Paleography

PALEOGRAPHY. - With this term, improperly coined by B. Montfaucon for a treatise on Greek scripts (Palaeographia graeca, Paris 1708) and by now sanctioned by usage, is designated "the critical study of ancient scripts," with the aim of reading them exactly, of localizing and dating their products, of drawing from the graphic fact itself (independently of the content of the writing) historical elements that often no source transmits. The vast and manifold field of scripts has not, however, been equally investigated; indeed in very many cases the examination devoted to them has not gone beyond the empirical stage of the correct interpretation of the signs (whether they be ideographic, symbolic or alphabetic); so that in practice the term p. refers to the only two branches in which it has established itself as an autonomous discipline: Greek and Latin scripts. The latter especially have offered to scientific investigation a fertile ground of results, which within the space of a few years have changed the very direction of studies.

I. HISTORICAL NOTES

If Greek palaeography was born as an auxiliary discipline of philological studies (especially Byzantine ones), Latin palaeography instead originated in the service of diplomatics (v.). Both, however, arose almost simultaneously, between the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, out of a "systematic" need: the first treatises, in fact (that of Mabillon [v.] for Latin palaeography, that of Montfaucon for Greek), essentially represent a classification of scripts. Already in 1727, however, Latin palaeography took a step forward through the work of Scipione Maffei (v.), who, by affirming the unity of origin of the various types classified by Mabillon, transferred historicist criticism into the study of the graphic phenomenon. For all that, palaeographic science remained anchored to these boundaries for a long time, limiting itself to perfecting and multiplying the pigeonholing of scripts (the imposing work of the Maurists R. P. Tassin and C. Toustain, Nouveau traité de diplomatique, Paris 1730-65, remains a typical expression of this): only in the second half of the 19th century did W. Wattenbach (Aulétius zur lateinischen Palaeographie, Leipzig 1866) and L. Delisle (Notice sur un manuscrit mérovingien contenant des fragments d'Eugippius, Paris 1875) bring to light the importance of studying graphic forms in their development, and Delisle in particular opened the way to fundamental investigations of individual writing centers. Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, improved technical means and the studies of L. Traube and L. Schiaparelli determined the decidedly historical orientation of palaeography, with results of the greatest importance, to which scholars from every country contributed. Lately the French school has brought new impetus to palaeographic research, turning particular attention to the physiological element as a determinant of graphic evolution.

II. OBJECT OF PALEOGRAPHY

In the strict sense, paleography has as its object the history of writing (Greek, Latin, etc.) in its evolution, from its origins (presupposing, moreover, that its alphabet is already formed) up to the last critically investigable stage (up to their extinction for scripts that have by now died out, up to our own day for those still alive); in practice, for Greek and for Latin paleography, the investigation stops at the 16th century, when printing brought about the gradual decline of book writing. It is true that writing did not cease on this account, but its study does not present that interest which it has in earlier ages, nor, on the other hand, could it be carried out according to the same principles (the concept of a "writing center" no longer has any meaning; only the chancery tradition survives for some time longer; writing, no longer bound to a "school," becomes ever more personal and is profoundly modified by the alternating use of different writing instruments). A further restriction came about with the establishment of papyrology and epigraphy, which claimed for themselves also the study of writing as such, insofar as it was traced on materials that are the object of their investigation: today, however, the need to understand the graphic phenomenon in a unified sense is increasingly asserting itself, so that paleography, while taking into account the transformations imposed by the writing material, regards writings on papyrus and on epigraphic material as also falling within its competence.

Paleography furthermore directs its examination to other objects as well, and particularly to the system of abbreviation (v. ABBREVIAZIONI), to diacritical and punctuation marks, to numeral figures, to tachygraphic and secret writings, to writing instruments and materials, as well as to the processes by which these are prepared to receive writing.

III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCRIPTURE

Greek palaeography distinguishes, substantially, only three types of writing: the uncial (v.), of majuscule form; the cursive (v.), originally of majuscule form and later transformed into minuscule; and the minuscule (v.), derived from a process of calligraphization of the cursive. Latin palaeography, on the other hand, presents a far more complex picture, which is traditionally schematized in these terms: the archaic capital gives rise to the capital scripts (v.), both epigraphic and book, and to the ancient cursive (called by some also "cursive capital"); from the latter a new cursive (v.) evolves, which reaches minuscule forms, while in the book sphere, through a process not yet clarified, the uncial (v.) and the semi-uncial are formed. Cursive minuscule and semi-uncial, influencing each other, give rise, for various reasons, to the national scripts (Visigothic [v.], Merovingian [v.], Beneventan [v.]: the history of the insular scripts [v.] is different) and to the pre-Caroline scripts, until the Caroline (v.) definitively establishes itself. From this the Gothic (v.) is born in its various forms; finally the humanistic (v.) represents, in its book form, a return to the Caroline and, in its cursive form, an evolution of the cursive Gothic. It must be borne in mind, however, that the classification set out above obeys empirical criteria of didactic practicality, which the most recent studies have subjected to a complete revision.

IV. PROBLEMS AND ORIENTATIONS

With the progress of palaeographic studies, current terminology has revealed its inadequacy to designate a script which, whether because it is in the ascending or descending phase of its development, or because of the infiltration of forms other than those sanctioned by the canonization of a type, does not present all and only the characteristics proper to that type. Hence a new tendency has developed which aims to fix within extreme limits, represented by specific codices or charters, the fluctuating forms susceptible of being catalogued under one and the same name. The terms that refer to another classification should be separated from the "proper" names of scripts, whereby alphabetic scripts are divided, on the basis of a relation of dimension and mutual proportion between the letters, into majuscule (v.) and minuscule (v.), and, on the basis of ductus, into set (or upright) and cursive. The problem here is different; the possibility that such forms coexist in time, or even within one and the same script (mixed), does not exclude an evolution from one to the other: scripts that appear in the surviving monuments both in set ductus and in cursive ductus may have originated from two different scripts (as in the case of humanistic), but they may also have been formed as calligraphic scripts and then degenerated into cursive (as, substantially, in many notarial scripts) or have been born as cursive and then stabilized into set forms (as in the case of Beneventan). Even more evident is the evolution from majuscule (constant until the 3rd century A.D.) to minuscule. In the passage from a cursive form to an upright one, or vice versa, the phenomenon is therefore localized within the ambit of a single script; there are consequently various separate problems, today for the most part resolved (uncertainties still persist regarding ancient [majuscule] cursive in relation to the capital). In the evolution from majuscule to minuscule, on the other hand, we witness a phenomenon of a general character, and the related problem (which also involves Greek palaeography, although it has received a satisfactory formulation only in relation to the Latin one) still remains sub iudice. If in fact the traditional approach tends to explain the phenomenon as a transformation that occurred within the ambit of cursive and was then extended to calligraphic script (ancient cursive - cursive minuscule - upright minuscule), the French palaeographic school has instead recently explained it (though without absolutely demonstrating it) as a spontaneous process determined by a changed position of the writer with respect to the writing material, which took place in parallel and independently in the field of book script and in that of cursive.

The attempt to schematize in a single paradigm the formative process of each script gave rise to the concept of "usual script," that is, the one which man uses for daily use, essentially individual in character, of a very varied type but almost always cursive. Practically all tendencies can act upon it, but above all those which find a common substrate among several writers who modify it according to certain constant characteristics, until the "usual" script is transformed into a "canonized" script (chancery or book script), which can in turn be adopted as usual, leaving the way open to new modifications. This is naturally an abstract formulation whose sole purpose is to fix a schema.

The particular problems still unresolved are very numerous, nor is it possible to recall them all. By way of example, mention is made of one of the most debated, that concerning the origin of the Carolingian script (v.), which is related to the no less discussed question of the so-called pre-Caroline scripts. The phenomenon of a script which, in conjunction with the affirmation of the Carolingian Empire, returns to having that character of "universality" found in the scripts of the classical age, involves extra-palaeographic factors and brings the scholar back into the living texture of history: hence the interest of the problem and the various solutions proposed. The unifying element of script, lost with the pre-Caroline and national scripts (that is, subsequently to the formation of minuscule), regains at the end of the 8th century a real consistency which is preserved, in its broad outlines, also in the subsequent development of Latin palaeography: so that minuscule on the one hand and Carolingian on the other constitute the pivots (and therefore also the fundamental problems) in the history of Latin script, unlike that of Greek script, which has instead preserved its unitary character. In this difference lies also the reason for the greater development achieved by studies of Latin palaeography in comparison with Greek, and for the analytical approach of the former (investigations into individual writing centres, into isolated phases of one and the same script, etc.) in comparison with the latter.

2. MANUALS: on Greek and Latin palaeography: E. M. Thompson, Handbook of greek and latin palaeography, London 1893 (3rd ed., ibid. 1906); id., An introduction to greek and latin palaeography, Oxford 1912; A. Mentz, Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Schrift, Leipzig 1920. On Greek palaeography: V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paläographie, Leipzig 1879 (2nd ed., 2 vols., ibid. 1911-13); W. Wattenbach, Anleitung zur griechischen Paläographie, 3rd ed., ibid. 1895; W. Schubart, Griechische Paläographie, Munich 1925; P. Maas, Griechische Paläographie, in A. Gercke and E. Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, I, fasc. IX, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1927, pp. 69-81; A. Sigalas, Ἰστορία τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς τραπῆς, Salonica 1934. On Latin palaeography: W. Wattenbach, Anleitung zur lateinischen Paläographie, 4th ed., Leipzig 1886; C. Paoli, Programma scolastico di p. latina e di diplomatica, I: P. latina, 3rd ed., Florence 1901; B. Bretholz,

Lateinische Paläographie, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1926; P. Lehmann, Lateinische Paläographie bis zum Siege der karolingischer Minushel, in A. Gercke and E. Norden, op. cit., I, fasc. x, 3rd ed., ibid. 1927, pp. 38-68; A. C. Floriano Cumbreno, Curso general de Paleografía y Diplomática, 2 vols., Oviedo 1946; G. Battelli, Lezioni di p., 3rd ed., Vatican City 1949.

3. COLLECTIONS OF REPRODUCED CODICES: Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti, under the direction of P. Durrieu and then of S. de Vries, Lyon 1897 ff. (in progress: 30 vols. so far); Reproductions des manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliothèque nationale, under the direction of H. Omont, Paris 1901 ff. (in progress: 25 vols. so far); Codices e Vaticani selecti phototypice expressi, edited by the Vatican Library, Rome (then Vatican City) 1902 ff. (in progress: 27 vols. so far); Codices ex ecclesiasticis Italiae bibliothecis delecti phototypice expressi, edited by the Vatican Library, ibid. 1913 ff. (in progress: 7 vols. so far).

4. COLLECTIONS AND GENERAL COMPILATIONS OF FACSIMILES: Greek and Latin: J. B. Silvestre, Paläographie universelle, II, Paris 1840 (English ed., London 1850); The Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of manuscripts and inscriptions, edited by B. A. Bond, E. M. Thompson, G. F. Warner, 5 vols., in 2 series, London 1873-94 (Indices, ibid. 1901); British Museum, Catalogue of ancient manuscripts, edited by E. M. Thompson and G. F. Warner, I: Codices graeci, ibid. 1881; II: Codices latini, ibid. 1884; G. Vitelli and C. Paoli, Collezione fiorentina di facsimili paleografici greci e latini, 4 vols., Florence 1884-97; The new Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of ancient manuscripts, edited by E. M. Thompson, G. F. Warner, F. G. Kenyon, J. Parnell Gilson, 4 vols., in 2 series, London 1903-1930 (Indices of the 1st series, ibid. 1914: of the 2nd, ibid. 1932). Greek: W. Wattenbach, Scripturae graecae specimina, 3rd ed., Berlin 1897; S. De Vries, Album palaeographicum..., Leiden 1909. Other collections of more limited scope should also be noted: Sabas, Specimina palaeographica codicum Graecorum et Slavonicorum bibliothecae Mosquensis, 4 vols., Moscow 1863-64; W. Wattenbach, A. von Velsen, Exempla codicum graecorum litteris minusculis scriptorum, Heidelberg 1878; Facsimiles de manuscrits grecs desis de la Bibliothèque nationale du IXe au XIVe siècle, Paris 1890; Facsimiles des plus anciens manuscrits grecs en anciole et en minuscule de la Bibliothèque nationale du IVe au XIIe siècle, Paris 1892; G. Zereteli and S. Sobolevski, Exempla codicum graecorum litteris minusculis scriptorum..., 2 vols., Moscow 1911-13. For papyri: K. Wessely, Papyrorum scripturae graecae specimina, Leipzig 1900; T. Reinach, Papyrus grecs et dénoiques, Paris 1905; M. Norsa, Papiri greci delle collezioni italiane (Publ. della Scuola di filologia classica dell'Università di Roma, 2nd series), fasc. 1-III, Rome 1924-46. Latin: E. Monaci, Facsimili di antichi manoscritti..., Rome 1881-92; Archivio paleografico italiano, directed by E. Monaci, then by V. Federici, now by F. Bartoloni, Rome 1882 ff. (in progress: so far 38 fasc. in 13 vols.); E. Chatelain, Paläographie des classiques latins, Paris 1884-1900; K. Wessely, Schrifttafeln zur älteren lateinischen Paläographie, Leipzig 1898; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, L. Frati, Monumenta palaeographica sacra..., Turin 1899; W. Arndt and M. Tangl, Schrifttafeln zur Erlernung der lateinischen Paläographie, fasc. I and II, 4th ed., and fasc. III, 2nd ed., Berlin 1904-1907; E. Monaci, Esempi di scrittura latina dal sec. I dell'era moderna al XVIII, Rome 1906; F. Steffens, Lateinische Paläographie, 2nd ed., Trier 1909 (reprint, Berlin 1920; French ed., Trier 1910); Exempla scripturarum edita consilio et opera procuratorum Bibliothecae et Tabularii Vaticani, Rome (then Vatican City) 1929 ff. (in progress: so far 3 fasc.); M. Ihm, Palaeographia latina..., 1st series, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1931; F. Ehrle and P. Liebaert, Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum, 3rd ed., Berlin 1932; V. Federici, La scrittura delle cancellerie italiane..., Rome 1934; F. Bartoloni, Esempi di scrittura latina dal sec. I a. C. al sec. XV..., ibid. 1934; E. A. Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores, Oxford 1934 ff. (in progress: so far 5 vols.); J. Mallon, R. Marichal, Ch. Perrat, L'écriture latine de la capitale romaine à la minuscule, Paris 1939; H. Förster, Mittelalterliche Buchund Urkundenschriften..., Bern 1946.

5. HISTORY OF PALEOGRAPHIC STUDIES: L. Traube, Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, I, Munich 1909, pp. 3-80.

6. PROBLEMS AND ORIENTATIONS: G. Cencetti, Vecchi e nuovi orientamenti nello studio della p., in La Bibliofilia, 50 (1948), pp. 4-23. The theories of the French school are now summarized by C. Manaresi, Nuovi orizzonti sugli sviluppi della scrittura latina nei primi secoli della nostra era, in Acme, 3 (1950), pp. 383-409. On the concept of usual script cf. G. Cencetti, op. cit., and id., Note paleografiche sulla scrittura dei papiri latini dal I al III sec. d. C. (Memorie dell'Accod. delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna. Classe di Scienze morali), Bologna 1950, p. 4, note 2, and passim. On the problem of pre-Caroline and Caroline script see lastly F. Bartoloni, Note paleografiche. Ancora sulle scritture precaroline, in Bullett. dell'Ist. storico ital. per il Medio Evo, 62 (1950), pp. 139-57.

Alessandro Pratesi

PALEOGRAFIA, DIPLOMATICA ed ARCHIVISTICA, SCUOLA PONTIFICIA DI: v. VATICANO.