Greek Palaeography

we were wasting our leisure. For how much it concerns those who are accustomed to handling the ancient books of the Greeks, or who are free to prepare new editions, to have a clear understanding of the age of the old exemplars, only those can be ignorant who have not even touched the study of letters with the tips of their lips. Indeed, in the published books of ancient writers, errors occur very frequently, and doubtful readings which are not present in older copies, but appear in more recent ones; in that instance, it is very helpful to distinguish the age [of the manuscript], so that what does not appear in those older [copies] may be judged to have been introduced into the more recent ones—although this matter requires much observation and experience. Likewise, for those works of which there is no mention among the ancients, and which either lie hidden in libraries until now, or have been published without any note of their time, their antiquity is often proven from the age of the codices alone; as, for example, the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, which many—and not without cause—think should be stripped of Athanasius’s name; you might search in vain among authors, or in the Synopsis itself, to find in what age it was written. But since a not insignificant part of it is found without the author’s name in the Royal and Vatican codices of about eight hundred years of age, from this you may conclude that it was issued at least eight hundred years ago. And because in this matter the reasoning for Latin and Greek codices is the same, it seemed fitting to mention here what happened not so long ago. There was a certain learned man, a lover of antiquity, who thought that the books of Quintus Curtius were forged in the fifteenth century—that is, after the humanities had been restored in Europe—by some man skilled in Latin, who was eager to deceive the learned world. But he himself realized how far he had wandered from the truth when he inquired and learned that in the Colbertine Library there is a codex of Quintus Curtius which exceeds eight hundred years.

These points could be multiplied; however, I refrain from bringing forward other examples, of which there are quite a few in abundance, because I believe there is no one who would not admit that a knowledge of age is not only useful, but also necessary in handling codices. It must be noted, however, that although the tables of characters of various ages provided in this Palaeographia may contribute much to the recognition of time, a familiarity of the eyes is nevertheless necessary: for whatever diligence is applied in representing the writing of the ancients, it always deviates somewhat from the forms of the manuscript exemplars. Likewise, one must observe the condition, color, and tempering of the ink in ancient codices, and I know not what other signs of antiquity, which cannot be expressed even in words, much less transferred into copies of such writings.

Another no less—perhaps even greater—utility may be drawn from these specimens of characters; namely, that with their aid, the writing of any age may be read easily, at least for the most part. For we have taken care to publish all the types of writing that we have placed in the various tables with the common character added, along with an interpretation: I hope that those who use these same tables will experience how much benefit this will be to students. I could recount almost innumerable lapses made by even learned men while reading, but I refrain for now, because in the course of the work I have noted not a few similar cases. Furthermore, those who are about to inspect these various tables will immediately perceive how great a use the manuscript codices should have for those who are occupied with the emendation of ancient books. For one who has read many codices of the seventh and eighth centuries will labor somewhat when he turns to the books of the ninth and tenth; if he subsequently approaches the writing of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, he will frequently falter: hence if from—