Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:43:05.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. A Letter to John Gage, Esq. F.R.S. Director, by William Young Ottley, Esq. F.S.A., &c., on a Manuscript in the British Museum, believed by him to be of the Second or Third Century, and containing the translation of Aratus's astronomical Poem by Cicero, accompanied by Drawings of the Constellations: with a preliminary Dissertation in proof of the use of Minuscule Writing by the ancient Romans; and a corrected edition of the Poem itself, including ten lines not heretofore known

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2012

William Young Ottley Esq.
Get access

Extract

You are aware that I have, at intervals, employed myself a good deal in the manuscript room of the British Museum, during the last four years, in researches among the Illuminated MSS. of the fifteenth century, on the subject of Costume; for the purpose of helping me to form a right judgment of the ages and country of certain books of wood-engravings, which are known by bibliographers under the name of Block-Books; and are commonly supposed to have given rise to the invention of Typography: for the controversy concerning this subject has long occupied my attention; and, although so many books have been written upon it during the last two centuries, I have become more and more persuaded, that the evidence on both sides must be subjected to a nicer examination, and sifting, than it has yet had, before we can hope to come to a right decision concerning it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 26 , 1836 , pp. 47 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1836

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 50 note a The writers here cited do not intend to say, that the antiquity of the invention of the Greek accents has ever been doubted; for in a note, at page 328 of the same volume, they inform us, that “they are believed to have been first introduced about 200 years before Christ, by Aristophanes of Byzantium, who adapted musical notes to the characters, in order to facilitate the learning of the Greek language, and the reading of it with a proper pronunciation; and that their use is attested by Athenæus, xi. 10, p. 484, and 13, p. 496, and by Plutarch (Quaestion. Platon.); besides that the Grammarians give the rules concerning them. “But from all this,” say they, “it has been supposed, that they were only adopted by the grammarians, and used in the schools; and that they were not generally admitted by the ancients in writing.” The Greek manuscripts published in fac-simile, in the two volumes of the “Herculanensium Voluminum quae supersunt,” do not appear to have them. But all these manuscripts are written in capitals. Perhaps in ancient times, as at present, they may have been considered unbecoming the dignity of this kind of writing, and applicable only to writing in minuscules.

page 51 note b Let any one, who may be disposed to think that I overstate this fact, or am desirous to make too much of it, look at Gori's interesting work upon ancient Diptychs; in which, if I forget not, he will find several, of soon after the time of Constantine, in as rude a style of art as need be.

page 53 note c The general argument of the writers of the “Nouveau Traité,” against any manuscript, having pretensions to be deemed earlier than the third or fourth century, would seem to stand thus: “All manuscripts written before the third or fourth century have perished. But this manuscript has not perished: therefore it is not anterior to the third or fourth century!” See, in their third vol. (p. 58,) what they say, in speaking of the most ancient manuscript of Terence in the Vatican.

page 59 note b “Ingentia exempla contra Varronis sententiam de chartis reperiuntur” (Varro has said, as we have seen above, that paper was not known prior to the time of Alexander the Great): “Namque Cassius Hemina, vetustissimus auctor Annalium, quarto eorum libro prodidit, Cn. Terentium scribam agrum suum in Ianiculo repastinantem, offendisse arcam, in qua Numa, qui Romæ regnavit, situs fuisset. In eadem libros ejus repertos P. Cornelio, L. F. Cethego, M. Bæbio, Q. F. Pamphilo Coss. ad quos a regno Numæ colliguntur anni DXXXV. et hos fuisse e charta.”

page 62 note c “Linteorum librorum,” says he, “frequens apud Livium mentio …… At non hæc charta nostra vulgaris fuit, quæ fit ex linteis contritis et maceratis: quod multo posteriore aevo repertum. Lintei dicebantur libri, quod in telam linteam descripti, quemadmodum hac ætate pingere in iisdem pictores solent.”

page 66 note d It is evident that the poet addresses these lines to his autograph manuscript, written, we may conclude, not on the finest kind of paper: after which he congratulates it upon having been well received by Faustinus: “Now,” he says, “you are safe; and copies of you will be made by the caligraphists, perfumed with cedar, and enriched with purple and other becoming ornaments.”

page 71 note e The vulgar tradition that this manuscript was written by the hand of the Evangelist himself, has long been discredited among the learned: but there seems good reason to consider it of a date not later than the commencement of the sixth century. Montfaucon assures us that it is, or was, written in Latin, [I express myself thus, as not even a word of it has been legible for some centuries,] and not in the Greek language, as was formerly thought to be the case: in proof of which he notices the frequent occurrence of letters which have no place in the Greek alphabet; the D, for example, and the R. He, as has been said, thought the material it was written on, papyrus.

There is a very learned and interesting dissertation upon the subject of this manuscript by Laur. a Turre, p. DXLVII. et seq. in the “Evangeliarum Quadruplex” of Blanchinius: in which it seems to be proved, that it originally made part of a celebrated Latin manuscript of the Gospels, written on thin parchment, and well known under the title of the manuscript of Forli. It appears that, many centuries ago, the Gospel of St. Mark was taken out of this manuscript; that it was afterwards said to have been written by the Evangelist himself; that this Gospel was comprised in seven gatherings; that the two last gatherings were given in 1355 to the Emperor Charles IV. and deposited in a church at Prague; and that the remaining five gatherings were transported in 1420 to Venice. It is stated in this Dissertation, that in 1720 the father of Blanchinius was permitted by the Venetian government to examine the manuscript in the Ducal treasury minutely; and that, then, not even a letter of the writing could be discerned; but that all those who assisted at the examination, were decidedly of opinion that the material on which it had been written was parchment.

page 84 note f At first sight, the first letter of this word Quisquis, struck me as being much more like an A than a Q. I have since learned from Kopp that it is in fact the Tironian Q of the ancients. See this character three times employed in an Inscription of the time of Marcus Aurelius, (Plate V. No. 16) which I have had the good fortune to find at page 106 of the first volume of the “Palæographia Critica” of this learned writer.

page 102 note a I venture here to differ from Maffei. Good minuscule writing was certainly practised long before in England; as may be seen in various original charters in Aug. A. II. in the Cottonian Collection; and I cannot doubt that it was practised at the same time by the French, and other people, who, like us, had in ancient times learned it from the Romans. It may, indeed, have been but little used in writing books, during one or two of the ruder centuries: but it could never, I think, have been entirely lost, in any country where it had once been known.

page 106 note b Strange as it may seem, this appears also to have been Mabillon's notion of Jerom's meaning: notwithstanding, as has been said, he insisted that the ancients were acquainted with minuscule and cursive writing.

page 109 note c “Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique,” vol. iii. p. 34, et seq. “Chap. II. Writing in Capitals, in Manuscripts of Italy, France, Germany, England and Spain. Article I. Roman Capitals in Mss.: First Subdivision, included in plates xxxiv. and xxxv.”

The title of the first of these two plates is thus: “Writing taken from Mss., including the first five genera of Roman Capitals, appertaining to the First Division of the Second Class;” that of the second: “Writing taken from Mss., containing the sixth, seventh, and eighth last genera of Roman Capitals, written in an unfinished and negligent manner (or Rustic Capitals), appertaining to the first division, first subdivision, of the Second Class.” And, then, in the margins of the pages explanatory of these two plates, we read; 1st Division, 1st Subdivision: 1st Genus, 1st Species, 2d Species: 2d Genus, 1st, 2d, and 3d Species; and so on: the 3d Genus having 4 Species; the 4th Genus, 3 Species; the 5th, 4 Species; the 6th, 3 Species; the 7th, 2 Species, and the 8th Genus, 3 Species.

Then comes: “Article II. Writing in Lombardic Capitals: exposition of plate xxxvi. containing the Second Subdivision of the first Division of writing found in Mss.” The title of the plate itself is nearly the same; and in the margins of the accompanying text, we have, in the same way as before: “Second Subdivision:” of which the 1st Genus has no less than 10 Species; the 2d Genus has 5 Species; the 3d Genus—writing in Lombardic Capitals, mixed with minuscules—has 2 Species; the 4th Genus—ancient Lombardic Capitals and Uncials mixed—has 7 Species; the 5th Genus—Lombardic Capitals of different kinds—has 3 Species; and the 6th Genus has 8 Species.

Then “Article III. Writings in Visigothic, Anglo-Saxon, and Gallican Capitals in Mss. Explanation of plate xxxvii. which contains the third, fourth, and fifth Subdivisions, appertaining to the first Division of the Second Class of Latin writings.” The title to the plate is the same. “Sect. I. Writing in Visigothic Capitals of Spain and France. Third Subdivision.” The 1st Genus has 5 Species; and the 2d has 9 Species. “Sect. II. Writings in Saxon Capitals of England and France. Fourth Subdivision.” The 1st Genus has 4 Species; and the 2d has 4 Species. “Sect. III. Ancient Gallican writing, in Capitals. Fifth Subdivision.” The 1st Genus has 5 Species; and the 2d Genus— Galilean rustic Capitals, or such as are executed in a negligent manner—has 8 Species.

Now comes “Article IV. Writing in Capitals employed in Merovingian Mss., also Teutonic and Modem Gothic: explication of plates xxxviii, and xxxix, wherein are contained the sixth and seventh subdivisions of the first division of Latin writings of the second class. Sect. I. Merovingian or Franco-Gallican Capitals. Sixth Subdivision.” The 1st Genus gives 6 Species; the 2d Genus, 10 Species; the 3d Genus, 10 Species; the 4th Genus—Rustic Merovingian Capitals—6 Species; and the 5th Genus—Merovingian Capitals mixed with Uncials, &c.—has 8 Species. “Sect. II. Writings in Teutonic or German Capitals. Seventh Subdivision” The 1st Genus has 4 Species; and the 2d has 3 Species. ” Sect. III. Modern Gothic Capitals.” 1 Genus only, which gives 3 Species.

We have now “Article V. Writings in Caroline and Capetian Capitals: explanation of plates XL. and XLI. which contain the eighth and ninth subdivisions of writings in Capitals, &c. Sect. I. Writing in Mss. in Caroline Capitals. Eighth Subdivision.” The 1st Genus produces 11 Species; the 2d Genus—Semi-rustic Capitals—gives no less than 12 Species; the 3d Genus—Rustic Caroline Capitals—has 5 Species; the 4th Genus, 5 Species; and the 5th Genus —Caroline writing in Capitals, in English Mss.!!—has 4 Species. “Sect. II. Writing in Mss. in Capetian Capitals; Ninth Subdivision.” The 1st Genus has 4 Species; and the 2d Genus—Capetian Capitals mixed with uncials and minuscules—has 9 Species.

Now upon counting them up, I find that these pretended distinct Species of majuscule writing only, found in Latin Mss., amount to no less than one hundred and eighty-nine in number. What are we to say of such a system?

Chapter III. (p. 141), treats of Uncial writing; Roman, Galilean, Merovingian, Lombardic, Caroline, German, and Gothic; that is, of what they call “the Second Division of the Second Class of Latin writings in Mss.” Article I. treats of Roman Uncials, describing the specimens in plate XLII. They are divided into 7 Genera; the different Species of which amount together to 20. Article II. describes plate XLIII., which gives specimens from Mss. written in Galilican Uncials. It is divided into 6 Genera, which together produce 27 Species. Article III. describes plate XLIV, which contains specimens of Franco-Gallican or Merovingian writing in Uncials. It is divided into 7 Genera, which give 23 Species. Article IV. Treats of Lombardic, Visigothic, Caroline, Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, and Modern Gothic writing, in Uncials; explaining plate XLV. They have 10 Genera, which give 37 Species; Uncial writing, altogether, furnishing 107 Species.

Chapter IV. (p. 204). This chapter treats of Semi-Uncial writing. Article I. Explains plate XLVI. under 9 Genera, which produce 32 Species. Article II. Is explanatory of plate XLVII., and has 7 Genera, which give 28 Species.

Chapter V. (p. 232). Treats of writings of a mixed kind in ancient Mss., explaining late XLVIII, under 9 Genera, which give 33 Species.

Chapter VI. (p. 252). Treats of ancient minuscule writing. Article I. Illustrates plate XLIX., and gives 3 Genera, containing 12 Species. Article II. Continuing the explanation of plate XLIX., and giving also that of plate L., produces 5 Genera, comprising 28 Species. Article III. which is explanatory of plate LI., furnishes 3 Genera, which give 12 Species. Article IV. Explains the remaining part of plate LI., and the first part of plate LII., and gives 4 Genera, which comprise 27 Species. Article V. Explains the remaining part of plate LII., under 2 Genera, which give 11 Species. Article VI. Describes plates LIII. and LIV., which contain examples of what they call the Caroline minuscule. The writers begin this article with an argument in which they attempt, unsuccessfully I think, to defend Mabillon's system against the animadversions of Maffei, in the before-given dissertation in his “Verona Illustrata.” This article is divided into 8 Genera, which produce no less than 54 Species. Article VII. Describes plate LV., under 10 Genera, which give 40 Species. Article VIII. Is explanatory of plate LVI, and gives us 6 Genera, which are productive of 29 Species. So that this chapter, on the whole, describes no less than 213 Species of minuscule Latin writing.

The VIIth Chapter (p. 401–459) treats of Cursive writing, Roman, Gallican, Merovingian, Lombardic, Caroline, Visigothic, and Saxon. I have spared myself the trouble of counting the number of Genera and Species which this chapter is productive of.

page 118 note d As I have before said, I am obliged for this specimen to the “Museo Borbonico.” I would not willingly speak disrespectfully of this work, which I have been assured is edited by men of learning. But I am obliged to say, that the heterogeneous mixture which it contains, of ancient with modern pictures, &c, and the very imperfect idea which its meagre engravings in outline convey of the various styles and merits of the originals they are intended to represent, render it a publication of a very inferior class to that entitled “Le Pitture Antichi, I Bronzi, &c. d'Ercolano,” whereof so many fine volumes in folio were formerly given to the world, under the patronage of the King of Naples, and of which I, for one, lament the discontinuance more than I can express. Would that this note might meet the eye of his present Sicilian Majesty; and that he might be induced to take into consideration the suggestion the author would humbly make, that a publication so full of interest, and so honourable to the taste and liberality of his Majesty's August Family, should be resumed; or rather, perhaps, that the paintings, sculptures, bronzes, &c., which the excavations of Pompeii have furnished so abundantly, should be engraved in the same finished manner, and form the subject of another work upon the same scale of magnificence.

page 125 note e I find upon looking at the printed edition of these fragments, published at Rome in 1741, that the Lansdowne MS. above mentioned, does not give the whole of the remaining text of this MS., but only as far as verse 309 of the fourth book of the Æneid; and that the Vatican MS. contains, besides, considerable portions of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth books. It is remarkable that the editor (Bottari) takes no notice whatever, whether in his preface or his notes, of the numerous examples of ancient orthography which this MS. furnishes: nor are they mentioned by Foggini, in the learned preface to his edition of the Medicean MS.; notwithstanding he speaks of Bottari's publication, which had made its appearance whilst his own was in hand.

page 128 note f I do not, however, here mean to admit, that in very ancient times all MSS. were copied by persons of this class, or in this kind of character. Lovers of Literature, who could not afford to buy MSS. would often copy them themselves, and of course in a more expeditious sort of writing; in short, in cursive and minuscule: and of this kind, it is probable, many very ancient MSS. still exist, in the library of the Vatican and elsewhere, which, in consequence of the old prejudice against the ancient use of minuscule writing, have even until now been termed “Manuscritti in carrattere Lombardico,” and considered not earlier than the ninth or tenth century.

page 128 note g I shall presently insist further upon the truth of this observation; which is also, I believe, generally applicable to the copiers and correctors of MSS. in later centuries, as well as to original writers. If it be true, it follows, I think, that a careful study of the dates of the different changes which took place in Latin orthography, is likely to do more towards enabling us to judge of the ages of early MSS. in that language, than any other criteria that may be mentioned excepting, perhaps, the drawings and illuminations which are found in some of them.

page 128 note h I have also once found quoi in the Medicean MS.; viz. in the first book of the Georgics page 26, v. 24. It had, like the above quom, we may conclude, escaped the notice of the grammarian who had been employed to correct the MS. from which it was copied; and in consequence the writer of the Medicean MS. put it in. It is corrected by a pen stroke across the q and the o, and the insertion of a c over the former letter, in the same way as the two quom.

page 128 note i In the printed edition of these Vatican fragments, we have (p. 56) at verse 680 of the second book of the Æneid, “Quum subitum,” &c.; but I consider it an error of the press, as in the Lansdowne MS. before mentioned, it is “Cum subitum.”

page 130 note h If I except the accidental occurrence, before-mentioned, of quoi, in one instance, and quom, twice, in the Medicean MS., no MS. of Virgil, as far as I can learn, except the one I am speaking of, has these archaisms. I do not find them once, among the numerous examples of the orthography of the celebrated Vatican MS. No. 3867, which Bottari has given in the Supplement to his edition of these Fragments: and yet this MS., which is written in capitals of the largest size, has always been considered one of very high antiquity; and indeed some writers appear to have thought it more ancient than any other. See the “Nouveau Traité” de Diplomatique,” vol. iii.p. 61.

page 131 note i For the satisfaction of the reader I here give an extract or two from this preface to the “Editio Princeps “of Plautus;

“Nam Plautinæ viginti Comœdiæ quæ ad hoc ævi duntaxat extant, Latinæ scilicet linguæ deliciæ, rerum atque verborum venustate, et festiva sermonis elegantia, legentium animos mira voluptate afficerent; nisi pluribus in locis dimidiatæ haberentur: Et turn temporum injuria, turn litteratorura negligenti arrogantia, et librariorum inscitia depravatæ forent, &c. …. Adeo ad ejus percipiendos sensus necessaria erat multiplex, varia, et exquisitissima quædam eruditio: Quam rem turn Varro ad Ciceronem scribens, turn Donatus Terentium explanans, testantur. Quod si quispiam nostro isto sæculo, ubi plæraque veterum scriptorum aut interierunt, aut fracta et mendosa habentur in tanta librorum inopia, & bonarum litterarum egestate, opus quod prisci viri, macti ingenio & omnifaria doctrina præstantes, cognitu difficillimum existimaverunt, recognoscere et corrigere; immo abdita et pluribus ignorata aperire temptaverit: is, si cœpti sui aliqua ex parte compos evaserit, nimirum quid magnum effecit. Nam ut de octo prioribus taceam, quis duodecim Conœdias quadraginta ab hinc annis repertas, lectionis tum confusæ tum falsæ, duodecim Herculis ærumnis apud Poetas famigeratis jure non comparaverit? In quibus corrigendis operam atque studium insumere velle, &c. … Porro cum nec tantum dictiones examinandæ, sed litteræ atque syllabæ pensitandæ fuerint atque enumerandæ; ut ex earum positu atque figura aliquid vel verum vel vero proximum aucuparemur: … Verumtatnen numerosa hæc et impudens grammaticorum turba non æreo tinitu, quemadmodum stymphalices paludis olim volucres, abactæ fuerunt; sed vera ratione et multiplici veterum auctorum testimonio absterrebitur, immo fugabitur atque preteritur. Deluctari cum Antæo est ea cognitione, eaque eruditione, quæ per hæc tempora exigua haberi potest; velle in reconditos et penitissiraos Poetæ sensus penetrare, et priscarum atque ignotissiraarum vocum interpretamenta indagare,” &c. &c. From all which, I think, it is easy to account for our finding various examples of very ancient orthography in this printed edition, which do not appear in MSS. written long before it was published.

page 134 note k It would be amusing enough, to compare more generally this Burney MS. 228, (K.) with the Royal MS. 15. C. XI. (A.), which, as I have said, is thought to be of the tenth century. I shall give only one specimen, in addition to the above: In Amphitruo, 3: 2. 1. the Delph. Ed. has “cui est servus Sosia,” the MS. K. has “quoius est servos Sosia;” whilst the MS. A. reads in the ordinary Latin of the tenth century, “cuius servus est Sosia.”

But though the MS. K. is full of old words, such as quoius for cuius, quoiquam for cuiquam, quom for quum, architector for architectus; and had cornnemorare, conmutavero, adsimulavit, conmovent, &c. I find in it also, several times, cui, cuius, and cum; and comminisci, commemores, aggrediar, &c.; as if the writer of this MS. had sometimes forgotten the task he had imposed on himself, of keeping throughout to the above ancient mode of writing: for I believe it to be certain that, in writing compound words, the most ancient way was to maintain the preposition in its original form, and in no case to change its last letter into the initial of the word joined to it.

page 135 note l I find that these inscriptions are added to the plates, in the above edition of Bottari; but this is done without any attempt to imitate the forms of the characters, which are all represented as ordinary majuscules.

page 139 note m The pompous title of “Histoire de l'Art par les Monumens,” is calculated to mislead the unwary into the belief that in matters of date, at least, the work of d'Agincourt is a good authority. But this is very far from being the case. What would Mabillon, Bottari, and the writers of the “Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique,” have said, to any critic of their own time, who, in utter contempt of the opinions of all the best judges of such matters, beginning from the fifteenth century, had ventured to ascribe the celebrated MS. of Virgil in the Vatican, No. 3867, to the twelfth or thirteenth century; that MS. which is all written in the largest sized capitals, and has always been considered at least as early as the Medicean MS.! And yet this is what d'Agincourt has been pleased to do, upon the sole ground that the drawings which it contains are ill done; as if at all times there had not been bad artists as well as good. The costume in these drawings is decidedly ancient, and the MS. has all the other marks of genuine antiquity. See numerous specimens of its orthography, in the supplement to the “Antiquissimi Virgiliani Codicis Fragments,” &c. edited by the above-mentioned Bottari, in 1741; in which work, among the plates engraved by Bartoli from the admired drawings in the MS. No. 3225, are a few taken by him from this MS. 3867, which was probably not written more than a century or two later than the other.

page 143 note n Several MSS., written entirely, or in part, in beautifully formed minuscules, are indeed attributed to che eighth century, in the catalogue of the Harleian Collection; and these MSS. every way correspond with known MSS. of the time of Charlemagne, at Rome and elsewhere: and, besides these, the British Museum possesses other MSS. written in minuscules, some of which, upon a nice examination, would probably be found to be considerably older.

page 144 note o Angelo Mai, for example, betrays this in his Prefaces: and Kopp, in various parts of his Palæographia; especially, where he speaks of the ancient cursive inscriptions, given by Buonarruoti, (see our Plate V. Nos. 3, 4.) as being in uncial characters: but 1 write this note from memory, without having before me the particular passages in these writers from which I infer this, and feel no desire to re-enter upon the controversy.

page 149 note p “Syntagma Areteorum,” p. 8. The MS. fragments at Leyden, which Grotius used, and which I lately examined in the library of the University of that city, begin with this line, upon the verso of a leaf, the recto of which has been left blank, as appears to have been originally the case in our ancient MS.

page 152 note q It is remarkable that Arcitenens is represented as a Satyr, in the Harl. MS. 2506.

page 152 note r See Polymetis, plate xxv. Nos. 2, 3, in the last of which he exactly resembles in attitude the figure in our MS.

page 157 note r “Secunda Stella est Soli's, quam alii Saturni dixerunt,” &c.

page 158 note s I found her thus drawn by two bulls, and holding a torch in each hand, in a medal of Julia Domna, and in another, I think of Lucius Verus: but I have lost or mislaid my references to them. She is represented drawn by two bulls, and holding one torch, in Gessner, plate clxxiii. fig. 23.

page 158 note t “De Concordia Solaris et Lunaris.

“Novem horis in luna pro quinque diebus in sole computatis, idem luna novetn horis tantum itineris peragitur quantum sol in quinque diebus, et ideo unius signi horis iuxta lunarem velocitatem enumeratis, inveniuntur quinquaginta quatuor quod sunt sexies novem. Duobus enim diebus & sex horis luna per singula pervolat signa. Triginta vero diebus per quodque signum sol spatiatur. Quo partito tricenario in quinque et quinque invenies sexies quinos, quod est sexta pars Solaris circuitus in singulis signis, ita ut novem iuxta lunæ cursum sexta pars signi repperiuntur cuiusque, et sic demum possunt novem horæ lunares cum quinque diebus solaribus concordare.

“Item de eadem ratione.

“Luna Iucere dodrantis semuncias dicitur. Duodecim unciæ libram faciunt, viginti quatuor horæ diem integrum; totidem enim sunt semunciæ in libra plena; quas si diviseris in quatuor, quarta pars quadrantis nomen sortita est, reliquæ tres dodrantis; & ideo dixi dodrantis semnncias horarum, id est, quatuor punctos; quapropter, si scire velis quot horas luceat una quælibet, ex quatuor punctis cognoscis. Ut puta quinta luna, multiplica quinque per quatuor, hoc est, ætatem lunæ presentis per punctos cotidianos, fiunt viginti; partire per quinque, quinque puncti horam faciunt, quatuor quinquies, quatuor horas lucet luna quinta.

“De concordia Maris et Lunae.

“Unius semper horse dodrante et semuncia transmissa, idem diviso unius horas spatio in viginti quatuor semuncias, quia tot sunt semunciæ in libra plena; iterumque divide viginti quatuor in quatuor, hoc est, quater sex, et ter sex dodrans dicitur; semel vero quadrans; et hoc est, quod ait, unius horæ dodrante, idem tribus partibus, decem et octo semunciis. Quod vero ait et semuncia, sex reliquarum semunciarum ad quadrantem pertinentium unam voluit adjungi dodranti, ut essent decem et novem semunciæ, quo æstus oceani cotidie tardius veniret, tardiusque recederet.”

Whoever was the author of these passages, they appear to have been well known to Bede, who in his book, “De Temporum Ratione,” cap. xxii. (beginning “Tradunt quoque argumentum veteres,” &c.) and in cap. xxvii. evidently makes use of them; omitting, however, the mode of counting by dodrantes and semunciœ, but retaining punctus-i.

page 163 note u The Harleian MS. omits the whole of what follows; the Cottonian, Tib. B. v. ends with the words, “per eundem dominum.”

page 163 note x It is not impossible that our Geruvigus may have been one of the first professors of Christianity in this country, where, at all events, we are assured this MS. existed before the tenth century. It is true, that the writer of the Harleian Catalogue describes this part of it as being written in a Gallican hand; but this and other misnomers of the ancient Roman writing, have already been sufficiently remarked upon. This kind of writing was doubtless practised after the decline of the Western Empire, in all countries where the Romans had had dominion; and more especially, we may conclude, by those people among whom they had the longest resided. I find in the “Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique,” a notice, stating that, in the eighth century, St. Boniface, having experienced great difficulty in reading the books which he had been enabled to procure in Germany, made application to Daniel Bishop of Winchester, praying that prelate to send him books clearly and distinctly written: “libros Claris, discretis, et absolutis litteris scriptos:” whence we may conclude with certainty, that at that time we were celebrated for the goodness of our writing, and reasonably conjecture that we had been so long previously.

page 169 note y Hence it is, perhaps, that in ancient MSS., written in capitals, it often happens, where a word begins with the same letter with which the preceding word terminates, that one of the two letters is omitted. There are many instances of this in the Medicean Virgil, where the corrector of the MS. has afterwards inserted the letter which was wanting at top.

page 171 note z In speaking of a Psalter, supposed of the beginning of the fifth century, in the collection of the Queen of Sweden, the writers of the “Nouveau Traité” say (tom. iii. p. 91): “On y voit par tout ae; & plusieurs mots distingués les uns des autres;” which proves, as they observe, that this distinction of words is not always a good reason for dating a MS. so low as the seventh century.

page 177 note a Angela Mai, in his preface to the Palimpsest, discovered and published by him, of Cicero “De Re Publica,” pag. xxx. produces the following passage in a letter of Cicero to Trebatius, in proof of the antiquity of the custom of making palimpsests; that is of rubbing out old writing from paper or parchment, and dressing the parchment a second time, in order to fit it for the reception of new: “Ut ad epistulas tuas redeam, cetera belle; &c. nam quod in palimpsesto, laudo equidem parsimoniam: sed miror quid in ilia chartula fuerit, quod delere malueris quam haec non scribere; nisi forte tuas formulas. Non enim puto te meas epistulas delere, ut reponas tuas. An hoc significas, nihil fieri? frigere te? ne chartam quidem tibi suppeditare?” Mai observes, that Cicero here points out the three great causes of the practice; viz. a contempt for the matter contained in the old writing, economy in study, and the scarcity of parchment. He adds, that though parchment, from its strength, would seem alone qualified to undergo the above operation, and afterwards to receive new writing, yet he had seen an instance of a diploma of the ninth century, written upon papyrus, from which former writing had been washed out, the remains of which were apparent; and he therefore recommends the learned to be diligent in their examination of ancient papyri, as well as of MSS. on parchment: and indeed the fact of paper having been used in this way in ancient times, as well as parchment, may be inferred from the words of Catullus, (Carmen xxii.):

“Puto esse ego illi millia aut decem, aut plura,

Perscripta: nec sic, ut fit, in palimpsesto

Relata; chartae regiae, novi libri,” &c.

When it was determined to make an old book serve for new writing, the whole was removed from the cover, the gatherings were unstitched, and the sheets, after being separated, were washed, scraped, and scowered, one by one, by the workman employed; after which they were dried and polished, in order to fit them to receive the new matter intended. In making the parchment, thus re-dressed, into new books, the sheets would of course seldom or never occupy the same situations as they did before; and that which in the former book had been the top of a page would as often as not become the bottom: but besides this, a book which had originally the form of a quarto was sometimes folded into an octavo; and sometimes a new volume would chance to be made of parts of several old ones; and this, although it consists of so few leaves, may possibly have been the case with our MS. of Cicero's Aratæa.

page 178 note b It is possible that, by the application of the infusion of galls, some parts of the original writing might be made to re-appear: but the operation is a nice one; and if it be ever attempted in this MS, the greatest care ought to be taken not to injure either the writing or the drawings which it now has.

page 178 note c “Seq'. de Apostolis,” not “de SS. Apostolis,” as it would most probably have been written, after the middle of the fifth century. Buonarruoti, (pp. 83–84, of the work already so often mentioned), describing certain fragments of drinking-glasses, whereon are the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, speaks as follows, of the period at which the usage commenced, of prefixing the title of Sanctus to the names of the Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs:

“Around the portraits of these holy Apostles, we read their names, without the title Sanctus, or the letter S. which is so often used to signify it: it could not be otherwise with these very ancient monuments; as the custom of using the term in this way, was not introduced for a century or two after their date. In the Old and New Testament, this term, which properly means anything separated from common use, is applied to whatever was in an especial manner consecrated to God, and appertained to his religion. Hence it is, that, in the infancy of the Christian Church, all Christians were called Saints, as being the children of God, and his favourite people. This title, in the course of time, was no longer applied to the Christians generally; but was given only to such as were eminent for virtue and piety; and so we find it used in the time of St. Jerome: not that the application of it was then so limited as it became afterwards; as it was commonly given to Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks, and Nuns. As, therefore, the title was not understood to distinguish, in an especial manner, men of very extraordinary sanctity from all others, so, in those times, it was by no means considered necessary to prefix it always, as we do now, to the names of Saints. In the Roman Calendar, supposed to be of the middle of the fourth century, and of the time of Liberius, which was published by Bucherius, and by Ruinart, we never find the word Sanctus prefixed to the names of the Pontiffs or Martyrs; whilst, on the contrary, it is seldom omitted in the Carthaginian Calendar, which was published for the first time by Mabillon, and afterwards by Ruinart, and which is believed to be of the fifth century. In this calendar, however, it is omitted before the names of some of the Saints; and we may therefore conjecture that the custom of using it began then to be introduced, and that this calendar was in part copied from a more ancient one, which in no instance had this title of Sanctus: in the Calendar of Polemius, of the year 449, (Act. SS. tom. i. Jan. p. 43), it is never wanting. And, with little variation of date, we find the same usage to have been by degrees introduced, in our paintings in Mosaic: as, in those in the church of S. Giovanni in Fonte at Ravenna, executed about 451, (Ciampini, tom. i. tab. 70), the Apostles are without this title; but had it in the mosaic formerly in the church of St. Agatha, in the suburbs of Rome, which was executed about 472 (ibid. tom. i. tab. 77); as have also the figures of St. Cosmus and St. Damianus, in their church at Rome (ibid. tom. ii. tab. 17), which was decorated by Felix III. about the year 530.”

page 180 note d In the Edinburgh Review, Dec. 1828, there is an interesting paper on Palimpsests, in which those discovered by Mai are described. Speaking of one of those containing Orations of Cicero, the writer says: “He (Mai) read the titles ‘pro Scauro,’ ‘pro Tullio,’ and ‘pro Flacco,’ and was able, with some trouble, to decipher the whole of the fragments of these three lost orations. They are written in large and very beautiful letters, each page being divided into three columns,” &c. Speaking of another, he says: “The more ancient writing was in large and handsome characters, larger, but less beautiful, than that which contained the fragments of the three orations already named; and these were two columns only in each page, which circumstance testifies that the writing is somewhat more modern, than where there are three.” I know not the grounds of this observation; but one of the pages of our MS. has three columns of writing; though the page preceding it has only two. See Plate XXIII Nos. 5, 6.

page 180 note e Since the preceding pages were printed, I have turned over the Fragments of a Palimpsest MS. of Plautus, I did not know of before, which was published by Mai in 1815. Mai thinks this MS. was written in the time of the Antonines, and I suspect from the orthography that it is still older. The greater part is written in capitals, very like those of the Vatican fragments of Virgil; but part is in a mixed character, in which minuscules greatly preponderate.

I may add, that my attention has also lately been called to a very long Inscription, existing at Eski-hissar, supposed to be the ancient Stratonicea; whereof we have a facsimile upon a reduced scale, (apparently done with great accuracy,) which was made by direction of Mr. William Bankes, who, in the year 1817, caused the whole to be carefully copied from the original. This inscription contains an edict of Dioclesian, A. D. 303, with a tariff of the prices to be paid, for all sorts of commodities and labour, throughout the Roman Empire. Many of the letters are minuscules: the b, the d, the f (s), and the u, are always, or almost always, so; the g is oftener so than not; and we have several times the round e, the minuscule m, the q, &c. See an interesting Article, upon the subject of this Inscription, by W. M. Leake, Esq. in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature.’

page 181 note * The Poem, in our ancient MS. has been corrected throughout by some old grammarian, who in some cases has marked misplaced letters, or such as he thought erroneous, by points placed over or underneath them; but oftener has rubbed out, more or less effectually, the letters he disapproved of, substituting others in their place. The two Saxon copyists have generally adopted these corrections. I give the orthography, as far as possible, as it was originally. Where a letter is necessarily changed or added, it is printed in italic; besides which, the word, as it stands in the MS. is repeated in the margin.