**UNCIAL and SEMI-UNCial SCRIPT.**
- The term “o.” is first used by St Jerome (preface to the Book of Job: PL 28, 1142) to denote, it would seem, the large-sized majuscule script. In this sense it is still found in the 9th century in a letter of Lupus of Ferrières (PL 119, 448), then in an anonymous commentary on Donatus’ *Ars* of the 10th century (cf. H. Hagen, *Anecdota Helvetica* [Gramm. lat. ex recens. Keilii, Supplement], Leipzig 1870, p. 221 sq.; cf. L. Traube, *Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen*, III, Munich 1920, p. 116 sq.) and in a passage of the anonymous 11th-century biography of St Severus, bishop of Ravenna (cf. Rostagno [V. BIBLICA.], p. 167).
For the ancients, therefore, the word o. probably did not denote a script very different from capitalis. Yet modern palaeographers are not agreed on the origin and true meaning of the term: some derive it from *uncia* (the twelfth part of a foot), which would have given its name to the script on account of the height of the letters, or because they occupy the twelfth part of a column (Hatch); others from *unicus* or even from *unicus* because of the curved shape of some of them (Allen), or from the shape of the ancient conventional sign for an ounce (Barone); others again affirm that the formation of the term from *uncia* may have been influenced by the resemblance of the shape of some letters to an *unicus* (Madan). In fact, even the most recent studies have not reached a satisfactory conclusion. However, from the work of the Maurists (*Nouveau traité de diplomatique*, II, Paris 1755) onwards, the term “o.” has conventionally denoted a type of script in which some capital letters have rounded their square forms. One should therefore speak more properly of *uncial* letters than of “uncial script.” It must be borne in mind, however, that the term “o.” denotes, in Greek palaeography, the majuscule script of papyri and parchment as opposed to the epigraphic type, and in Latin palaeography the majuscule book script (which does not, however, exclude palimpsest examples), tending towards rounded forms, in contrast to capitalis.
The term “s.”, likewise consecrated by the Maurists for a script found only in Latin palaeography, was intended to indicate a dimensional and genetic relationship between this script and the o.; and although today the genetic relationship is excluded, the term “o.” is traditionally preferred to others proposed by various scholars, which are liable to fresh misunderstandings.
I. IN GREEK PALAEOGRAPHY
The o. arose or developed when the materials proper to epigraphy were replaced by papyrus and the chisel by the pen; its principal centre of formation seems to have been Alexandria. It is considered separately according as it is written on papyrus or on parchment, since the writing material greatly influences the shape of the letters: papyrus does not allow strokes to be rounded as well as parchment; moreover, on papyrus the strokes are almost uniformly thick, whereas parchment favours the contrast between thick and thin lines.The earliest surviving o. documents on papyrus, apart from a marriage contract certainly dated to 311 BC, are attributed to the 4th century BC: a *logos* of Timotheus, *The Persians*; the imprecation of a certain Artemisia against the father of her abandoned child; and other minor fragments. In these documents the shape of the letters is generally that of the epigraphic style, with angular and straight strokes; only a few letters begin to assume the typical form of o.: the lunate sigma (C) and the omega which is becoming rounded (t).
On parchment the earliest o. manuscript is the Ambrosian Iliad (3rd century AD), of which only a little over fifty fragments survive, written on the reverse of as many miniatures cut from the original codex by some vandal collector. Immediately following are three biblical manuscripts: the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus, and the Alexandrinus, and one of the Old Testament: the Sarravianus or Colbertinus. The earliest of these seems to be the Vaticanus, to be assigned to the first half of the 4th century, then the Sinaiticus, probably of the second half of the same century; the Alexandrinus and the Sarravianus are of the 5th century.
In the earliest manuscripts the o. is very pure and regular; almost all the letters can be contained within a circle or a square whose side is roughly the same as the diameter of the circle. Later, however, the criteria change and become distorted: squares take on the form of rectangles; circles flatten and shrink or expand disproportionately; angles become rounded, strokes lose their rigidity and sometimes extend almost in an attempt to link with the next letter. Simultaneously with this transformation of ancient o., the practice of accenting texts begins. Finally, in the 9th century, with the introduction of minuscule script (v.) into books, o. begins to go out of common use and in later centuries is employed almost solely in liturgical texts: as an archaism it then becomes upright, elegant, stylised, and proceeds with a certain uniformity.
II. IN LATIN PALAEOGRAPHY
I. Origin
The lively discussions about the origin of Latin o. cannot yet be considered concluded. Traube, presenting it as a “Christian script,” reduced it to a direct imitation of Greek o. through the earliest Latin versions of Holy Scripture. Schiaparelli, noting the presence of rounded forms of a, d, e, m (the “characteristic” letters of Latin o.) in documentsOncial and Semi-Oncial Scripts
The question of the origin of the Latin oncial (o.) and semi-oncial (s.) scripts has been much debated. The theory that they derive directly from Greek oncial has been contested by Schiaparelli, who, noting in a codex of the 3rd century where the alphabet has capital forms alongside cursive forms, denied such a direct derivation and, classifying this mixed script under the name of "archaic s.," established in it a type of transition which, in the Diocletianic age—a period of maximum expansion of Latin culture and of closer contact with the Greek spiritual world—would have given rise to o. and s. Finally, Marichal, summarizing the theses of the latest French paleographic school regarding the "primitive minuscule" (i.e., the book minuscule that would have formed from the "degenerate capital" and which practically identifies with s.), derives o. from this script as an artistic product that restores to the "familiar" forms of the minuscule the solemnity of the capital.
In truth, none of the theories set forth above attains the force of proof. Schiaparelli’s observations exclude the direct derivation of Latin o. from Greek; yet the fact remains of the undeniable contacts between the two scripts and the clear predominance of the use of o. for sacred or liturgical texts. On the other hand, the "archaic s." postulated by the Italian scholar is not supported by sufficient examples, and the doubt persists that the "precursor" forms are rather elements of a personal and contingent character. As for the theory of the French school, it must be acknowledged that it has merit in having undermined many false theories and in having framed the problem on new bases; however, the transition from the "primitive minuscule" to o. for the exigency of creating a formal majuscule script is not persuasive, given that at the same time the capital was in its fullest flourishing. Greater probability attaches to the hypothesis, already advanced by Traube, that the territory of origin of Latin o. is Proconsular Africa (a bilingual zone), from which the oldest known inscriptions in o. derive (3rd century).
2. Characteristics
O. appears as a majuscule script, though its bilinearity is not as strict as in capital script. Most letters retain the capital form, with a somewhat looser and more rounded stroke; a, d, e, m appear in the characteristic form recognized by scholars as proper to o.; h and q are in minuscule form. S., on the other hand, is a minuscule script that retains some majuscule elements (almost always n; sometimes g and e [in the o. form]; rarely r and s). The a now assumes the open form, as already found in cursive, now the closed form considered characteristic; g, alongside the characteristic form (derived from cursive), also presents a caudate majuscule form; i is sometimes tall; m has the first two legs straight, the third bent; r and s, when not in majuscule form, show a form reminiscent of cursive; t has a rounded descending stroke.Some paleographers also distinguish, with Schiaparelli, an o. and s. rustica (frequent in the marginal glosses of ancient codices) characterized by the presence of cursive or cursive-like elements. Very vague and problematic is the existence of a "quarter-uncial" script, proposed by Traube and accepted by other scholars.
3. Dating
The criteria established for dating o. by Chatelain and Lowe, and s. by Chatelain, have a relative value, since they are based on a rather small group of securely dated codices and disregard localization.For o. in general, codices of the 4th and 5th centuries show letters with strokes extending below the baseline but not above the top line; b has the upper bow barely indicated, the lower one very pronounced; f, p, s, t are very narrow (t has an undulating top stroke); h has a very small base without a tail; m, n, u are very wide (m has the first stroke almost straight, n has a very pronounced oblique stroke); p has a small, open belly. In the 6th century, f has horizontal strokes of equal length; l has a base with a small tail; t has a longer top stroke, sometimes curved to the left; n has a small coronation stroke on the right stem; p and r have a still open but wider belly. In the 7th century, coronation strokes develop (h, l, n [also on the left stem]; the base of l is very developed); the belly of p is almost always closed; t curves the top stroke also to the right. In the 8th century, coronation strokes lengthen; m has the first leg curved to close on the middle stem; this rests on a small horizontal line; n has the intermediate stroke almost horizontal; the belly of r descends beyond the middle of the vertical stroke.
For s. in the 5th century, a is smaller in size than other letters; e is in omicron form, n is majuscule and with the first leg somewhat longer; the belly of q is developed more in width than in height; coronation strokes are absent; frequent are the ligatures li and ci. In the 6th century, e is sometimes in minuscule form; g and n in majuscule or minuscule form; t has a rounded lower stroke; li are not in ligature. In the 7th century, coronation strokes appear on ascending and descending stems; m always has it on the median leg, sometimes also on the first; i is sometimes in tall form. In the 8th century, the tendencies noted in the previous age develop further; the lower stroke of t is straight. — See pl. VIII.