in the text, which has furnished the fac-simile in the Plate, copied from the fifth scene of the fifth act of the Andria. In the printed editions* this scene consists only of two personages, whereas three are represented in the drawing; which arises from this peculiarity, that in the manuscript only one scene (the last of the piece) is made out of the fifth and sixth scenes, as adopted in the printed copies, the sixth consisting of three persons. These are represented in the Plate, in which Charinus interrogates Pamphilus, in presence of Davus, which forms the dénouement of the drama. The text is to be read: CHA. Proviso quid agat Pamphilus; atque eccum. PAM. Ali- Non putare hoc verum; at mihi nunc esse hoc verum lubet. mortalitas Parta est, si nulla aegritudo huic gaudio intercesserit. haec narrem, dari? CHA. Quid illud gaudi est? PAM. Davum video. Nemo est quem malim omnium; Nam hunc scio mea solide solum gravisurum gaudia. This text exhibits two kinds of writing; the names of the dramatis persone being written in red, and in rustic Roman capitals, whilst the text is in clear, well proportioned, Caroline minuscules, with the words not divided, the tails and tops of the letters of proper length, and the strokes of the m and n inclined towards the left; graphic characters which indicate the ninth century, and the kind of writing termed Caroline. This name is derived from the Emperor Charlemagne, who having observed that the small Roman writing previously used in Gaul had become considerably altered since the seventh century, he ordered that a more correct style should be adopted; * Cum notis variorum, Lugd. Batav. 1662. 8vo. that each bishop, abbot, or count, should have a secretary to perform this duty; and that the copies of the Holy Scriptures should only be written by men of a mature age, who might apply themselves to the task with greater success*. He thus caused the small Roman characters to be renovated, which, in process of time, have become the characters used in printing; and it is worthy of remark, that whilst France revived the Roman writing, Italy continued the use of the Lombardic characters. It appears that the monks of the abbey of St. Vandrille more particularly labored to effect this reform. The scene represented in the Plate is remarkable for the costume of the figures in it, approaching so nearly to the antique habits, as to lead us to infer that these drawings in the manuscript are traditional copies, taken from more ancient compositions, which might be referred back to the period even when the plays of Terence were acted on the Roman stage. The same manuscript exhibits on several of its pages an assemblage of masks, destined for the personages in the dramas of Terence. In the Plate, one of the three figures evidently wears this portion of the costume, namely, the slave Davus. It is known that these masks covered not only the face, but formed a case for the whole head, so that the voice resounding within this large cavity, and escaping by a single orifice, acquired more power, and was thus enabled to reach the most distant row of seats of the spectators. This manuscript is one of the most important monuments existing for the history of the theatre of the ancients. The learned Madame Dacier has published the greater portion of the drawings, in her French translation of Terence+, reduced in size, and engraved by Bernard Picart. * Histoire Littéraire de la France, tom. iv. p. 19. + Les Comédies de Terence, etc., 2 tom. Roterod. 1717, 12mo.-ED. PLATE CXXIX. CAPITAL AND MINUSCULE CAROLINE WRITING. IXTH CENTURY. TERENCE, WITH FIGURES, IN THE VATICAN LIBRARY, NO; 3868. THE edition, published at Urbino, in 1736, of the Vatican manuscript of Terence, ornamented with figures*, has given much celebrity to this volume. There are so few ancient profane manuscripts illustrated with figures, which may be regarded as faithful copies of the types composed in the times contemporary with the authors of the texts which they accompany, that the publication of the text and drawings of the Vatican Terence must necessarily have raised a high idea of the importance of this manuscript. At the same time it is a subject of surprise, that a similar manuscript of Terence in the Bibliothèque Royale at Paris, also illustrated with figures, should have been comparatively neglected; especially if it can be proved, that the Paris manuscript is the more ancient of the two, and that the numerous drawings of the Vatican manuscript are copies of those of which the Paris manuscript, chronologically speaking, furnishes the originals. A fac-simile is here presented of one of the pages of the Vatican volume; on comparing which with the Plate copied from the Paris manuscript, it will be seen that the Vatican volume is a wide and tall folio, whilst that of Paris is nearly square,—a form considered by the Benedictines (Nouv. Dip., ii. 392) as a * Pub. Terentii Comœdiæ nunc primum Italicis versibus redditæ, cum personarum figuris æri accurate incisis, ex MS. Cod. Bibl. Vaticana. Urbini, 1736. folio.-ED. sign of high antiquity. The composition of the figures in the Paris manuscript is careful in style, the expression attentive, the details minute, as in an original composition, whilst in the Vatican volume the figures are treated with greater breadth, the lines fewer, and the wide folds of the drapery scarcely indicate the movements of the limbs. The artist of the Paris manuscript appears to have followed nature, whilst he who illustrated the Roman volume drew from statues or from earlier designs. The text of the Vatican manuscript is written in long lines, without distinction of the verses; it abounds in abbreviations, and marks of punctuation. The Paris volume is regularly written in verses, with the m and the syllable pro not abbreviated, and the punctuation almost everywhere wanting. The writing of the two manuscripts, when compared, leads to similar deductions; that of the Paris volume possesses all the characters of the careful Caroline writing of the ninth century, whereas that of the Vatican does not exhibit all these characters. The rustic capitals in the latter, written in vermilion, are negligent and tall, with the lower strokes thick and superfluous; some letters are conjoined, the Y is dotted, and the A is nearly of the minuscule form. This rustic kind of writing continued in use after the renovation effected by Charlemagne, and during the reign of his successors. The text of the manuscript is also in Caroline minuscule, with the words divided, of the kind which is termed irregular; massive, acute, with clubbed tops to the letters, resembling the Lombardic minuscule. The tall strokes occasionally have the tops obliquely truncated, and the tails terminate diagonally; the strokes of the letters generally incline to the left, but sometimes to the right; the s is prolonged below the line; the conjoined letters et (&) are employed constantly, and the letters ex are also conjoined (line 5,) in the word existumas. Various scholia are interlined, written in a smaller character, which appear to be of the same age as the text; the tall letters being clubbed in a like manner, the tails acute, the y dotted, and the abbreviations frequent. On the whole, this manuscript of the Vatican appears to be less ancient by a quarter or half a century, than that of Paris. The fragment represented in the Plate is taken from the Adelphi, Act v. Sc. 6 and 7. The first scene is between the old Demea and his slave Geta. GET. Hera*, ego huc ad hos provisam, quam mox virginem accersant; sed eccum Demeam; salvus sies. DEM. Oh! qui vocare? GET. Geta. DEM. Geta, hominem maximi pretii esse te hodie judicavi animo meo, etc. The second scene in the fac-simile is the seventh of the same act, between Demea, Eschinus his son, and the two slaves, Geta and Syrus. The youth exclaims:— AES. Occidunt me, quidem, dum nimis sanctas nuptias student facere; in apparando totum consumunt diem. DEM. Quid agitur, Aeschine? AES. Ehem, pater mi, tun' hic eras? etc. At the end of the manuscript the scribe has written his name, HRODGARIUS SCRIPSIT. This name of Rodgarius is not unfrequent amongst the personages of the Carlovingian period. We meet with a Rotgarius, who was an officer of the court of Pepin, and a Rodegarius was the agent of the abbey of St. Denis employed about the same king. We are ignorant to what country the person belonged, to whom we owe the execution of the fine volume before us. *The French editors have printed this Era, not having remarked the ancient mark of aspiration over the first letter.-ED. |