PALEOGRAFIA

PALEOGRAPHY. – With this term, improperly coined by B. Montfaucon for a treatise on Greek writing (Palaeographia graeca, Paris 1708) and now consecrated by usage, is meant “the critical study of ancient writing,” with the aim of reading it accurately, of locating and dating its products, and 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 writing has, however, not been equally investigated; in fact, in very many cases the examination devoted to it has not surpassed the empirical stage of correctly interpreting the signs (whether ideographic, symbolic, or alphabetic). Thus, in practice, the term p. refers to only the two branches in which it has established itself as an autonomous discipline: Greek and Latin writing. Above all, the latter has offered to scientific inquiry a fertile ground of results that, within a few years, have transformed the very direction of studies.

I. Historical Notes

If Greek paleography arose as a discipline auxiliary to philological studies (especially Byzantine), Latin paleography instead originated in function of diplomatics (v.). Both, however, emerged almost simultaneously, between the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, out of a “systematic” need: the first treatises, indeed (by Mabillon [v.] for Latin paleography, by Montfaucon for Greek), essentially represent a classification of writing. Already in 1727, however, Latin paleography took a step forward through the work of Scipione Maffei (v.), who, affirming the unity of origin of the various types classified by Mabillon, transferred historical criticism into the study of the graphic phenomenon. For a long time, however, science remained anchored to these boundaries, limiting itself to perfecting and multiplying the pigeonholing of writing (a typical expression remains the imposing work of the Maurist monks R. P. Tassin and C. Toustain, Nouveau traité de diplomatique, Paris 1750–65). Only in the second half of the 19th century did W. Wattenbach (Anleitung zur lateinischen Paläographie, 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 into individual writing centers. Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the refined technical means and the studies of L. Traube and L. Schiaparelli determined the decisively historical orientation of paleography, with results of the greatest importance, to which scholars of every country contributed. Lately, the French school has given new impetus to paleographic research by turning particular attention to the physiological element as a determinant of graphic evolution.

II. OBJECT OF PALEOGRAPHY

Strictly speaking, paleography has as its object the history of writing (Greek, Latin, etc.) in its evolution, from its origins (presupposing, moreover, that its alphabet was already formed) up to the last stage that can be critically investigated (up to its extinction for writing systems now obsolete, up to the present day for those still in use). In practice, for Greek and 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 at that point, but its study no longer presents the same interest as in earlier ages; nor, on the other hand, could it proceed according to the same principles (the concept of “counter-script” has lost all meaning; chancery tradition survives for a time only; writing, no longer tied to a “school,” becomes ever more personal and is profoundly modified by the alternate use of different writing tools). A further restriction occurred with the rise of papyrology and epigraphy, which took upon themselves the study of writing as such, when traced on materials that fall within their purview. Today, however, the need to understand the graphic phenomenon in a unified sense is increasingly asserting itself, so that paleography, while taking account of the transformations imposed by the writing material, regards as within its competence also writing on papyrus and on epigraphic material.

Paleography also directs its examination to other objects, and particularly to the system of abbreviations (v. ABBREVIATIONS), to diacritical and punctuation marks, to numeral ciphers, to tachygraphic and secret writing, to writing tools and materials, as well as to the processes by which these are prepared to receive writing.

III. DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING

Greek paleography essentially distinguishes only three types of writing: the uncial (v.) of majuscule form, the cursive (v.), originally of majuscule form and then transformed into minuscule; and the minuscule (v.), derived from a process of calligraphic refinement of the cursive. Latin paleography, instead, presents a far more complex picture, which is traditionally schematized in these terms: ancient capital gives rise to capital writing (v.), both epigraphic and bookhand, and to ancient cursive (also called by some “capital cursive”); from this latter there evolves a new cursive (v.), which reaches minuscule forms, while in the bookhand field, through a process not yet clarified, there form the uncial (v.) and the semi-uncial. Minuscule cursive and semi-uncial, influencing each other reciprocally, give rise, for various reasons, to national scripts (Visigothic [v.], Merovingian [v.], Beneventan [v.]; different is the history of the insular scripts [v.]) and to precaroline, caroline (v.) definitively asserts itself. From this arises Gothic (v.) in its various forms; finally, humanistic writing (v.) represents in its bookhand form a return to caroline and in its cursive form an evolution of Gothic cursive. It must be kept in mind, however, that the classification outlined above obeys empirical and didactic criteria of practicality, subjected by more recent studies to a thorough revision.

IV. PROBLEMS AND ORIENTATIONS

Current terminology

As paleographic studies have progressed, current terminology has revealed its inadequacy in designating a script that, being in the ascending or descending phase of its development or having infiltrated forms different from those sanctioned by the canonization of a type, does not present all and only the characteristics peculiar to II. Hence, a new tendency has developed, aiming to fix within extreme limits, represented by certain codices or documents, the fluctuating forms susceptible of being catalogued under the same name. Terms that refer to a different classification should be separated from the “proper” names of scripts: thus, alphabetic scripts are divided, based on the relationship of size and reciprocal proportion between letters, into majuscule (v.) and minuscule (v.), and, based on ductus, into set (or upright) and cursive. The problem here is different; the possibility that such forms may coexist in time, or even within the same script (mixed), does not exclude the existence of an evolution from one to the other: scripts that appear in surviving monuments in both set and cursive ductus may have originated from two different scripts (as in the case of Humanistic script), but may also have developed as calligraphic scripts and then degenerated into cursives (as, essentially, in many notarial scripts) or may have originated as cursives 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 AD) to minuscule.

In the transition from a cursive to a set form, or vice versa, the phenomenon is therefore localized within the scope of a single script; hence, there are various separate problems, now largely resolved (uncertainties still persist regarding ancient cursive [majuscule] in relation to capital script). In the evolution from majuscule to minuscule, however, one witnesses a phenomenon of a general nature, and the related problem (which also affects Greek paleography, although it has only been satisfactorily addressed in relation to Latin) remains sub judice. If, indeed, the traditional approach tends to explain the phenomenon as a transformation occurring within cursive script and then extended to calligraphic writing (ancient cursive – minuscule cursive – set minuscule), the French paleographic school has recently explained it (though not definitively demonstrated) as a spontaneous process determined by a changed position of the writer relative to the writing material, unfolding in parallel and independently in the realm of book script and that of cursive.

The attempt to schematize within a single paradigm the formative process of each script has given rise to the concept of “usual script,” namely, the script that man employs for daily use, essentially of an individual character, of a highly varied type but almost always cursive. Upon it, all tendencies can practically act, but it is especially those that find a common substratum among multiple writers that modify it according to certain constant characteristics, until the “usual” or book script, which in turn can itself be assumed as usual, faces the alternative of undergoing further modifications. This is naturally an abstract formulation whose sole purpose is to establish a schema.

Numerous are the particular problems still unresolved, and it is not possible to address them all. By way of example, one may mention one of the most debated, namely, that concerning the origin of Carolingian script (v.), which is related to the no less discussed issue of the so-called precarolingian scripts. The phenomenon of a script that, concomitantly with the rise of the Carolingian Empire, regains that character of “universality” found in scripts of the classical age, involves extrapaleographic factors and brings the scholar into the heart of history: hence the interest of the problem and the various solutions proposed. The unifying element of script, lost with the precarolingian and national scripts (i.e., following the formation of minuscule), regains real consistency by the end of the 8th century, a consistency that is preserved, in its broad outlines, even in the subsequent development of Latin paleography: thus, on the one hand, minuscule and, on the other, Carolingian script constitute the fulcra (and hence the fundamental problems) in the history of Latin script, unlike Greek, which has maintained its unitary character. It is in this difference that the reason for the greater development achieved by the study of Latin paleography compared to Greek also lies, as well as the analytical approach (investigations into individual scriptoria, isolated phases of the same script, etc.) of the former compared to the latter.

II. MANUALS: of Greek and Latin paleography: E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin paleography, 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. Of Greek paleography: 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. S. Tkalas, *Ιστορία της Ελληνικής γραφής*, Thessaloniki 1934. Of Latin paleography: 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 karolingischen Minuskel, in A. Gercke and E. Norden, op. cit., I, fasc. X, 3rd ed., 1927, pp. 38-68; A. C. Floriano Cumberno, Curso general de Paleografia y Diplomática, 2 vols., Oviedo 1946; G. Battelli, Lezioni di p., 3rd ed., Vatican City 1949.

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

4. GENERAL COLLECTIONS AND COMPILATIONS OF FACSIMILES: Greek and Latin: J. B. Silvestre, Paléographie universelle, II, Paris 1840 (English ed., London 1850); The Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of manuscripts and inscriptions, edited by E. A. Bond, E. M. Thompson, G. F. Warner, 5 vols., in 2 series, London 1873–94 (Indices, 1911); British Museum, Catalogue of ancient manuscripts, edited by E. M. Thompson and G. F. Warner, I: Codices graeci, 1881; II: Codices latini, 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 1903–1905 (Indices of 1st series, 1914; of 2nd series, 1913; 1913; 1913; 1913; 1913; 1913; 1913; 1920; 1920; 1920; 1920; 1920; 1920); G. W. Wattenbach, Scripturae graecae specimina, 3rd ed., Berlin 1897; S. De Vries, Album paleographicum..., Leiden 1909. Other collections of more limited scope should also be noted: Sabas, Specimina paleographica codicum Graecorum et Slavonicorum bibliothecae Mosquensis, 4 vols., Moscow 1863–64; W. Wattenbach and A. von Velsen, Exempla codicum graecorum litteris minusculis scriptorum, Heidelberg 1878; Facsimiles de manuscrits grecs des dixième au quatorzième siècle de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 1890; Facsimiles des plus anciens manuscrits grecs en onciale 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, Paris 1913; K. Wessely, Papyrorum scripturae graecae specimina, Leipzig 1900; T. Reinach, Papyrus grecs et demotiques, Paris 1905; M. Norsa, Papiri greci delle collezioni italiane (Pubbl. della Scuola di filologia classica dell’Università di Roma, 2nd series), fasc. I–III, Rome 1924–45.

Latin: E. Monaci, Facsimili di scritture antiche latine..., Rome 1881–92; Archivio paleografico italiano, directed by E. Monaci, then by V. FEDERICI, GIACOMO, now by F. Bartoloni, Rome 1882 ff. (ongoing: to date 58 fascicles in 13 vols.); E. Chatelain, Paléographie des classiques latins, Paris 1884–1900; K. Wessely, Schrifttafeln zur älteren lateinischen Paläographie, Leipzig 1898; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, L. Frati, Monumenta paleographica sacra..., Turin 1899; W. Arndt and M. Tangl, Schrifttafeln zur Erlernung der lateinischen Paläographie, fasc. I, 4th ed., and fasc. III, 2nd ed., Berlin 1904–1907; E. Monaci, Esempi di scrittura latina dal sec. I dell’era volgare al sec. XVIII, Rome 1906; F. Steffens, Lateinische Paläographie, 2nd ed., Treviso 1909 (reprint, Berlin 1920; French ed., Treviso 1910); Exempla scripturarum edita consilio et opera procuratorum Bibliothecae et Tabularii Vaticani, Rome (later Vatican City) 1929 ff. (ongoing: to date 3 fascicles); M. Ihm, Palaeographia latina..., 1st series, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1931; F. Ehrle and P. Lauer, Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum, 3rd ed., Berlin 1932; V. FEDERICI, GIACOMO, La scrittura delle cancellerie italiane..., Rome 1934; F. Bartoloni, Esempi di scrittura latina dal sec. I a. C. al sec. XV..., 1934; E. A. Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores, Oxford 1934 ff. (ongoing: to date 5 vols.); J. Mallon, R. Marichal, Ch. Perrat, L’écriture latine de la capitale romaine à la minuscule, Paris 1939; H. Förster, Mittelalterliche Buch- und Urkundenschriften..., Bern 1946.

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

6. PROBLEMS AND TRENDS: 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 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 writing” cf. G. Cencetti, op. cit., and the following notes: Paléographie et scrittura della papiri latini dal I al III sec. d. C. (Memorie dell’Accad. 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 scripts V. lastly F. Bartoloni, Note paleografiche. Ancora sulle scritture precaroline, in Bullett. dell’Istituto storico ital. per il Medio Evo, 62 (1950), pp. 139–57.

PALEOGRAPHY, DIPLOMATICS AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE, PONTIFICAL SCHOOL OF VATICAN CITY.