDISERATY MORHARING ey so ee -\TLERN ISLDEMLONSASCESSARENG ONAILIS. LISNEFRVGLBVNSHEADS. _— oAILBEELANASERESS NIATOSII YEREFTARRA | SIRENS Mines Sea Ee 4 i MENG ITLENNESTETYSY ICLAETRIST iSQ.LNTINI © | “) WSTY Lem ISERAGILISC CALAMOSSILVAMQO-SONNNE / AT RATEN LMLINICAM® 2VMSEGESV RITAVEN. AE VE ERN WILELHALOPERTN'S NPAPAN /ERASOMNO : “Srp AMMENIA TERN SEACH TSE MBORABRIDAS ANW ee AY onsite i EWE A coe! ee SEAS St s aye sete EN ¥ E Sak - : = 7 Nppi oe SES ee s ao we Sai a Tet | cee e eee east V. VerRGIL: Schedae latreanae, Saec. 44 45 36 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. Pusiic LipRARIES.—The growth of private libraries (§ 29) steadily increased during the empire, for we read that the gram- marian Serenus Sammonicus (+ 212 A. D.) left 62,000 volumes to his son, but the largest of these collections are of little impor- tance compared with the public libraries that were founded during the same period. The first of these to be opened in Rome was established by Asinius Pollio (t 4 A. D.) during the reign of Augustus in the a/rzum of Libertas. Augustus himself opened two, and by his successors the number was gradually increased to twenty-eight. Of these the most magnificent was the Bzblotheca Ulpia, founded by Trajan. Smaller cities had their libraries too. Pliny, Trajan’s governor of Bithynia, tells us (Ep. I, 8) of having given one himself to his native town, Comum, supported by an endowment yielding annually thirty thousand sesterces. The im- portance, from our standpoint, of these public libraries lies in the fact that such collections were universal in their character, while private libraries are usually gathered in a less catholic spirit. The former would tend to preserve, therefore, the less popular and attractive works that might otherwise have disappeared. ScHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.—A still more important part in the preservation of the literature of the past was taken by the schools and universities. These had been established on Greek lines in the city of Rome at least as early as the time of Cicero and Varro, and had spread throughout the empire until in the centuries just preceding the Germanic invasions all the intel- lectual life of the Roman was connected with education. ‘The branches taught were grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geome- try, astronomy, and music, but the central thing was the study of the older and greater writers of Greece and Rome. Original creation had virtually come to an end, and it seemed to all educated persons that the study of the works of the past was the most profitable of intellectual pursuits. Two facts in relation to the schools affect the transmission of the manuscripts. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 37 THE “Crassics."—The choosing of materials for pupils to study and imitate would lead gradually to the fixing with more ‘or less precision of the canon of the classics, those writers, that is, whose works were regarded as the best of their kind in the various lines of literature. Of some of these authors the complete works were used in the schools; of others certain parts complete in themselves (¢. g., the first and third decades of Livy) were carefully studied, while of other parts epitomes were made for reference purposes; of others still selections were made for specific objects, as when, for example, the letters and speeches scattered through the various works of Sallust were brought together in one volume for rhetorical purposes. The result, so far as it affects the transmission of the manuscripts is apparent: of some authors the whole works would be in constant demand and copies would be multiplied almost beyond numbering; of others parts only would be so treated; still others would be wholly neglected. It is evident, also, that these school editions would be especially liable to errors, and even to arbitrary changes for the purposes of instruction. ScHoLiA.—The needs of the pupils would lead, in the second place, to the preparation of notes and commentaries upon those authors whose language or matter was found to require such helps. Such notes are added to the works of English authors in our own schools now, and must have been even more needed by Roman school boys because no books were then written especially for the young. ‘These school commentaries, to distinguish them from the works of modern scholars, are called scho/za, and their authors, or (more usually) their compilers, are called scholiasts. Some of these notes were published separately, and have come down to us with the name of the author attached, as, e. ¢., the commentaries of Asconius (first century) on some of Cicero’s Orations, of Por- phyrio (second century) on Horace, of Tiberius Claudius Donatus 46 47 48 49 50 38 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. (fourth century) on Vergil, and of Aelius Donatus (fourth century) and Eugraphius (sixth century) on Terence. Other Scholiasts, and by far the larger number, wrote their notes on the margins and between the lines of their manuscripts of the authors they explained, and of these as a rule inferior scholars we seldom know the names. When it is necessary to distinguish them, they are called by the name of the author (“Scholiast on Juvenal,” etc.) or even of the manuscript (§ 69) on which their scholza are found. These scholia are chiefly valuable for the subject matter of the author, but they give some help also in the text. In the: first place, those scholiasts whose commentaries were published sepa- rately, frequently quote the passage of the text which they explain, and thus give us the reading of the manuscripts they used, in most cases older and therefore better than our own. In the second place, they sometimes help us to fix the date of a manuscript or its relations to others even when the scholza are of little value and the name of their author is not known. GLossESs.—One sort of scholza is often mentioned in editions of the classics. An unusual word was called g/ossa, and in the course of time the definition or explanation of such a word was called by the same name. Collections of these words and ex- planations were made, called g/ossae, whence our words “gloss” and “glossary.” Now when the scholiast found in his text such a word, for example a foreign or obsolete Latin word, he often wrote the word of the same meaning which was current in his time (Latin also, of course) directly above it in the text or close to it in the margin. A later copyist was very apt to take such a gloss for either a correction or an omitted word, and accordingly to omit the original word from his copy, or to write both words together. THE GRAMMARIANS.—Close upon the writing of commentaries to explain the subject matter of the classics followed the composi- tion of scholarly works, dealing directly with the language itself, the sounds, inflections, syntax, prosody, lexicography and so on. The writers upon these subjects, differing widely in their learn- THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 39 ing and ability, are grouped together under the name of Gramma- rians, as opposed to the Scholiasts, although many belong to the one class as much as to the other. For the preservation of the classics they are valuable, entirely apart from their scholarship, in proportion to the number of quotations which they make in illustration of the matters of which they treat. Among those help- ful in this way may be mentioned Charisius (fourth century), Diomedes (sixth century), Macrobius (fifth century), Nonius (fourth century), Priscianus (sixth century), Scaurus (second cen- tury), and Victorinus (fourth century). OPPOSITION TO CHRISTIANITY.—It is well known that the higher classes in Rome were the last to embrace Christianity. For resisting the spread of the new faith they found the most effective weapon to be the literature in which were embodied all the beauty and power of pagan morality, culture and refinement. Men of the highest social standing, senators, statesmen, consuls, devoted their energy and talent to fostering the ancient classics. They succeeded in maintaining the old system of education, pre- vented the establishment of separate schools for the benefit of their opponents, and even endeavored to put the texts of the great Roman writers upon a sounder basis. For this purpose they had made or made with their own hands copies of manuscripts of known excellence (see § 39), or in default of these used their own knowledge of the language to remove the more obvious errors due to the carelessness or ignorance of successive copyists. Some of these editions they attested by their own names, and these names have occasionally come down to us in later copies. SUBSCRIPTIONS.—These signatures, technically called saudscrip- tones, date mostly from the fourth to the sixth century, although a few are earlier, and are known to us in copies hundreds of years later, accompanied perhaps by the subscription of some later reviser. For example, many manuscripts of Terence, dating from of 52 53 54 40 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. the ninth to the twelfth century, have preserved an ancient sub- scription in two forms: CALLIOPIUS RECENSUI CALLIOPIUS RECENSUIT. This shows that much as these manuscripts may differ from each other, all are derived ultimately from a revision of the text of Terence made by Calliopius, who is otherwise unknown, but is believed for certain reasons to have lived in the third or fourth century. Again, several manuscripts of Ceesar, dating from the ninth and eleventh centuries, have the subscription : Jutius CELSUS CONSTANTINUS VC LEGI. We do not know anything more about this man of high position (vc vtr clartssimus, see Harper’s Dictionary, s. v. clarus), but the name seems to show that he lived no earlier than the fourth century. VALUE.—We are able to test the value of these revisions, because we have other manuscripts of Terence and Cesar that are independently derived. Of Terence we have but one manu- script (Codex Bembinus, see Plate III) that has escaped the corrections of Calliopius, but this shows us that he used either inferior manuscripts as his guide, or else relied upon his own insufficient knowledge in correcting the text current in his time. With Czesar the case is different. The manuscripts derived from the revision of Celsus have been, until very re- cently, regarded almost the only reliable authorities, and even now Celsus is credited (see Kiibler, Teubner’s text, p. ix) with having used good copies in making his text, even if he did rely sometimes too much upon his own guesses. SumMARY.—From the preceding paragraphs it ought to be evident that in the period of the decline all conditions were favor- able for the preservation in some form of the manuscripts. The influence of the schools, however, and the well meant, but not always successful, efforts of the revisers would lead us to expect variations in the texts of the more popular authors, and the disap- pearance of those thought less useful for instruction and less admirable in style. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 41 Lost Works.—It is well known that the works of certain Roman authors have been entirely lost, that of others we possess parts only, that there are few whose writings are wholly preserved. We should not regret this, if the works of inferior authors only had been lost—but among the missing are some of the most famous in the lines of history, oratory, philosophy, and poetry. We should expect it, if the works of early writers only had per- ished—but whole volumes of Cicero, two-thirds of Tacitus, three- fourths of Livy are gone, to mention those names only that are as familiar to us as our own. No imperial library could have lacked complete editions of their works, they must have been included in hundreds of private collections, school boys must have studied them, and teachers commented upon them, but they are no more to be found. We have therefore to explain how so much has disappeared, and how so much has been preserved. THE Dark AGES.—It was at the very time when Roman lit- erature was the center of all intellectual activity ($ 43) that the catastrophe came that was to overwhelm learning, literature and even Rome itself. In the fourth century the Roman empire was divided; Valentinian took the eastern half with Constantinople for his capital, leaving Rome and the west to his brother Valens. The fifth century had only just begun when the hordes of the north fell upon the western half and made havoc of it. First the Vandals, turned from Italy, established themselves in Gaul. Then the Visigoths sacked Rome, passed into Gaul, and drove the Van- dals into Spain. The Vandals, again, crossed over into Africa, ravaged that province, and returned to Italy by the south. The Tartar Huns came next and disappeared leaving desolation behind them. ‘The Franks attacked Gaul, the Saxons Britain. The Os- trogoths disputed Italy with the Vandals, and both were dispos- sessed by the eastern Emperor, Justinian (527-565). He died and the Lombards appeared. Then the Saracens came from the south 59 56 57 42 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. and the Danes from the north. It was not until the time of Charles the Great (Charlemagne), in the last part of the eighth century, that order was restored in Western Europe. Cities had been pillaged, provinces laid waste, empires overturned, a great civilization overwhelmed, and a literature that antedated the cities, provinces and empires, and had inspired the civilization, had prac- tically disappeared. INDIFFERENCE TO LEARNING.—The worst, perhaps, was yet to come. These three centuries of destruction were followed by five centuries of indifference to learning. It is impossible to give within our limits an adequate idea of the ignorance of the period: the ninth chapter of Hallam’s Middle Ages cannot be condensed into a paragraph. During this time Latin ceased to be a spoken language; inflections were neglected, syntax ignored, sounds modi- fied, and Spanish, French and Italian began to be. There was not even an educated class. The nobles could not sign their names: until seals were brought into use they subscribed to their charters with the sign of the cross. The ignorance of the church was the subject of reproach in every council; in one held in gg2 it was asserted that not a single person in Rome knew the first elements of letters. In the time of Charlemagne not one priest of the thou- sand in Spain could address a common letter to another. In Eng- land King Alfred said that he could not remember a single priest south of the Thames, the most civilized part of his realm, that knew the meaning of the common prayers. Alfred himself had difficulty in translating a pastoral letter of Saint Gregory on account of his ignorance of Latin, the one written language of the time. Charlemagne could not write at all. If the ignorance of nobles, priests and kings was so appalling, that of the commons must have been sublime, and we are ready to find the loss of Roman literature less surprising than its partial recovery. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 43 THE CHuRcH.—The one preservative agency was the church. In spite of the gross ignorance, the narrow-mindedness, the world- liness of the priesthood, there were three influences in connection with the church that made for the preservation of classical litera- ture. These were the papal supremacy, the liturgy and the mo- nastic establishments. For our present purpose we may pass over the first two with the short statement that the liturgy was in Latin, and that the need of the church of some one language as a means of communication with its branches everywhere served to keep alive some faint knowledge of the Latin tongue, corrupted as it became. The third must be more fully considered. Of the re- ligious orders of Western Europe one of the most ancient was that founded in 529 on Monte Cassino, near Naples, by Saint Benedict. Its rule was less severe than that of the others, but it enjoined upon its members frugality, soberness and above all industry. From various kinds of manual labor the copying of manuscripts was finally selected as the most likely to keep the mind from car- nal thoughts, and so all over Italy, Switzerland, France, England and Ireland the pious monks laboriously copied and recopied the manuscripts of Latin authors amid all the destruction of barbaric invasions, and the poverty of learning that followed. It must be clearly understood that these manuscripts were not copied for pub- lication. The work was purely mechanical, a treadmill process. The completed codices were stored away in the vaults of the abbeys to molder and decay, until, in later times, when the very knowl- edge of their meaning was lost, they were brought out to be washed and scraped and made fit to receive other copies by other generations of monks. It was from no love of learning, therefore, that the Benedictines and the allied brethren saved the literature of Rome, so much of it, that is, as did not rot in cellars and dun- geons, or was not remorselessly rubbed away to make room for hymns and homilies and lives of the saints and martyrs. For 98 59 & TOR ee ' sy « ut: if : 3 cts ¢ Ger” ga Hea = ; as , a Be ok = aig : : i 4 ba” - ge larersbier cheroy agerede man Lutacfeltslenia mprimitipugnanceterdarn” é poltquam furar copiat (Ben E ye ies gran! inconfernffimol hofes incur rel big; pug-nantionfo . : on Fecro pracho. rumuero cérmneref” quantaaudacia -quarcag;anmuit: furl GX 4 aed, geafinf cero fi cadauera repr 7s “paulalem Kiam fy pirant”. feroaam q; Hees a miguam Labuan : tinistsf- inuulourdhnents poft~emo Sommicopia : neq; inprae . Berctoum lgmamerom. lucrutazia; se uciaagrrabamcu- oa vik | ESPLICIT | LN CIPIT Bille Iv ovat | ALSOQVERITUR DENATY RA SVA GENYC aS Sass ge iy te es , 4 force: :Rremirb ak ae = Bae offcatimnl-grequebacer -Pacraur ubsusdel eralins: ‘ : DINTA Acracusr 4 Cg 5 : ot : a Verav magnaurendere- #00 Lorcem pridor1am tnmediofolltfin.. stein ee NG permurbapr. Ace} abotalibsreriflemes t wnreer~ Fre » Dewnddize~1m que’. : | Arcerye ‘oma pusdler& mule um spre pugn aretepe- L ofr ecum pauatreliciem ude . memor generil argiprif eS ceucamtenp- Hamferequem quilq; “wut pungnando loci ceeperce’: eumarm ro fAamima. cor porsleg ebar ; Pauaairemquofmediof cohort prler~tccdif lecerar’ . paulodsserfins: fedonwfeamen avuer-fi fuulnertbul coneiclerasr’ C sebenaiives tons Ex ‘ Loneqs in Fuga -quifquam autfingenuuf eApmrefy slecunAsfuacho usa; uItAt pe SPINE ne ae Kercml. PR ie L gem aueincrtien tam _woortamad foo | erar: N. Am Po-enurf fimyf quit; -awmaderar’ inprehoaurg rand ie; difcefferur ; Mulnaucem qu.recattrafusvendr aurtpoliandigrana cele “pant” woluencerr bofblacsdauera’. aries, 1+ part hot prem Aico hina = : reperwthanr’ F uercescem ‘quiimimcof fsoftognofeerene” lauarteppmne : CSaL Lvs Ti CRIS PU BEL ECM CATILING | bwmanum-quodinbeatLaag: anubrice’. flreeponutl quammrnme | 0 Ro regent + Jam contarepucands - theq; mausfaliun - neq; prachabibe rs uf muemaf- magifa; nacurye- ndult-ram hominid. autem put ae gs deeb te S thduxargs im pdracor: urpmorralsd amulet” quiubradgtiiy : 200 ee we 5 2 bie . a 7 . : The, Be ag eae ie "s : : se t : 7, oe. te Ry aly Tees 3 ty vi s e ENS ss ee 2 ‘spy e yt hig Maric ae : 5 sae a ae ve Le Mee ge in, ap Wey a aa bs ako, SSS Stans fh . : ‘ ‘ site % : soa E eeel. ok 2 ge ere eed iy sm hs ee Rata le Wate et TR ee ee a i aed er a eae ee Sl, oe OE re ns, VI. Satiust: Partsrnus 16024, Saec. 1X~X. 60 61 44 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. such precious compositions as these were the parchments used that a king’s ransom would not now purchase. THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING.—It is impossible to give here an intelligible account of the gradual revival of learning during the period which we have described above as the Dark Ages. The history of the five hundred years from 800 to 1300 comprises the growth of schools, the planting of universities, the cultivation espe- cially of the more useful sciences of medicine, law and theology. It was not until the fourteenth century that literature felt the new movement, and that in Italy. Petrarch (1304-1374) and Boccaccio (1313-1375) were the first to turn for better models to the almost forgotten classics of their countrymen of an earlier day, and the finest minds of the next generations followed their guidance. The last quarter of the fourteenth century saw all Italy permeated with the new enthusiasm, and a positive fever was inspired for recov- ering the lost literature of Rome. ‘Then it was that the stores of manuscripts buried in the monasteries were eagerly brought to light. Vast quantities were found at Monte Cassino (see § 59), and at Bobbio in Italy, at St. Gallen and Einsiedelu in Switzer- land, at Fulda and Mainz in Germany, and in far distant England even, wherever the copying of manuscripts had been the employ- ment of the monks. Petrarch was especially active in searching for new treasures and protecting those that were discovered—for the danger of losing them again was not over in the fourteenth century. A treatise of Cicero De Gloria had been in his posses- sion, but was afterwards irretrievably lost. He declares that in his youth he had seen the works of Varro, but all his efforts to recover these and the second decade of Livy were fruitless. He did find in 1350 a copy of Quintilian, the only one known until sixty-four years later another copy was found in a dungeon under the monastery of St. Gallen. By this time the awakening had touched all classes. Princes and popes gathered scholars at their THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 45 courts as the surest means of obtaining fame for themselves. The representatives of the popes in other countries sent to Italy all the classical manuscripts of which they could possess themselves by fair means or foul. Almost all the Latin manuscripts which we now have were thus discovered between 1350 and 1450. Many very ancient manuscripts known at that time have since been lost, but so many copies were made that, so far as we know, but one entire work has disappeared, the Vidularia of Plautus. INVENTION OF PRINTING.—The fortunate invention of printing about 1450 made secure what had been recovered. The first Latin author to be sent abroad in the new form was Cicero, whose De Officiis was printed in 1465. In less than twenty years from this time the Venetian printer, Aldus Manutius, had begun his great work of giving to the world almost the whole body of ancient lit- erature in the form that has made his name a synonym for taste- ful and convenient volumes. SumMMARY.—This sketch, short and colorless as it is, helps to explain several important facts, often referred to in critical editions. 1. The largest collections of valuable manuscripts are in Italy. 2. The very oldest manuscripts are likely to be palimpsests. 3. The large majority of our manuscripts were written in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 4. Many extant manuscripts are copies of an older manuscript, also extant. 5. Some manuscripts were written by persons with little or no knowledge of Latin. 6. The printed edztzo princeps of certain authors is valuable, because it may have been derived from good manuscripts since lost to us. EDITIONES PRINcIPES.—The following list includes the prin- cipal Latin authors: Apuleius, Rome, 1469; Cesar, Rome, 1469; Catullus, Venice, 1472; Cicero, De Officiis, Rome, 1465, Opera Omnia, 1498; Gellius, Rome, 1469; Horace, Venice, 1470; 62 63 64 65 66 46 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. Juvenal, Rome and Venice, 1470; Lactantius, Rome, 1465; Livy, Rome, 1469; Lucan, Rome, 1469; Lucretius, Brescia, 1473; Martial, Rome, 1470; Nepos, Venice, 1471; Ovid, Rome and Bonn, 1471; Persius, Rome, 1470; Plautus, Venice, 1472; Pliny the Younger, Venice, 1485; Propertius, Venice, 1472; Quintilian, Rome, 1470; Sallust, Venice, 1470; Seneca’s Prose Works, 1475, "Tragedies, Ferrara, 1484; Statius, Venice, 1472; Sueto- nius, Rome, 1470; Tacitus, Venice, 1470; Terence, Strassburg, 1470; Tibullus, Venice, 14723 Valerius Flaccus, Bonn, 1474; Velleius Paterculus, Basle, 1520; Vergil, Rome, 1469. Arranged chronologically : 1465—Cicero’s De Officiis, Lac- tantius; 1469—Apuleius, Cesar, Gellius, Livy, Lucan, Vergil; 1470—Horace, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Quintilian, Sallust, Suetonius, Tacitus, Terence; 1471—Nepos, Ovid ; 1472—Catul- lus, Plautus, Propertius, Statius, Tibullus ; 1473—Lucretius ; 1474—Valerius Flaccus; 1475—Seneca’s Prose Works ; 1484— Seneca’s Tragedies; 1485—Pliny the Younger; 1498—Cicero’s Opera Omnia; I 520—Velleius Paterculus. ANCIENT Manuscripts.—The following list gives the dates of all extant Latin manuscripts which are thought to be no later than the sixth century. As will be explained hereafter (§ 115), the dates are merely approximate, and any of the older parch- ments may be later by a century than the date here assigned to it. It is also possible that some may have been written at an earlier time. First CENTURY: Two papyrus fragments from Her- culaneum containing selections from prose writers. A papyrus roll from Herculaneum containing the Carmen De Bello Actiaco, a specimen is given in § 103. THirp or FourTH CENTURY: The seven oldest manuscripts of Vergil, specimens of three, Plates I, Vand X. Three fragments of Sallust’s Histories, at Berlin, Rome and Naples, a specimen is given in § 103. Palimpsest fragment of Juvenal and Persius at Rome. Palimpsest of Livy at Verona. Fragment of Livy, Book XCI, at Rome. Fourtu or FirtH CEn- TURY: Fragments of a palimpsest of Lucan at Vienna, Naples and Rome. The Codex Bembinus (§ 53) of Terence at Rome, for speci- men see Plate III. The palimpsest of Cicero De Re Publica at THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BOOKS. 47 Rome, for specimen see §$ 106 and Plate II. Palimpsest of Cicero’s Orations at Turin, Milan and Rome (from Bobbio, see § 60 above). Palimpsest of Cicero’s Orations against Verres at Rome. A few leaves of a palimpsest of Livy at Turin. Palimpsest of Gaius at Verona. Palimpsest of Merobaudes (first half of the fifth century) at St. Gallen. Fasti at Verona. FirrH or SixTH CENTURY: Palimpsest of Ulpian at Vienna. Palimpsest of Lactantius at St. Gallen. Vatican fragments of the Jurists, Rome. Palimpsest of Plautus at Milan (from Bobbio). Fragment, De /ure Fiscz, at Ve- rona. A few leaves of a palimpsest of Hyginus at Rome. Palimp- sest of Gellius and fragments of Seneca at Rome. Manuscript of the Grammarian Cledonius (fifth century) at Berne. It will be noticed that of these twenty-four manuscripts, many of which are badly mutilated, no less than fourteen are palimpsests, but it must also be noticed that, valuable as these palimpsests are, none has furnished us with the complete text of any work of any author. ‘Their testimony is usually decisive for such portions of a given text as they contain, and, more than this, they often enable us to select from later, more legible, and complete codices, the one which is truest to the original. 67 68 69 THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. (CARE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS.—The manuscripts recov- ered as described above remained sometimes the property of the abbeys in which they were found, but more often passed by purchase, gift or theft into the possession of individual owners, and were at all times liable, as articles of ordinary commerce, to be mutilated, lost, or destroyed. Those that have come down to mod- ern times receive better treatment. All of any value are kept in the great libraries of Europe, the property of the universities or even of the various states. The rules governing their use vary with their value and the spirit of the libraries where they are kept. Some may be taken from the libraries for the purpose of study, others may be examined freely within the library itself, but may not be removed from it, others still must be handled only by an officer of the library, who finds the passage which the student desires to examine, and reads or shows it to him. In general it may be said that, when scholars are properly introduced to the authorities, all reasonable facilities are given them for examining and comparing even the most valuable manuscripts. The greatest obstacle is the lack of complete descriptive catalogues to some of the most interesting and important collections. NAMING OF THE ManuscripTs.—Every library has its own sys- tem of identifying its books and manuscripts by letters or num- bers, and by these letters or numbers added to the Latin name of the library or city where they are kept the manuscripts are now known and described. A manuscript that has passed from library to library, as almost all have done, has borne of course the special name and mark of each, and so has been known and described differently at different times. Besides, many manuscripts were 48 THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 49 used by scholars when they were the property of individuals, and were then called merely by the names of their owners. It follows, therefore, that in using editions of an author separated by many years we may find the name of a given manuscript varying with the dates of the several editions. Owing to these changes in the name it has sometimes happened that a manuscript has been sup- posed to be lost which really existed but was disguised by a differ- ent name, and also that readings from the same manuscript have been quoted under its several names so as to lead to the belief that the one manuscript was two or more. Such errors are sure to be detected in the course of time by the identity of the quoted readings, but they show how necessary it is to have a full history and an accurate description of every valuable manuscript. DESCRIPTIONS.—As an example of the brief descriptions given in modern critical editions the following is taken from Kuibler’s edition of Czesar’s Gallic War (1893) in Teubner’s series: “Codex Amstelodamensis 81 saec. VIIII-X, olim Floriacensis, postea inter libros Petri Danielis Aurelianensis, deinde Jacobi Bongarsii, inde Bongarsianus primus dictus.” ‘The manuscript is number 81 in the library of Amsterdam, was written in the ninth or tenth cen- tury, was previously in the abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire (in France), afterwards in the private library of Pierre Daniel of Orleans (born 1530, died 1603), then in that of Jacques Bongars (born 1554, died 1612), and was consequently called Bongarszanus primus. Critical editions usually add particulars as to the condition of the manuscript, the size and number of pages, its style of writing, the errors that occur most frequently, etc., etc. Examples are given in connection with the plates. These descriptions are often hard reading, because names of modern places and even persons are Latinized, and these names are not given in our dictionaries. Some help in interpreting these names is given in the following para- graphs, but completeness is not attempted. 70 71 72 73 50 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. ImporTANT LIBRARIES.—The libraries with collections of clas- sical manuscripts are too numerous to be described here, but the most important are named in the following list in alphabetical order by countries. For further information see the article Li- braries in the Encyclopedia Britannica, from which this is con- densed. There are no Latin manuscripts of any value in the United States. Austria: The Imperial Library at Vienna (V2zxdobona), founded in the fifteenth century, contains 500,000 volumes and 20,000 manuscripts (codzces Vindobonenses). ‘There are besides good manuscripts in some of the monastic establishments, e. g., at Saltzburg (Salishurgum, codices Salisburgenses). The University Library of Prague contains 200,000 volumes with 3,800 manu- scripts (¢. Pragenses). BrELcium: The libraries of the universities at Ghent (Ganda- vum) and at Liege (Leodicum) have together over 3,000 manu- scripts (c. Gandavenses and Leodicenses). ‘The Royal Library at Brussels (Bruxellae) contains 30,000 manuscripts (¢ Bruxellenses). DENMARK: The Royal Library at Copenhagen (Haunza), founded in the sixteenth century, has 500,000 volumes and nu- merous manuscripts (c. Haunzenses). ENGLAND: At Cambridge (Cantabrigza) the University Library has 6,000 manuscripts (¢ Cantabrigzenses), with many others of great value in the library of Trinity College. At Oxford (Oxonza) the Bodleian Library, founded in 1602 by Sir Thomas Bodley, contains 30,000 manuscripts (c. Bodlezanz, or Oxonienses) and a valuable collection of first editions (see § 64) of Greek and Latin authors. At London (Londznzum) is the library of the British Museum, one of the largest and most important in the world, which was founded in 1753 and contains 1,600,000 volumes, including more than 50,000 manuscripts (¢. Bretanntct or Londz- nenses). ‘These manuscripts are often further described by the Crsar: [endobonensts 95. Saec. - eee enna THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 51 names of previous owners, e. g., codices Townletant, from the col- lection of Charles Townley (1737-1805) and codices Harletant, col- lected by Robert Harley (1661-1724), Earl of Oxford, and his son. FRANCE: At Paris (Lutetza Paristorum) the National Library is the largest library in the world, founded in the fourteenth cen- tury, containing 100,000 manuscripts (¢. Parzsenz, or Pariszace). Many of these were formerly in the ancient Royal Library (e. Regiz) or less important collections e. g., at St. Germain (¢. San- germanenses), and at Fontainebleau (c. Blzaudifontanz). Some few good manuscripts still remain in provincial towns, e. g., at Mont- pellier (¢. Montepessulanz ). GERMANY: Almost all the universities have large libraries containing manuscripts of value. The University of Heidelberg (Hetdelberga), situated in the Palatinate, has over 400,000 vol- umes and many manuscripts (¢. Palatenz), and the University of Strassburg (Argentoratum) has 500,000 volumes and some good manuscripts (¢. Argentoratenses). At Berlin (Berolznum).the Royal Library contains 15,000 manuscripts (¢ Berolinenses). At Dresden (Dresdena) the Royal Library has about 500,000 volumes with 4,000 manuscripts (¢. Dresdenses). At Gotha the Ducal Library has more than 6,000 manuscripts (¢. Gothanz). At Munich (A/ona- chium) the Royal Library, founded in the sixteenth century, is the largest in the empire and contains 30,000 manuscripts (¢ Mona- censes), while the University Library has 1,800 more. The Royal Public Library at Stuttgart (S¢«/égardza) has 3,800 manuscripts. Hoiianp: At The Hague the Royal Library has 4,000 manu- scripts. At Leyden (Lugdunum Batavorum) are 5,000 manuscripts (c. Letdenses or Lugdunenses Batavi). At Amsterdam (Amsteloda- mum) are some very valuable manuscripts (¢. Amstelodamenses) in the library of the university. ITaLy: Of the numerous collections of manuscripts in Italy ($ 63) only the most noteworthy can be mentioned here. At 74 75 76 52 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. Florence is the Laurentian library attached to the church of St. Lorenzo; it contains some 10,000 manuscripts, chiefly from the library of San Marco, the collections of the Medici and Leopoldo families, and the library of John Ashburnham, of England, pur- chased by the Italian government in 1884 (¢. Florentenz, Lauren- teant, Medicet, S. Marct, Leopoldint, Ashburnhamiz, etc.). ‘The Fic. 7. VATICAN LIBRARY. Biblioteca Riccardiana, founded by the Riccardi family and pur- chased by the government in 1812, contains 3,800 manuscripts (c. Rucardiant). At Milan (Mfedtolanum) the Ambrosian library has 8,000 manuscripts (¢ Mediolanenses or Ambrostant), including some famous palimpsests. At Naples there are 4,000 manuscripts in the National library and museum (c. eafolttan?), some from the old THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 53 Bourbon library (¢ Borbonicz). At Rome is the Vatican Library, the most famous and magnificent but not the largest in the world, containing some 23,000 manuscripts (¢ Vaticant or Romanz). Among these are most of the manuscripts brought from Bobbio (§ 60), 3,500 taken from Heidelberg in 1623 (c¢. VPalatinz, see above), many bequeathed to the library in 1600 by Fulvius Orsini (Urstnus, c. Urstniant), others purchased from Duke Federigo of Urbino in 1655 (¢. Urdcnates), from Queen Christina of Sweden by Pope Alexander VIII (¢ Regznenses or Alexandrinz), and from Cardinal Mai, and many other only less famous collections. The library is not fully catalogued and its management is far from lib- eral. Two other libraries, the Bzblcoteca Cosanatense and the £Bzb- Lioteca Vittorio Emanuelo, have recently been united and contain more than 6,000 manuscripts, most of them from the important collections of the Jesuits of the old Collegio Romano. At Turin (Augusta Taurinorum) are some good manuscripts (¢. Zaurznenses) in the University Library. At Venice (Venetzae) the Marcian Library, founded in the fifteenth century, contains many valuable manuscripts (c. Venete, Marciant, or Venete Marcianz), and there are others at Verona in the Cathedral Library (¢. Veronenses). SWITZERLAND: ‘There are good libraries with valuable manu- scripts at Basle (c. Baszlzenses), at Berne (c. Bernenses), at Ein- siedeln (c. Eznszdlenses), at St. Gallen (¢. Sangallenses), and at Ziirich (c. Turicenses). INDEX TO COLLECTIONS.—In the following list are arranged alphabetically the names of manuscripts mentioned above, with a few others occurring in critical editions of school classics: Alexandrint (Rome), Ambroszant (Milan), Amstelodamenses Amsterdam), Avgentoratenses (Strassburg), Ashburnhamiant Florence), Baszlzenses (Basle), Bembznus (of Cardinal Pietro Bembo, 1470-1547), Bernenses (Berne), Berolznenses (Berlin), Blandiniani (Blankenberg, Belgium), Blzaudzfontani (Fontaine- bleau), Bodletanz (Oxford), Bongarszanus (§ 71), Borbonicz (Na- ples), Bretannicz (London), Bruxellenses (Brussels), Budenses 717 78 79 54 in LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. (Buda, Hungary), Cantabrigienses (Cambridge), Caroliruhenses (Carlsruhe), Colbertznd (of Jean Baptist Colbert, 1619-1683, statesman, France), Colonzenses (Cologne), Corbezenszs (of Cor- vey, town with monastery, in Germany), Cuzaccanus (of Jacques Cujas, 1522-1590, France), Ezuszdlenses (Einsiedeln), Florentinz (Florence), Florzacensis (§ 71), Fuldenses (Fulda, Germany), Gudant (of Marquard Gude, 1619-1700, Germany), Graevzanus (of J. G. Greffe, 1632-1703, Netherlands), Guelferbytanz (Wol- fenbittel, Germany), Flaunienses (Copenhagen), Lauvrentzant (Florence), Letdenses (Leyden), Leopoldini (Florence), Lzpszenses (Leipzig), Londznenses (London), Marcanzi (Venice), Matritenses (Madrid), Medicet (Florence), Aledtolanenses (Milan), Minorau- gtenses (of Augia Minor, an ancient abbey in Austria), JZona- censes (Munich), Montepessulant oe eae Moystacenses (of the abbey of Moissac, France), Weapolztani (Naples), Ottobonzant (of Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, 1668-1740, nephew of Pope Alex- ander VIII, Vatican, Rome), Oxontenses (Oxford), Palatinz (Heidelberg, Rome), "Parisiacd, or better Parzsznz (Paris), Petro- polttant (St. Petersburg), Pragenses (Prague), Reginenses (Rome), Regit (Paris), Regzomontant (Konigsberg), Rzccardianz (Flor- ence), S. AZarcz (Florence; to be carefully distinguished from Marcianz above), Sangallenses (St. Gallen), Sangermanenses (St. Germain), Scaligeranus (of J. C. Scaliger, 1484-1558, or J. J. Scaliger, 1540-1609), Sorbonzanz (of the Sorbonne, a depart- ment of the University of France), Zaurznenses (Turin), Zhua- neus (of Jacobus Augustus Thuaneus (De Thou), a statesman and historian of France, 1553-1617), Zoletanz (at Toledo, Spain), Turtwcensis (Ziirich), Urbznates, Urstniant, Vatecant (Rome), Venete and Venetz Marctani (Venice), Veronenses (Verona), Vzn- dobonenses (Vienna), Vosstanus (of Isaac Voss, 1618-1689), Vratislavienses (Breslau). SYMBOLS FOR THE MANUScRIPTS.—In editions of the classics which the manuscripts are frequently mentioned, it is custom- ary for the editors to use in place of the name or names of each manuscript, often long and unwieldy (§ 71), an arbitrary symbol, usually a letter of the alphabet or a numeral. These symbols are prefixed to the descriptions of the manuscripts where they are first given, usually in the introduction or the critical appendix. For example, to the description quoted above ($71) Kiibler has THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 55 prefixed the letter A, and by this symbol the given manuscript, codex Amstelodamensis 81, is known throughout his edition of the Gallic War. Scholars may therefore call this manuscript briefly “Kubler’s A.” It happens unfortunately that there is no gener- ally accepted system in accordance with which these symbols are selected and used by scholars. Some editors arrange their manu- scripts in the order of their supposed importance and letter them A, B, C, etc. Others use for each manuscript the first letter of its name or of some one of its several names. Others still, using manuscripts quoted in some earlier standard edition, retain the symbols adopted by the earlier editor, as Ktbler seems to have done in the case just cited, adding new symbols, of course, for such manuscripts used by them as the earlier editor did not quote. In using at the same time different editions of the same author, the student has, therefore, to be constantly on his guard against con- founding these symbols. For example, in the three editions of Czesar’s Gallic War by Holder (1882), Kubler (1893) and Meusel (1894), the symbols for the six most important manuscripts are shown in the following table: NAME OF MANUSCRIPT. Holder. Kiibler. Meusel. Codex Amstelodamensis,8r . . . . A A A Codex Parisinus Latinus, 5056. . . M M Q Codex Parisinus Latinus, 5763 . . . B B B Codex Romanus Vaticanus,386g . . R R M Codex Parisinus Latinus, 576g. . . T T a Codex Vatianus, 39327 «© «5 « « «» YF FV h It will be seen at once that the three editors agree in the sym- bols of but two manuscripts out of the six, and that, while Holder and Kiibler may be used together without confusion, great care must be taken when the readings of Meusel are compared with those of either of the others. Such changes of the symbols are, of course, even more confusing when they are made in the same 82 83 84 85 86 56 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. work. Thus, in the fourth edition of Orelli’s Horace (1886-1889) the codex Ambrostanus is marked O in the first volume (Odes and Epodes, by Hirschfelder), while in the second volume (Satires and Epistles, by Mewes) it is marked a. No reason is given for the change, except that Mewes adopted the symbols of Keller and Holder (1864-70). First AND SECOND Hanps.—Mention has already been made (§ 37) of the correction of errors in ancient manuscripts, and it is hardly necessary to say that such errors and corrections are no less frequent in those of later date. Sometimes the scribe himself discovered his mistake and erased the wrong letters, inserting the right ones in their place, or wrote the correct reading between the lines above the blunder, or in the margin, in the last case indi- cating by dots or other simple marks the place where the correc- tion was to be made. Sometimes a later reader introduced in the. same way corrections, or at least variations, derived from other manuscripts or from his own sense of the appropriate. Now, it is often important to distinguish these corrections from the original reading and from each other, if they were made by different per- sons. If some of the corrections are seen to be in the same writ- ing as the text they are said to be by “the first hand;” others are said to be by the second or third hand, according to their age. These hands are indicated by the editors in several ways: some- times by small figures written as indices after the symbol used for the manuscript, e. g., A’, A’, etc.; sometimes when the manu- script is denoted by a capital letter, ¢. g., P, the correctors will be marked A, pf’, etc. Here, too, there is a lack of agreement among editors. CoLLATIONS OF THE MANuscRIPTs.—It is no longer necessary, as it once was, for a scholar engaged upon a given work to travel all over Europe, from library to library, to examine the scattered manuscripts of his author. Of all important manuscripts of the VI. Casar: lindobonensis 95, Saec. THE KEEPING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. 57 classics copies have been made, called collations, and published to the world. These collations are not complete copies of the manu- script, word by word, much less fac-similes, but give merely the variations of the given manuscript from some other manuscript, or better from some printed edition, of the author, which the col- lator has taken as his standard. For example, take the third sen- tence in Cesar’s Gallic War with Lowe and Ewing’s text as the standard: Gallos ab Aquitants Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Now, if we wished to publish the reading of the codex Vaticanus 3324, marked U by Kubler, a complete copy would require eleven words. As it happens, however, U differs but once from the text we have taken as our standard, and U’s reading of the whole sentence is sufficiently indicated by printing this one word, preceded, of course, by the number of the line in the standard text, in which the variation is found: 5, garunna, U. The saving of time, labor, and expense by these collations, to say nothing of the wear and tear of the manuscripts, is very great, but over against this advantage must be set the danger of errors, owing in the first place to slips of the collator, and in the second place to slips of the printers who reproduce his work. ‘These errors are being gradually removed by new collations made with far greater care and skill than were formerly employed. Of some very valuable manuscripts, however, which have been destroyed or lost, or which by mutilation or decay have become illegible, editors have still to depend upon early collations which are known to be inaccurate and untrustworthy. Of a very few manuscripts exact reproductions have been made, either from type or by photography. The latter process may be depended upon accurately to reproduce the original (see the Plates in this book) when the ink is not too dim; the former (e. g., Merkel’s Aeschylus, Studemund’s Plautus A) is exposed to the same risks of error as the less elaborate collation. 87 88 89 538 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. UNCOLLATED MANUuScRIPTS.—It is not to be supposed that all Latin manuscripts have been collated. The vast majority have been found after cursory inspection to be copies of older manuscripts in our possession and are therefore of no value except as curiosities. It may be that some of them have been unfairly judged and are deserving of closer study, but not much is to be hoped for from them. Besides these, some few manuscripts may yet be discovered in the large collections which have not been fully or accurately arranged and catalogued (§ 76). Thus, Professor Hale discovered in 1896 a manuscript of Catullus hidden behind a false number in the Vatican library. For specimen page see Plate XI. CriticaL Eprtions.—A critical edition gives in the form indi- cated above the readings of all the manuscripts of the given work which the editor deems valuable, together with certain other evi- dences for the original text which will be considered hereafter ($§ 173-178). Such editions are usually very elaborate and costly but of some of the authors read in schools there are critical edi- tions to be had which represent sound scholarship and yet are inexpensive. Among these are Kiibler’s Cesar, Meusel’s Cesar (the best), Jordan’s Sallust, Kloucek’s Vergil, and Ribbeck’s (1894) Vergil. There are unfortunately no equally convenient and satis- factory editions of Nepos, Cicero and Livy. II. a Tue Science oF PALEOGRAPHY. STYLES OF WRITING. THE ERRORS OF THE SCRIBES. THE SCIENCE OF PALEOGRAPHY. STYLES OF WRITING. ALEOGRAPHY treats of ancient methods of writing. It inves- 90 tigates the history of the characters used to represent speech, traces the changes from age to age in those of the same language, teaches the art or science of deciphering documents, and deter- mines their date and place of origin from the style of writing. Paleography was not recognized as a science until the publication in 1681 of the De Re Dzplomatica of Jean Mabillon (1632-1707), who gave’ directions in this work for distinguishing by the writing itself between the genuine documents of the middle ages and the forgeries that were current in his time. SCoPE OF THE SCIENCE.—By the definition given above Pale- 91 ography should include the study of writings of every sort, of all times and all peoples, regardless of the material ($ 2) which re- ceived them. Asa branch of classical philology, however, its scope has been greatly restricted. In the first place it is limited to the . Greek and Latin languages, and in the second place Epigraphy and Diplomatics, once mere branches of Paleography, have won for themselves the rank of independent sciences. The former treats of the very oldest written records of Greece and Rome, those, that is, cut in stone and metal, or scratched and painted upon wood or other hard substances; the latter deals with the charters, wills, deeds, grants, etc., of the centuries following the breaking up of the Roman empire. To Paleography is left, therefore, merely the 92 study of the writing, or various styles of writing, found in the manuscripts of the works of literature that have descended to us in the manner just described. Limiting our study of Paleography to Latin manuscripts as we do, the period covered extends from the fourth century A. D., the time when the oldest codices now exist- 61 93 94 95 62 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. ing (§ 65) were written, to the fifteenth century, when the scribe. was succeeded by the printer. UsEs oF PALEOGRAPHY.—From the history already given of the manuscripts it is evident that, other things being equal, the older of two manuscripts is the better: the nearer, that is, its date is to the time of the author, the less the number of transcriptions, in all probability, hetween it and the original copy, and the less the chances for errors by successive copyists. It is therefore of great importance to scholars to be able to fix the time, even the century, of the writing of a given manuscript, and this is the first thing that paleography undertakes to do. Again, if the study of ancient characters shows that certain letters, for instance, were very much alike and were often mistaken for each other, it may be possible for us, when we find in a manuscript a combination of letters that makes no sense, to reverse the process and discover the letter or letters that the last copyist ought to have written. This is the second use of paleography, and the one that is of greatest importance to the ordinary student. As will be shown below, the dating of manuscripts is largely a matter of practice and experience, not of rules and regulations, and requires direct and long continued contact with the manuscripts themselves. It is a science for experts, and of these there are very few whose opinions have the force of authority. The correction of errors, on the other hand, is of great interest in itself, and may be under- stood and practiced by persons who have never so much as seen a genuine manuscript. For these reasons the chief stress will be laid here upon the errors of the scribes, and only so much atten- tion will be given to the styles of writing as is necessary to understand the causes of these errors and the methods of correct- ing them. ANCIENT Forms oF LETTERS.—Two styles of lettering were known to the Romans at the time when the classics were written. TNL CCyne smi yeae axel] yc: “RVRIOWS: ne ae Licice Bu eee cree TUOvsave. TAN DE es caaglina pAticnris nra. "7Q wa daat Lam furor sie cuufclud«’. Que adfine fete cffrnica oe bir San epee Nichi ne oe nocr — 1417 p ptidsas palan strech spb l vugleg: | puch amer - popls. riechal Star bonorit omni Nicht Inc . ‘ Give laren habends fenacur % locul. michil hort ora ul aufqpuc ah $ mouecrunc-, Tare mia cofiles nefenas. ~ Co faradhi iv rent omni facia vnc co UsATIONE non urdet~’Q wad prama-guid fu pertore nodte equritih: fircrit, quefeon uocauets. qd cofilis cocpaw. que nem ignorarc arbroard ~“Orepora Omer Dena cal hacer eater: coful ind tiecam use, wie Lame were SLA INnfeoani ucnst Fre publics ca nil: parscepf prover adefignar oculif adciede una queq: nn” sure foraefiur Caf et or petidemus firfbul furore actrLs ua: * Nd more ww cantina dics ifs cof. pride oportebar ince co fern pefer quicu innof omifsa diu machinanf’ Anuert siu- ampli fymul pterpto r : mcr paccha mediocre. abe fadtance fenci rei p, priuacuf wefecs S canlina orbe torre cacde) wey; ncenduf uA re cu pion mf eo fulef pforempf. "Na ills ayf arrerqquta prereo-qdaq: ferenlied thala fp- melt nouf reb; foudenre manu fry oecidrtt Far firrr *An quornda tnhacre p- prapcuh ape tary forttet acriombh: fuppheul - ee pricro fia qua 5 acerbiffim hofeecohercerenc* Habemafl fc. é = ey = 4 ma-anling uehemenf npdee. rer p- Etiha neg, auitorical hai ordinif’ No (nol Atco Aprece fulef defiem-oecpriut quonda rnd x OE eg Sages Ang pain CERO: Ambrosianus C. 29, p. nf., Saec. X. STYLES OF WRITING. 63 One style, called the Majuscule (/¢¢terae mazusculae), is used in inscriptions as much older than the classics as our oldest manu- scripts, written with letters of the same form, are younger. These majuscules were the only style used for the formal publication of works of literature until the eighth century, and were used even OINO UR BIRVAKE COSENTIONTR VORO- OF TVMOFVISEVIR Gs aa OMSCIPAONEFILIOS BARBATE ISOL-CENS OR-AIDYLIS- HIT E VET: as Shy posit As AL ERIAQVE- REC Fic. 8. EPITAPH OF IL. CORNELIUS SCIPIO. to the invention of printing for certain works held in extraordi- nary esteem (the Scriptures, Vergil) and in other works for the titles and the headings of chapters. From this last use was de- rived the name Capital (capu/, chapter) which is still used for one style of these majuscules, the oldest known to the Romans. It 96 may be studied in the copy (Fig. 8) of the inscription upon the VAD (iv PR ONTITIVA WAT: ExT bufius la a SAN Thu eae fu RMu/. roduc THM fo Fic.9. POMPEIAN WALL INSCRIPTION. Surda sit oranti tua [janua laxa ferenti] | audiat exclusi verba [receptus amans] | janitor ad dantis vigilet [si pulsat inanis] | surdus in obductam so[mniet usque seram]| 97 98 64 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. tomb of Lucius Cornelius Scipio, dating from the third century B.C. The second style is known as the Cursive. It was used for less formal purposes than the publication of books, e. ¢., for mem- oranda, accounts and correspondence. It is known to us from words scratched or written upon all sorts of objects found in the ruins of Pompeii, and also from a number of wax tablets, dating from the second century A. D., which were found between 1786 and 1855 in the mines of Dacia. A specimen from Pompeii is given here (Fig. 9) and a comparison of these cursives with the majuscules above will discover differences not unlike those exist- ing between our small script letters and printed capitals. Nationa, Hanps.—This old Roman cursive had nothing directly to do with the transmission of the classics, and is therefore of less interest to the student of Paleography than of Diplomatics. Employed for almost all purposes except for the publication of books, but characteristically for legal and administrative documents, it gradually developed, under local influences and modified by the prevailing book hands, into three strongly marked National Hands, the so-called Visigothic, Merovingian and Lombard, very much as the Latin language at the same time was becoming the vernacular languages of Spain, France and Italy. The most important of these is the Lombard, which reached its fullest development at Monte Cas- sino (§ 59) during the ninth century. The Irish hand has a different origin (§ 105), and is far above the continental hands in firmness and beauty. None of the National Hands were destined to endure long, all being superseded after the time of Charlemagne by the Minuscule type, which is discussed below (§ 108). THe MajuscuLes.—The Latin Majuscules divide into two types, the Capital and the Uncial. The Capital is the more ancient, is derived directly from the pattern used for carving upon hard mate- rials, and therefore prefers the straight line to the curve, because curves are hard to manage upon stone, wood and metal. So far as formal literary works are concerned the Capital is the character- istic type for the papyrus roll. It was so stiff and slow to write al (AJA) | A LAA APA art »| B 8B ba |B F e| C C a Cc a| D —D A090} O00(d) e| Cha HIE fio Ef6 (e) f) FCF) I ae) ee g| G GGG}G5T} G3; h| H HK IA h ae | | kl < kK be K 1} b L ‘i. l m| NA M MMIKMIN AY Moog) n| N N NN N oo; O O | ad oO p| TI P P Pay P PR a} Q. Qe Ov g r| A Ro | AN IRRRep | § S js frst ei ie ee ie TTT oJ] UulVuUtuy | uuy x} X X | ae x ye Y¥ | 4 Y zi _ zs 1 2 y Fic. 10. MAJUSCULE AND CURSIVE LETTERS. 99 100 101 66 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. that even in books it begins to be less common in the fifth cen- tury, and then disappears altogether, except in artificial reproduc- tions of the ancient style, in titles and headings (§ 95). The Uncial is a modification of the Capital type due to the effort to combine rapidity with dignity. It is essentially a round hand, making a {single curve do duty for several of the straight lines found in a letter of the older type, and changing the forms slightly so as to allow the pen to remain upon the parchment while the whole char- acter was traced. The name Uncial, first found in the writings of St. Jerome (+420 A. D.), is not descriptive, because it means simply “inch high” letters (¢terae unciales),a name which fits the Capi- tals just as well. We do not know when the Uncial type was first introduced. It is a common book hand in the fourth century, and is the prevailing book hand from the fourth century to the eighth. It was perhaps the parchment hand, as papyrus was not adapted to fine strokes (§ 15) or hasty pens. CaAPITALS.—Two styles of capitals are recognized by experts, called respectively the square and the rustic. In square capital writing the letters are disproportionately wide, and commonly of the same height except that F and L sometimes extend above the others. The angles are right angles, and the bases, tops and ex- tremities are usually finished off with the fine strokes and pend- ants which are familiar to us in our modern printed copies of the same letters. Rustic capitals, on the other hand, are of a more neg- ligent type, but as a style of writing for choice books were no less carefully formed than the square capitals. The strokes, however, are more slender, cross strokes are short and are more or less oblique and waved, and finials are not added to them. ‘There are also more letters of superior height. Of the two styles the square is certainly the older, although the rustic happens to be found in our oldest manuscript. Capital manuscripts have few contractions and no punctuation marks. Originally words were not separated STYLES OF WRITING. 67 but in some that have come down to us the words are marked off by dots placed about midway of the vertical space occupied by the letter (see Fig. 11); in some of these the dots may have been added by a later hand. SPECIMENS.—Of Square Capitals very few specimens are pre- served, a few leaves of a manuscript of Vergil divided between Rome and Berlin (Plate V), and a few leaves of another manu- script, also of Vergil, in the library of St. Gallen (Plate X). Both are assigned to the fourth century, and the use at so late a period of a style so laborious and wasteful shows the esteem in which Vergil was then held ($95). It has been remarked that Homer in the Greek world, Vergil in the Roman world and the Bible in the early Church were published with a sumptuous elegance to which no other works could aspire. It is a manuscript of Vergil which is singled out by Martial (XIV, 186) to be adorned with the author’s portrait. Of Rustic Capitals specimens are more numerous, although in this style, too, Vergil is reproduced more frequently than any other author. In addition to the fac-similes of the famous Codex Pala- ‘onus of Vergil (see Plate I), and the even more valuable Codex Bembinus of Terence (see Plate III), we give two specimens. The first represents the oldest Latin manuscript extant, a poem by an unknown author upon the Battle of Actium, found in the ruins of Herculaneum. It is written upon papyrus (§ 65) and from it and others from the same place is taken the first column in Fig. 10. The second is a fragment of Sallust’s Histories (Fig. 12), from a badly mutilated manuscript, of which there are a few scattered leaves at Berlin, Rome and Orleans (§ 65.) UNCIALS AND Havr-Unciats.—The two characteristic features that serve to distinguish the Uncial type of the majuscule from the capital are these: the letters A, D, E, H, and M are curved, and the main vertical strokes tend to rise above or fall below the 102 103 104 ‘si0unl} auwo uinz7v09 aui0y ‘nyered vysag ZU9IIOD BAaES ‘stu $u921}83.119} [N ‘injuvzed elaz wr ‘Stour eIY5213 ET ‘snuaz nar Injeqesea auug ap odues ony o1s anbepuy UOd OL4vA sidau eueumIysu] UND 190] SIA va sarDRy sy us anbsasseyo ‘aeqny ‘euStg NO sale sijue}suI pe sien?) noejoads sens anbjaraqaerg WOANW TNH Wows TIO" SOWAdvd yo INAWOVYa cn Old DIN IWIN A ‘ON NIVWLSIINOI-oF COI ee I NITOD WAIVS W299 OIN SIAN SII NS1S WY yIAAWiS3 NOIINTIININ LYNOIST NIN RAD TAN INSELNNLIN GG VIII YAA susievinue LIT IVAS-INOIIYI4 INQ S COV. OE EPO GET ET OD | RACUODDIE ConA REMILDUCIANIGCERINOS TRS COERILETLROMULINCM. QUAUMINTUSCONTRAS LECINAMAEMIN CAUTAE MOTUSNOYOSICOCNIS OSTNUORUMCASID LEA CULSOSMILITESDUCITIAME — ADCASTANIUCIENYORUM —- PAISSOCRADUSILENTISINM | — NEQTAMM AGNINCESUME ge OMUMOK IMMALOSTY - LNUERANTMQSLLUCIRIA _DALNECONSILINA TEA SHS _ TASLDITIONIMIAANTCAl : onc nNissDmON — LISAIQ-CARMAN SOB UIAM - WAteruttRolianiruena - _— CURIENTIG:CONIAASLARIA | LST compe - mea cininmmeeemact ne ie 105 106 70 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. line. Otherwise the letters are like capitals, and like these the words are not separated and the abbreviations are few. In the fourth century it was the prevailing book hand, except for the sumptuous editions already mentioned; in the fifth and sixth the letters were still formed with much beauty and precision; in the eighth it was rapidly degenerating. As a test of age the letter M has been selected: in its earliest form the first limb is straight, or at least is not curved inward at the bottom. The letter E is only less characteristic: in the earlier centuries the cross stroke is con- sistently placed high, but when the hand begins to break the posi- tion of this stroke is variable, sometimes high, sometimes low, in the same manuscript. Half-Uncials are derived from the uncials and represent the last efforts of the book hand to differentiate itself from the im- proved business hand of the time. It is first found, but not as a book hand, as early as the close of the fifth century, and is charac- terized by exaggerated vertical strokes, by the close approach to our small print of the letters e, m, n, and r, and by frequent liga- tures, contractions and abbreviations. It is also called the Roman Uncial and Pre-Caroline Minuscule. It was from the half-uncial style that the independent Irish hand (§ 97) was derived. For specimens of the latter see Plates XII and XIII. SPECIMENS.—Of Uncial writing there are extant a considerable number of specimens, of which two examples are here given. The first is from the most ancient manuscript of this type which has come down to us, the fourth century palimpsest of Cicero De Re Publica, now in the Vatican library, with the superimposed writing omitted. The letters are massive and regular, and the columns are very narrow. An idea of the amount of material required for the whole work may be gained from the five lines here given, there being but fifteen such lines to the column and two columns to the page. The second specimen presents a decided contrast in STYLES OF WRITING. 7i GUIBONANE. PUTARENECYP- pellxarnesolert QGuUOdEARUM RERUMUIOC Fic. 13. CICERO DE RE PUBLICA. (See Plate II.) qui bona nec | putare nec ap | pellare soleat | quod earum | rerum vide [atur] the size of the characters. It is from the famous fifth century codex of Livy at Vienna. BICPTIS0POS SETRNITE IPS ANIME M PEIN Faw CIBUSSITLICI A 8S REDO NIIAE CLAU ST AX TULISS IMI NPRAC BET ECL INITCSSALIAND OPPORTUNUM.MXCE DONTE USOEC UR SUM CUMETLOCOET PRES [S1OUALIOO Ite Fic. 14. LIVY—FIFTH CENTURY. ri oppido posset ante ipsam Tempe in fau | cibus situm Macaedoniae claustra | tutissima praebet et in Tessaliam | opportunum Macedonibus decur | sum cum et loco et praesidio valido in Of the HalfUncials we give one specimen, taken from the 107 sixth century manuscript of St. Hilary (+368 A. D.) on the Trinity now in the Archives of St. Peter at Rome. It will serve at the same time as an example of the compositions which effaced so many classical manuscripts ($59). The specimen presents almost the entire alphabet, and it will be noticed that, while the round style of uncial writing is retained, very few of the letters are real uncials. 108 109 110 72 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. damnactonem oe erre pe ceele eect cercain nungrabal daerc’ Ga opimaNu oceNe lunslenueairdechameng Fic. 15. ST. HILARY. damnationem fidei esse | te aboletur par alteram | rursus abolenda est cufius] | episcopi manum innocente[m] | [lin]guam non ad falsiloquium coe [gisti] THE MINUSCULES.—The next improvement in the direction of a rapid hand is the Minuscule writing. This is in all essentials the same as the small (lower case) letters in our present Roman alphabet. It is historically the product of all the factors already described, the uncial and half-uncial book hands and the con- temporary business hands acting upon each other. Chronologically the Minuscule follows directly upon the half-uncial, the cursive and national hands being merely subordinate local forms of no importance in the case of classical manuscripts. Minuscule writing, as are all the styles already mentioned, is at its best in its earlier stages. Of the better forms the Caroline (Carolingian) may be regarded as the type, as it finally became the literary hand of all Western Europe, although in the differ- ent countries certain peculiarities of the national hands survived sufficiently for experts to tell with a good deal of accuracy the place of origin of manuscripts of this age. In general it may be said that the Caroline minuscule is round, heavy, almost sprawl- ing. The letter 0, for example, is not slender or egg-shaped, but either a true circle or else shaped like an apple, broader than it is long. On the same pattern are formed the left part of d and the right part of b. The up strokes of certain letters, b and 1 for example, are club like (thicker toward the top), owing to the run- HALF UNCIAL LOMBARD. GOTHIC. MERO- OLDER LATER VINGIAN. MINUSCULES. MINUSCULES. Gm Y — = — a —xer- sH hb Pw aa Ok ; «iP» fof CT final (ti as u Merov.) x nN <. oO ~ 3-93 06 3 3 —R TAN a Fos ~—o Q P a u x ig a & (ae CC) | d QQ k [ L ™ n 6 P q % f T Uu pipe (Maa b ¢ AD com R oc a= te 6 = 3 See er Soe He vr y 3 Fic. 16. HALF UNCIAL AND MINUSCULE LETTERS. aa b 6 nm Fa aS sS Sam awePwew eo cs srr ere SS wo ee “< 111 112 74 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. ning together of the up and down strokes which we keep sepa- rated in our script (¢). The letter r is not perpendicular to the line of writing, as are the other letters, but inclines to the right and has the side stroke broad and sweeping. ‘There is almost no distinction between f and s, as in our own books a century ago, and the i has no dot. The Minuscule introduces the separation of words, and a feeble attempt at punctuation. Abbreviations are not especially numerous at first. In the eleventh century the club-like vertical strokes disappear, the writing becomes noticeably more slender, and the o and rounded parts of b and d become egg-shaped. From this time abbrevia- tions become more and more numerous and arbitrary. In the thirteenth century the rounded character, which has increased with every improvement in the book hand, begins to disappear. The o, for example, is made with two strokes 0, and so the other letters with rounded parts, and finally all the curved lines become straight. This is the Gothic type, forced and arti- ficial, requiring two or three times the care and time to write: cf. the four stroked o (j). For the reader it is especially trying. It is almost impossible to distinguish the letters i, n, u and m, espe- cially when several occur in combination (e. g., mznzmum): this led to the writing of double 1 with accented letters (ii), and finally to the accent over a single i (i), whence our dotted form. It is from this Gothic Minuscule that the German lower case letters are derived. In the fifteenth century came a reaction. The Humanists (S§ 60, 61) with a finer taste turned back to the Caroline Minuscules as the characters for their copies of the precious manuscripts they were searching for so eagerly and copying as fast as found. Here, too, they made improvements. From the majuscules they borrowed initial letters for sentences and proper names, and used them, as has been remarked already, for titles and chapter headings. ff TS 7 2 by yo = oS ass z = F oe = me en ee Se nud 2 Gin ico Se Ree MM : at WI e ire Z =: a é ME > ee : - - Ky : 3 ‘ 9 ea. ir rift 8 : i A 5 aa eS SIP SSlTE TULL we # 7) @e4epo jonb jong pene woruida jaa wun | 7 REDO) UT NY Oey op STEIUAI fogan jroRLo ES 2 jay ee JOY ae Je ea Pe OU ie eee a SOILAYS NI YINVdWY> X41 : SALYVAD © apemsep jouruaipe yndod sp mu ps gpvp pum wade ee Epes 3 = ypg ume TPE jmwWise wD - eee — = - te re ee z 113 114 115 76 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. SPECIMENS.—The vast majority of our classical manuscripts are written in minuscule letters, and specimens are therefore easy to obtain, even if hard to select. The fac-similes of manuscripts of Cesar, Sallust and Cicero (Plates IV, VI, VII, VIII, etc.) are excellent examples of their several dates. In addition to these is given an example of a fifteenth century manuscript, a Munich codex of Livy (Fig. 17), to show the improved forms of the Hu- manists. It is fortunate for us that the invention of printing came during this period of simple good taste, for it fixed the Caroline character forever as the type for modern books. ABBREVIATIONS.—In the later styles of the minuscules the number of contractions, abbreviations and ligatures increases to an enormous extent. The object was to save not merely time and labor, but also parchment which was exceedingly costly. The use of these abbreviations has greatly increased the labor of the pale- ographer, because there was no general system in accordance with which they were used, and a scribe’s misinterpretation of a prede- cessor’s symbols might introduce, and has introduced, endless con- fusion into our texts. It is impossible to give any connected treatment of the subject. A table of the most frequent contrac- tions is given (Fig. 18), with the warning that practice only will enable one to read with accuracy, not to say facility, the manu- scripts of the later centuries. SuMMARY.—From what has been said it will be understood that the age of the ordinary manuscript can be fixed only within very wide limits. The various styles of writing shade so grad- ually into each other, that it is hard to tell where the earlier ends and the later begins. In general it may be said that a codex wholly in capitals is earlier than the eighth century, and if the words are not divided earlier than the seventh; that an uncial manuscript was written between the fourth and the eighth; the minuscule prevails after the ninth, and if marked by many abbre- apud Ap autem tp, fH (AnSax.),80 Aut ber 6 -bis t (urbis eb ) -bus B (Capit.), b. (. also -us). con- ) (shorthand; in XIII, Cent.) 9). de t deus,i ete. DS DI ete, ete, enim N ; late 7, ee _ esse = ;more commonly €€ u, Ce. est NX, =, + 3 An.Sax.¢7; in XV. cont, O, B et FUG 2 Fo YS Bol. haec hic hoc: haec & hoc, h hic, hh hoc. m ge mem, men m n ( NO non). ae a (at end of word); N. d, u. -or CRU, later also Q: ~ per a (Wisigoth), -P pra BP prae p (Ps Pp). pri P (AnSax. also f )- pro PPP proprio £ propter fp. pp pur P Fic. 18. ABBREVIATIONS quae, qui, quod: q quae, 4 & 4 qui, p & qa & ¢ quando qn; also qdo que Q (majuseule also), q) (XII. Cent.) q 5 quia (in Gaius Or ). quid i . 4. quidem 9p. 4 quoniam qm, quo. (majuscule too), quo. ri Y (in XV. Century also. er, ir, re, r, e after r). runt ~~ ser -sis | h sunt f Sure tera, ten, ter T -ud 5 eg. tS nea, -um / , for ex, 4 rum, Oo orum. ur = 5) Ce at ¥ tur; later: tur. us ? 9 ,e. g.LOT? iustus; al- 503 3} ,e, g.con[taTi Constantinus. ut vw vel et versus rs) AND CONTRACTIONS, 78 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. viations is not earlier than the eleventh; manuscripts of Vergil are later than the style of writing would indicate in other authors; of two manuscripts written in the same style the more carefully written is, other things being equal, the older; in any type stiff- ness and constraint indicate a later date. As a last test we may appeal to the spelling. We know from inscriptions the spellings in general use at various periods, and if a manuscript varies in spelling from the use of the author’s day we may thus fix its date. If, on the other hand, it retains the spelling current in the author’s time, it may be taken to be a careful copy of an earlier manuscript, whatever its own date is (see, however, § 128). Experts go much further than this, but their results are reached by practice and experience. THE ERRORS OF THE SCRIBES. HE CODEX.—We may turn now from theoretical, or histor- ical, Paleography to its practical side, the discovery of the errors which a scribe would be apt’to make in copying such a manuscript as we have described. It will be convenient at this point to review briefly the essential features of the manuscript which would serve as his copy, and which he would pass on in turn to his successors. So few of the papyrus rolls have come down to us (§ 12) that we may henceforth disregard them alto- gether and concern ourselves with the parchment codices only. The manuscript, then, or codex, will mean to us a parchment book with the leaves stitched or glued into a cover, or binding, more or less like our own books (§ 16). These leaves are usually of folio or quarto size (§16), with writing on both sides (§ 13), sometimes arranged in narrow columns (Plates II, XII), sometimes running clear across the page (Plate I) exclusive of the margins. These margins are often covered with notes (§ 48), written perhaps by several different hands (§ 84), but all as a rule later than the codex itself. Some codices were written between the fourth and tenth centuries, more from the tenth to the thirteenth, but most from the thirteenth to the fifteenth (§ 63). Of these the oldest (§ 98) are written in capitals or uncials, without separation of words and without punctuation marks (§ 101), but with few contractions; the later are written in minuscules, with a few stops and numerous contractions (§ 111). The evidence, however, goes to show that all our manuscripts, no matter how written, are de- rived from originals written in capitals. To the earlier codex from which the later are derived the name archetype is given. We know, of course, that all our manuscripts are later by many hun- 79 116 117 118 119 120 80 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. dred years than the authors’ copies, but we cannot tell in any case how many reproductions may have been made between the originals and our copies. There is absolutely no foundation for the idea once fondly cherished, that among our manuscripts of some author, may be one written under his own eye. FauLTy CopiEs.—Now there is no manuscript extant which can be depended upon to reproduce accurately the original copy. Such manuscripts were almost unknown in the times of the au- thors themselves (§ 37), and all have suffered from successive transcriptions. The best manuscript, therefore, will be found to contain many blunders: lines that will not scan, words and sen- tences that have no meaning. ‘These may be corrected perhaps by comparison with other manuscripts, but it sometimes happens that none of our manuscripts gives the passage correctly, or that, while several or all give good scanning and good sense, they do not give the same words. In all such cases, z. e., where the manuscripts support each other in obvious blunders or contradict each other, it is the business of the critical editor to restore the text as nearly as he can to its original form, either by determining for one manu- script against the others, or by emending all. In doing so he proceeds according to certain rules of paleography derived from a study of the errors which the scribes were most apt to make. These errors are of three kinds: Unavoidable, Intentional and Accidental. CLASSIFICATION OF Errors.—This classification is practi- cally exhaustive but it is not the common one. Scholars usually say that the faulty copy varies from the original by giving more words, fewer words, or different words. This differs from our classification simply by looking at the result rather than at the process. The usual treatment is given in Freund’s Trzennium Philologicum, Vol. I, p. 250 f., another in Lindsay’s Jztroductton, p. 10. A less formal treatment is that in Gow’s Companion to School Classics, p. 60 f., from which are taken several of the examples used below. Se ee ST ¥ ee ur déliara omnuL rer fic uuendi modi lg cubdefeaganoné fugere debey? pla : nvm agnorare arbuzarysVeempora:o a ye) Po reise bers Mefalu? éfularas fume, S encttus airy eras ¢ patho ramqua fab am aduinGa fieerate: Hee babu de enebture 1 que dicer@adqua wand pueruans: urea a que pe reac el poflis: | Queer le | os aus Lee ee ¥ Ge eee ee ie ee ie “mubutamor: ppli- mtr 3 Locus Pint boy ora vuboufq: mouenc: ee vere tua éfilia rYferins: “Conftridta a boy omnutfaend tenerLeunationeé UL4 nur “a des: “hed poama qd fuprore notke egerts: u 4 bi fueris: qd cfilmceperis-qs Cuocauerts-que: a ees eS éfal wider a ct Se bictam wa wiuer|mmno 9 Xd ufenac were - fie puplici éfiln partceps-netar &edefignar oculis ad cede: unuiqueg: nem ‘Hos aur: forte uur fan{fa cere: &:P-uder-fift furore actedla ucenPAd morte te carina duct uff efiulis 14 pde opor” whan: ty unos o ons eerie graceu * medioer LA befadtane flanbesp-puar uncer feo Con und So orbe terre Slecoe uncendits Bailar auprenré no efile’ p ferem: i Bi dla noms ang peereo-qd¢ ferulPala fp: tut nows reb far denzé manu fia ocadre fiuc-furrquondé fla uirtus nhacre:-p-ur utr fortes acriorP fiupli cus ce pruciofit qua acerbyfimut bofte coher’ a. uchemens #2que-Hon deé-r: p:Cfiluined: hud ibs tr { 3 aly Comnelitibi. namgtu oe wae pa eee Deas & aliquid putare nugas- bamy 7 po yede- cage sated oe Jam tain aim aufic et unug yeuoz O mine ene tribuc slicare cartis - D ats Iuprer Cone. ‘& or Quire tbs bale” quicquro bee likth /2<4 i > O uarleciigs y patrons. mrgo - G a “p lug uno mincit perenne fedo. qc Fletus patfens lefhie: -X Lo b 4 Cee EY. op Mer aehitie mer $1 ; : Yfa leu ndconpilbar Ve ee . Olin av luere qhem wm finn tenere GOs vs itt c . AV pits i. bars \ Olan pam digitum aare Appetenti on ay % hi t acs folct matare. mozfhic ; weet Cwm axfiaeno meo nitent. . | RB arum nefao quo hibec ian Et Wlinolum fin tlozc / (| xem ut ay grams raqqnuefiee arm: ih) > ins j, KE eam lucere NZ pl poli j S5E tafhs anim [cuate auras ~ ain gutam ar Trichy & ferut puelle I 6 Wesud aureolum ful malig | i | Aduca cmaim folurt atu 4voatim crit negat i mat a Xx i j & "ae ie tamisies Sab ee ia Ee dak a ea la aie et AS gel Sete ee OL 2 SSR See eas nee. CATULLUS: Romanus, Saec. XIV. METHODS AND TERMINOLOGY OF CRITICISM. 97 and it is the attempt to classify these offenses that has given rise to so many divisions and subdivisions of the science of criticism with distinctive names. ‘To understand these names let us carry the process a little further. We find in the text which we are reading an expression which violates the formal laws of the lan- guage as they are already known to us, or which is at least con- trary to the usage of the writer or of his time so far as these usages are already known to us; or else we find something wrong with the thought: it either gives no sense or a sense which con- tradicts what has gone before. In other words the language con- sidered either in itself or as an expression of thought offends us, and the effort to remove this offense is called Grammatical Crit- icism, or Literal Criticism. Again, we find in the statement of facts already known to us, something that contradicts what we have learned from other sources and have believed to be true. This contradiction may raise a doubt as to the facts themselves, a doubt which leads to what is called Historical Criticism. Or, if we do not distrust the facts, we may distrust the good faith of the author, and this is correctly enough though not so obviously referred to the same branch of criticism. Or, if our confidence in the fides of the writer cannot be shaken we have no recourse but to doubt the integrity of the text, which carries us back to Gram- matical Criticism, or as a last resort to wonder whether the pas- sage may not be an interpolation or the whole work perhaps assigned to the wrong author. To settle these last questions we appeal to what is usually called the Higher Criticism: a better, because more suggestive, name is Individual Criticism. Finally, we may find something that offends our taste, something correct enough in itself but out of place in the poem, as unpoetical, in the oration, as unoratorical, in the history, as undignified or what not, and this brings us to Technical or Aesthetic Criticism. But before we inflict upon the poet or orator or historian the penal- 155 156 157 158 98 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. ties for violating the canons of taste we may find reason as before to distrust rather the integrity of the text or the identity of the reputed author. Given now one of these three causes of doubt, and the three classes will be found to be practically exhaustive, we have next to find the appropriate word or phrase or sentence to remove the offense, and lastly to establish such appropriate term as the orig- inal term used by the author. The appropriate term may be easy or hard to find. Sometimes it is our consciousness of the appro- priate that takes offense at the reading: stella clarus, Romulus secundus furt rex Romanus, although even here we might hesitate between so/ and clara for the first, and Muma and przemus for the second. It may be that among the variants recorded in the edi- tions which we consult, or actually existing in the manuscripts which we examine, we discover an appropriate term, and this the only one that is appropriate. It is evident that this may be pro- nounced with confidence to be the original term, the one used by the author. This process of finding what is appropriate and estab- lishing it by comparison of manuscripts is called Diplomatic Crit- icism, and depends for its success and certainty upon our knowl- edge of Paleography and the making and fate of manuscripts. But it may well be that nothing appropriate is found in the variants, and the critic is left to find it in his own sense of what is suit- able. If he can invent such an appropriate term, which removes the original offense and gives rise to no other, he may put it for- ward as probably the original word or phrase, etc., and if other scholars accept his suggestion (technically termed a “ conjecture’’) as certain, it is called an ‘“‘emendation” and becomes part of the text. Such a process is very inappropriately called Conjectural Criticism; inappropriately, because it has in it no element at all of criticism. It is to be hoped that a better name may be sug- gested for it. METHODS AND TERMINOLOGY OF CRITICISM. 99 Kinps oF Criticism.—These illustrations will serve to explain the technical terms used by writers upon criticism, and will also show that, however convenient these names may be to describe more or less distinct processes, they are of very little practical importance, because of the close relation of these processes to each other and their mutual dependence. No hard and fast line can be drawn between any two of them even theoretically, and in practice no such line ever is drawn. Still, for convenience of treatment we may make two divisions: the two that are commonly but very inappropriately called the Lower and the Higher Criticism. The former undertakes to determine and restore so far as possible the original form of the composition, while the latter characterizes the style of the work and identifies its author. We shall use the more suggestive and therefore more appropriate names Textual and Individual Criticism. CRITERION.—It must be remembered that the standard by which we determine the appropriateness of a given term is simply our own knowledge. When therefore we take offense at a certain reading it may well be that our knowledge of gen- eral usage or of the author’s peculiar usage is at fault and not the traditional text. What seems to the critic at one time faulty may in the light of fuller knowledge seem correct and appropriate (see Munro’s Lucretius, third edition, p. x). This change of attitude is more likely to occur when the period be- tween successive revisions is longer than the span allotted to a single scholar. It is not merely the advances made in crit- ical science during the intervening years, but far more the wider range of modern scholarship in all fields of investigation together with its microscopic minuteness, that puts our recent texts above those of the past, and gives them promise of more of permanence as well as of authority. And this is our chief hope (see $$ 12 and 88) for further improvement. 159 160 161 162 163 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. T has been remarked above (§§ 152,153) that the impulse to a critical examination of the text we are reading may come from two sources. We find something inappropriate, which offends us, or we find an appropriate but unfamiliar term in a familiar pas- sage, which excites our surprise. Our first thought naturally is to inquire whether or not the perplexing term rests upon any authority, for it may be a misprint or the invention of the editor whose text we are using. If we find authority for the inappro- priate term, or for both of the appropriate terms, our perplexity can be removed only by determining the value of the authority in the first case, or of the opposing authorities in the second. This process is called Textual Criticism and can best be understood if we suppose the case of an editor undertaking the independent determination of the text of some classic. APPARATUS CRITICUS.—Such an editor has first to collect all the testimony available for the original work. The amount and importance of this testimony, called collectively the Critical Appa- ratus, will vary widely with different authors and with different works of the same author, but will consist of some or all of the following: manuscripts of various dates, early printed editions, translations into other languages (available for Greek authors and the Scriptures only), ancient commentaries, citations and imita- tions by later writers, technically termed “‘testimonia.” These we shall consider in the order given. THE MAnuscripts.—These are the most important witnesses and the editor will make his collection as complete as possible and will study them with peculiar care. He will seldom or never have the manuscripts themselves before him as he works but merely 100 TEXTUAL CRITICISM. tol collations (§ 86, but cf. § 87 at the end), that is, witnesses to wit- nesses. These collations are not so trustworthy as the manu- scripts, because liable themselves to the same defects as the manu- scripts, the errors of the copyist, and in addition in most cases to the errors made by printers and undetected by proof readers. Be- sides these the collator of several manuscripts of the same work is liable to confuse the readings and to assign them to the wrong manuscripts. Sometimes we have several collations of the same manuscript made by different scholars, and where these vary the editor will append the name of the collator (see Tyrrell’s Plautus Mgl., p. 7). The testimony of any particular manuscript is not therefore absolutely reliable, and never can be made so, but modern collations are more trustworthy than earlier ones, not only on ac- count of the increased attention given to Paleography, but also on account of the more general recognition of the fact that in de- scribing manuscripts the least and apparently most insignificant detail may prove to be of great importance. EXAMINATION OF THE MAnuscripts.— Having collected as many manuscripts, z. ¢., collations of manuscripts as possible, the editor next examines them all methodically to determine the rela- tive weight that is to be attached to their individual testimony. This does not mean that all will be scrutinized with the same minuteness, for a very cursory examination of one manuscript may show the editor that it is merely the copy of an earlier one in his possession and may therefore be entirely neglected. In the same way he will disregard the printed editions that are founded upon manuscripts which he still has, for these editions have no inde- pendent value and are one step further from the original. On the other hand, if the foundation manuscripts are no longer extant (as in the case of Velleius Paterculus, see Rockwood p. xvii f.) the edztzo priuceps (§ 64) represents them and testifies for them. In this case the fides of the editor of the book must be considered: 164 165 166 167 102 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. the readings of the manuscripts X and Y of Cicero’s letters, upon which Orelli largely based his edition and which were known only from the edition of Simeon Du Bos (born 1635), have been proved to be forgeries with which the unscrupulous editor undertook to bolster up his often convincing conjectures (see Tyrrell Cicero in his Letters, p. c). So the great problem of Horatian criticism turns upon the confidence to be reposed in the readings from certain lost manuscripts preserved in the edition of Jacobus Cruquius, issued in 1578 (see Wilkins Horace Ep., p. xxvii, and Palmer Horace Sat. 3d ed., p. xxix f.). POSSIBLE RESULTS.—This examination of the manuscripts and the editions which represent lost manuscripts will result in one of four possibilities, as follows: 1. The editor may find but one manuscript of his author upon which to base his text. This con- dition obtains in the case of Hyperides and Babrius among Greek writers, and the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus among the Latin writers. The condition is so rare because it means that the works in question were entirely lost for a time and were not recovered until after the invention of printing (about 1450). In such a case the editor’s task is comparatively simple: he has but to take the necessary pains to read the manuscript correctly and reproduce it accurately. All that he does beyond this is, strictly speaking, not textual criticism. 2. The editor may be able to trace all existing manuscripts back to a single manuscript also ex- isting. This is true of certain Orations of Lysias, true of Athe- naeus, true of books XI-XVI of the Annals and I-V of the His: tories of Tacitus, and is believed by certain scholars to be true of some few other works. The course of the editor in this case is as clear and simple as in the first case, when once the derivation of the manuscripts is demonstrated. This demonstration, however, is a matter of exceeding nicety and corresponding difficulty. The mere agreement in all or almost all readings with an important 2 E pyrene ptye-t tiicd.ho | SrA be Gs Paes lid_ cir Rien ve feafabeeiof msn due que Cu E ape Cui giela pu = oly. Bos a ee s eee puena pom mypietla \eo ore nu iperuiclif. reblibu { mtay~- Apes erude {ecard yop pale rebels aoe acpap | TEAR, Sar ene dear) Therap impenn =< ud. pe mecenda C-duy uyrco Ay Prt eo ) Se Ceraptre Lucrdanre ledy-70p-} “We cdpuminaz~ Ubpor iit Tea ee Canmen: faeculare--Epo (Ule® pura fin mor | OOK-0& oGicdk ES rdocilsf pAuy Ar P. , Feed Libpa-epiftolay-cz- Gb tt the ate yer Lib “Ut Cofien (pene ttpride- neh pubs tTdao fe calles: -PoRphipioe . ota ne Ad, cgue- Lene cdpucr ; mode feu! ppntle nial: ac ee emdii. Ad: mdecessa bree Tem: Lidpio- homme {eps [eu Ufas cteubyceyud fi ht offtcto- 15 nd MATICE pe tym ayy Ap pid Motocolay. eras Reaatelepad a B aytar ndép duody cho nnoe Wage Pian preciso ~mecenar ded P 4) leu 2 uty ed Drea Ups. Se Pc fecal : pe ddecrle rts duobur sere nde ce eb Adece: Aft « yi". bur 9 eS eee el a ks mt mee XI. Horace: Bernensis os Saec. IX, TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 103 difference in age is not enough to prove the descent. The most convincing proof is a lacuna (§ 121) in all the younger manu- scripts with no evidence of mutilation, while such mutilation is found in the oldest manuscript at the place where the lacuna oc- curs. 3. The-editor may find that all existing manuscripts may be traced to one manuscript no longer extant, which can, however, be more or less completely and accurately reconstructed from copies in his possession. Such a manuscript is the Henoch’s codex of the Dialogue of Tacitus (see Gudemann’s edition, p. cxv) and the Verona manuscript of Catullus. This last was used in the tenth century and disappeared, was found again and copied in the four- teenth century and has again disappeared (see Merrill’s Catullus, p. xxxvi). The proof of the descent is, of course, even more diffi- cult here than in the second case, although essentially the same in kind. The task of the editor, moreover, will be simplified only so far as as he is able to reconstruct the archetype. When this cannot be accomplished we have the fourth and last case. 4. The editor may find his manuscripts hopelessly confused, or divided into several families whose connection cannot accurately be deter- mined, and to which the several manuscripts can be assigned only doubtfully or provisionally. Here the difficulty increases in propor- tion to the extent of the work and the number of the manuscripts. Sometimes, when the manuscripts are very numerous, the problem may be solved by some favorable, almost lucky, circumstance, as e. g., the superiority of P. (see Plate VI) over all the other manu- scripts of Sallust, even those of the same class. On the other hand the problem may baffle generation after generation of schol- ars, as has been the case, and seems likely to be the case forever, with Horace. The consideration of these four cases will show how the discovery of a single manuscript, although of no great value in itself, may completely overthrow the accepted text of a given author. 168 169 170 172 104 —_——. rer Xx LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. STEMMATA.—The derivation and relation of the manuscripts of certain authors may be represented by diagrams, called stemmata (genealogical tables), varying in complexity with the number and character of the manuscripts. The most interest- ing are those which illustrate the descent of our existing manu- scripts from a supposed original no longer extant (case three above). As an illustration Meusel’s stemma of the manuscripts of Cesar’s Gallic War is here given, taken from his edition, Berlin, 1894. Of the twenty manuscripts which he names on p. xi, eleven are disregarded because they are believed to be copies of some of the remaining nine (§ 164). These nine manuscripts, distinguished by the letters 4, O, B, W, S, a, f, h, Z (§ 82), Meusel arranges in four groups, 4Q, BMS, af, hl, because the members of each group agree so closely in their readings as to warrant a belief in a common origin for each set. This origin for A and Q, z. 2., the lost x manuscript from which both A and Q were rat copied, he calls x: wherever, therefore, 4 and ‘ B O have common readings, we have the read- $ ss » ing of x; whenever they disagree we must ~~ ~~ «assume an error on the part of one copyist 171 4 Q@BMSa fk JC orboth. In like manner the common source of B, M, Sis called ¢, of a and fz, of # and Zp. These four supposed originals x, ¢, 7, p, each reconstructed as explained in the case of X, are now carefully compared and are found to divide into two groups, x resembling ¢ very closely, and 7 resembling p. The archetype of y and ¢ is called a, that of 7 and p is called B, and these two, reconstructed as were the other supposed originals, are found to have so many common readings, and so many variations that can be explained paleo- graphically as coming from a common source, as to point at a common origin for both. This source, called X, is therefore the common archetype of all our manuscripts of the Gallic War. Usk OF THE STEMMATA.—The use of the stemmata has two advantages. First, the relationship of the manuscripts is shown at a glance, and also the relative importance of their readings singly and in combination. Secondly, much less space is needed for recording their readings (§ 86 at end), X denoting the read- ing of all the manuscripts (4, Q, B, W, S, a, f, h, 7), a the reading of five (4, QO, B, WS), and so on. A more complicated s¢emma may be studied on p. cxxxiv of Gudemann’s Dialogue of Tacitus: TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 105 [Archetypon Fuldense (?), Corbeiense (?) | VIIL-IX. Cent. | [Codex Hersfeldensis (?)] XII. Cent.(?) [Apographon ignoti inventoris] XV. Cent. (c. 1457). | [XJ ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS.—As the testimony of the manuscripts 173 is indirect to an extraordinary degree, and as between the most [¥] ancient of these and their originals hundreds of years, perhaps even a thousand years, intervene, the editor looks eagerly for tes- timony more nearly or quite contemporary with the original. The most ancient testimony is furnished by translations into other lan- guages, and while, as has been said ($ 162), the Latin classics derive no benefit from this source, they do throw some light upon the earlier writings of the Greeks. It is well known that even in the earliest times the Romans had translations from the Greek. Fragments of the translation of the Odyssey by Livius Andronicus have come down to us, and Cicero not only made set translations of whole works, but filled his philosophical writings especially with translations either made by him or taken from earlier Roman poets. Such translations are very free, but those made by writers of the early church and even in the middle ages are painfully literal, almost word for word. It goes without saying that the freedom of 174 the most ancient translations detracts from their value for critical 106 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. purposes, and yet some assistance has been derived from this source, as ¢.g., by Spengel and Rauchenstein on Phaedrus 279 A from Cicero Orator 41. It is also evident that the help thus gained will avail more in making a selection between two or more vari- . ants than in restoring a passage hopelessly corrupt. Another fact that depreciates the value of this testimony is that it is trans- mitted to us through manuscripts no older or better perhaps than those which we have of the original, for instance all the manu- scripts of the passage of Cicero referred to above are later by half a century than the best manuscript of the Phaedrus. Worse than this, it has been shown that some ancient translations have been “corrected” in later times, that is, modified so as to bring them into harmony with the corrector’s text of the original. 175 ANCIENT COMMENTARIES.—Of far more importance are the ancient commentaries or scholia (§ 47) upon the. masterpieces of antiquity, many of which have been preserved to us. We have complete commentaries, for example, upon the works of Hippo- crates (fl. 400 B. C.) by Galen (+ 200 A. D.) in eighteen books, upon Aratus (fl. 270 B.C.) by Hipparchus (+ 125 B. C.), and sev- eral upon the writings of Aristotle and Plato. Besides these there are extracts more or less valuable from commentaries upon Homer, Aristophanes and the tragedians. Less assistance is given by the commentaries upon the Latin writers but some of these are very valuable, as, ¢. g., the scholia of Aelius Donatus on Terence (about the middle of the fourth century), of Servius and Tiberius Donatus on Vergil (also fourth century), of Porphyrio and the Pseudo- Acro on Horace (date uncertain), all in a very unsatisfactory form. All these commentaries are of more value from the standpoint of interpretation than of textual criticism, but it was customary then as it is now to prefix to the note one or more words of the text, and of course many notes are concerned with the words them- 176 selves. Unfortunately, the /emmata, as the words from the original TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 107 prefixed to the notes are called, have often been altered by later students to fit the texts current in their times, and the precise form of even a word which is discussed is seldom of moment to a comimentator concerned chiefly with the meaning. Besides, the critic has here, as sometimes in the case of translations, to deal with texts even more corrupt than those of the original upon which he is engaged, for it is only very recently that an effort has been made to settle on scientific principles the texts of these commentators. CrTaTions.—To the apparatus criticus must be added the cita- tions by later writers. So large a body of the post-classical lit- erature has come down to us that the occasional quotations found therein from the works of the classical writers are collectively very numerous and of considerable importance. The works of the Church Fathers are filled with quotations from the heathen writers, e. g., St. Augustine with maxims from Sallust. Still richer sources are the fragments of the grammarians and lexicog- raphers (§ 50). But here, too, the editor is apt to be disappointed. Too often he finds numerous citations from precisely those pas- sages of his author that present no critical difficulties, and none that bear upon the term in doubt. Then comes the usual diff- culty in regard to the text of the grammarians and lexicographers and saints whom he consults, and the additional vexation that they often quote from memory only and sometimes give in differ- ent passages different forms of the same quotation. Their value for these reasons is, therefore, very differently estimated by differ- ent editors. IMITATIONS.—Lastly, attention is now being given to the imita- tions in late writers of favorite predecessors in the same style of composition. It is evident that when such an imitation is estab- lished the evidence may be made to point in either direction, 7. ¢., from the better established text forward or backward to the text in 177 178 179 180 181 108 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. doubt. The weight to be attached to evidence of this sort is at best not very great, but may serve to turn a nicely balanced scale. In general it will be found to count more for the interpretation of the author than for his text. Friedlander’s Martial gives a good idea of the use of these imitations. UsE OF THE APPARATUS.—The apparatus having been collected as completely and as accurately as possible, its use has next to be considered. Here we must bear in mind the fact that by far the larger part of the text of the average classic presents no critical difficulty at all. For nine words out of ten, to put the case mildly, the evidence against a given term or for it will be so over- whelming, that no occasion for perplexity will be given. For the tenth term no rules can be given that will have in practice any general application or binding force, but these hints may be sug- gested: First, the authority of the apparatus should be heeded so far as it can be determined; secondly, the fitness and appro- priateness of every suggested term in itself must be considered; thirdly, the possibility of deriving paleographically (§ 93) the re- jected term from the one received into the text has great weight. It is evident that the second suggestion will depend largely upon the editor’s taste and his familiarity with the usage of his author. Take an example: In two manuscripts of equal authority we find a different number of words; the additional term in the one is appropriate, its absence from the other causes no perplexity. The editor will first ask how the term got into one copy if it was not in the original. ‘This will be easily explained if the same word occurs near by or if it is a word often supplied or likely to be added as an explanation. He will next inquire how the term was lost from one copy if it stood in the original. This loss is always possible, but it is especially easy and therefore probable if it is a word not needed for the sense and likely to be lost by a failure of the memory (§ 141). Again, suppose that two terms TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 10g occur in two manuscripts of equal authority but in reverse order, res publica and publica res. Here the editor will ask which is the usual and natural order, which the unusual and artificial, and will assume that the latter is the order in the original as being more likely to be changed by the scribe. This brings us face to face with Griesbach’s famous canon for New Testament criticism: That the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier, be- cause the latter is more apt to be an alteration than the former. This is true so far as intentional variations from the original are concerned, but it is not true of unintentional errors. Uninten- tional errors, however, are far more numerous than intentional errors ($125), and the canon is therefore of very limited applica- tion. So it will be found to be with every rule that may be laid down, there will always be exceptions and exceptions. Every editor will consciously or unconsciously adopt rules for his own pro- cedure, based upon his familiarity with the apparatus he is using and varying with the author whom he considers. And even should different editors of a given author agree upon the rules to be ap- plied, a rare thing for editors to do, their decisions upon -specific applications of the rules would be sure to vary in many cases. It was the failure to recognize the reasonableness of many of these differences of opinion that caused the bitter feeling of the older critics toward each other personally, a feeling that still finds vent occasionally in our philological journals and reviews. RELATIVE WorTH oF MANuscripTs.—We have now to con- sider the meaning of such expressions as “‘ greater or less manu- script authority,” “a better or poorer manuscript,” etc. The first editions were based upon such manuscripts as their pub- lishers could procure, sometimes upon the first manuscripts they chanced upon, and presented texts of little critical value. When scholars began to turn from these editions to the manuscripts, their first impulse was to count the manuscripts for or against a given term, and give to the greater number the respect due to superior authority. A little thought will show how utterly 182 1838 184 185 186 110 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. unscientific such a procedure is: Suppose that in the tenth x century two copies, A and B, were made of the ——l—_, __ manuscript X, which was then lost, and that in the A B fifteenth century four copies, c, d, e, and f, were me made of B, which also was lost. Now when the scholar of the sixteenth century found A and ¢ for a certain reading, and d, e and / for the only variant, he would decide against the true authority of the manuscripts if he gave his decision in favor of the majority. The next step was to select some one manuscript, usually on account of its age or the care showed in its writing, and to vary from it only when its readings could not be made to yield a satisfactory sense. This was a step forward, for age is pre- sumptive evidence of worth (§ 93), and so is careful writing (§ 115), and so also is freedom from interpolation, But pre- sumptive evidence is not enough: Suppose that in the tenth century two copies, A and B, are made of the manuscript X, which immediately disappears. Suppose that A is kp carelessly made, while B is a good copy, and that in the fifteenth century a good copy, ¢, is made of B, which then disappears. Now when the scholar of the seventeenth century finds A for a certain reading and c, later by five -hundred years, for the only variant, he will naturally side with A, but his decision may be wrong. Mere age is evidently not enough. Take these same manuscripts, A and B, and suppose that from A is made a careful copy, d@, and from B a careless copy, c, and that these last copies only are preserved: who can tell which is the better manuscript with no further information than these data give? ‘Take a last example: Suppose that x from A is made the careful copy #, and from B the ——_|,_ careless copy &, and that the owner of & corrects 4 B his copy by comparing it a few years later with B. | er ! A and B are now lost, and in the seventeenth cen- : tury an editor finds that the interpolated manu- script # has one reading and the uninterpolated manuscript & another: where lies now the balance of authority, if he cannot distinguish the second hand (§ 84) in #4? If he can distin- guish it? TrestT oF WorTH.—From these illustrations it ought to be evident that no rule of general application can be laid down that will determine from external considerations only the worth c TEXTUAL CRITICISM. III of any manuscript. Its own readings are the only index to its worth, z. ¢., the manuscript which varies least frequently from the correct text is the best. But, it is urged, we get our text from the manuscripts, and to get the correct text we must know what manuscripts have superior authority. Two consid- erations will help to explain this apparent paradox. The first has been mentioned already ($179): a very large part of the text of every author is now and has been for five hundred years, perhaps, critically certain. This of itself gives opportu- nity to test the value of any manuscript, a process shown with admirable clearness by Professor Pease in his treatment of the manuscripts of Terence (Tr. A. Ph. Ass’n, 1887). In the second place scholars make themselves so familiar with an author’s way of thinking and with his style of expression, worked out from passages critically certain, that when they come to an uncertain passage they are able to test the opposing manu- scripts by their fidelity to the known usage of the author. Both these considerations call for a considerable period of study, extending over generations perhaps, and it is this long and careful study that really tests the manuscripts. It is true that when the best manuscript is found by some such process as this, it will usually prove to be an old manuscript (as com- pared with its fellows), and carefully written, and free from interpolations, but no one of these qualities, no two or three of them, is a certain indication of excellence. ConJECTURAL EMENDATION.—No matter how excellent and numerous the manuscripts of a given author are, no matter how complete the other materials (§ 162) of the critical apparatus, there will still remain occasional passages where all the help which the apparatus renders cannot furnish a satisfactory text. At this point textual criticism has reached the limits of its obligation, beyond this it does not go. Scholars, however, are not content to stop even here; they undertake by a process of divination, not of criticism, to give to us the words written by the author, although lost or distorted beyond recognition in the course of time. The process is one which we all almost unconsciously employ to a limited extent at least: the sentence we are reading does not end at the bottom of the page, but we can guess a word or two more 187 188 189 190 191 112 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. before we turn the leaf; a word in a friend’s letter is carelessly written or blotted, but we divine the meaning from those that pre- cede or follow it. The process, when we come to analyze it, is this: the reader puts himself in the position of the writer and by a purely intellectual effort tries to. realize what the writer under the given circumstances must have thought and therefore written. No rules can be given for such a process. It depends essentially upon the reader’s ability to identify himself with the writer; it calls not merely for the fullest intellectual sympathy and appre- ciation, but also for that fullness of knowledge which is the goal of modern scholarship, for the reader who understands the writer best, will be most successful in his conjectures. CRITICISM AND CONJECTURE.—But while the act of conjecture has nothing to do with criticism, criticism resumes its functions so soon as the conjecture is made. All the critical tests (§§ 154- 156) grammatical, historical, individual, and technical, must be applied. If these are satisfied by the conjectured term, it is ‘ pos- sible.’ It becomes ‘probable’ if it will satisfy the one diplomatic test that can be applied to it: can all the variants, or at least the best attested variant, be derived from the conjectured term by the processes (any or all) of corruption known to us from our study of paleography? Further than the ‘probable’ conjecture cannot go, although in the fullness of our enthusiasm over some unusually brilliant suggestion we pronounce it ‘certain.’ Certain it becomes only when it is confirmed by the discovery of new manuscript authority, as, ¢.g., Reuter’s conjecture on Plautus Trin. 297 and Bishop Hare’s on 313 afterwards found in A. This confirmation is very rare, but it is the hope of such rewards which has made conjectural emendation with some scholars a passion, almost a madness. It ought to be remembered that it is no less a triumph of scholarship to vindicate the soundness of a manuscript reading impugned by others, than to emend a passage that has been despaired of for centuries. a ey