{"title":"Expositio Notarum ed. by A. C. Dionisotti (review)","authors":"Scott G. Bruce","doi":"10.1353/jla.2024.a926295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Expositio Notarum</em> ed. by A. C. Dionisotti <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Scott G. Bruce </li> </ul> <em>Expositio Notarum</em> E<small>dited by</small> A. C. D<small>ionisotti</small> Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 64. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. 642. ISBN 9781316514795 <p>This book begins with a manuscript that presents a mystery. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Add. C.144 is a miscellany of late antique and early medieval grammatical and metrical treatises, a \"mass Latinsalvaging project\" (71) produced in central Italy in the eleventh century. On folios 114v to 132r, the scribe has copied a peculiar collection of Latin glosses entitled <em>Expositio Notarum</em> (<em>EN</em>). It comprises a series of around 1800 Latin keywords (<em>lemmata</em>) with explanations of their meaning ranging from single-word synonyms to discursive comments on their etymology and morphology. Most early medieval glossaries identify their textual sources or give them away by following the alphabetical or grammatical order of the text they are glossing, but this one is elusive. Taken together, the Latin keywords of the <em>EN</em> do not derive from any known literary or historical text from Roman antiquity. <strong>[End Page 292]</strong></p> <p>In the introduction to this study, we follow Dionisotti as she unravels the mystery of the source of this enigmatic collection of Latin glosses. The title of the work provides a valuable clue that the glossary is an explication of \"notes\" (<em>notae</em>), but what kind of notes? While chasing down some of the more unusual Latin terms (for example, <em>plausile, intolerat</em>, and <em>disdonat</em>), instruments of reference led Dionisotti time and again to the only other early medieval source that preserved the same rare words: the <em>Commentarii Notarum Tironianarum</em> (<em>CNT</em>), a dictionary of about 13,000 symbols of Roman shorthand (that is, Tironian notes) with their Latin equivalents. According to Isidore of Seville, Cicero's freedman scribe M. Tullius Tiro devised this system to facilitate the rapid transcription of oral information. Later generations of scribes expanded the list with new symbols. There is evidence for the use of Tironian notes throughout Late Antiquity in pagan and Christian contexts. The system retained its currency in the early Middle Ages; sixteen manuscripts of the <em>CNT</em> survive from the Carolingian period. As Dionisotti argues, the <em>EN</em> is a series of glosses on the meaning of Latin terms found in a handbook of Tironian notes similar to the Carolingian exemplar of the <em>CNT</em> (but likely predating it), with which it shares around 1,100 <em>lemmata</em> in common (about 61% of its contents).</p> <p>With this mystery solved, Dionisotti spends the rest of the introduction explaining the context and character of the <em>EN</em>. Unlike the <em>CMT</em>, which may have been produced as early as the second century but grew over time as it incorporated elements that dated from the early Middle Ages, including Christian terminology, the <em>EN</em> seems to be a gloss on a \"thoroughly classical\" set of vocabulary that \"reflects the Republic and the early, but not later, Empire\" (18). As Dionisotti notes, \"the Ciceronian backdrop to the whole is unmistakable\" (23). Its companion text was most likely a Roman manual for Latin shorthand that would later inform the <em>CNT</em>. Internal evidence suggests that the <em>EN</em> itself was compiled in the first decades of the fifth century by a teacher living in North Africa and working in a secular context, one of the thousands who taught students shorthand to prepare them for positions as <em>notarii</em> in the Roman imperial administration. Like its lost companion, the <em>EN</em> comprises a list of Latin words organized by morphological similiarity or, more seldomly, by topics like family relations, political offices, and agriculture. While the <em>EN</em> survives in only a single manuscript from the eleventh century, Dionisotti demonstrates that many alphabetized Latin glossaries from the early Middle Ages borrowed substantial portions of the content from it. She devotes almost half of the introduction to generous examples of these borrowings (40–71).</p> <p>The meat of the volume (79–369) is Dionisotti's edition of the Latin <em>lemmata</em> in the <em>EN</em> with their definitions, as well as cross-references to examples of the words in question in <em>CNT</em> and other early Latin glossaries. She also supplies editorial commentary on the meaning and forms of the words themselves. While highly technical, this material...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":16220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Late Antiquity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expositio Notarum ed. by A. C. Dionisotti (review)\",\"authors\":\"Scott G. Bruce\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/jla.2024.a926295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Expositio Notarum</em> ed. by A. C. Dionisotti <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Scott G. Bruce </li> </ul> <em>Expositio Notarum</em> E<small>dited by</small> A. C. D<small>ionisotti</small> Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 64. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. 642. ISBN 9781316514795 <p>This book begins with a manuscript that presents a mystery. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Add. C.144 is a miscellany of late antique and early medieval grammatical and metrical treatises, a \\\"mass Latinsalvaging project\\\" (71) produced in central Italy in the eleventh century. On folios 114v to 132r, the scribe has copied a peculiar collection of Latin glosses entitled <em>Expositio Notarum</em> (<em>EN</em>). It comprises a series of around 1800 Latin keywords (<em>lemmata</em>) with explanations of their meaning ranging from single-word synonyms to discursive comments on their etymology and morphology. Most early medieval glossaries identify their textual sources or give them away by following the alphabetical or grammatical order of the text they are glossing, but this one is elusive. Taken together, the Latin keywords of the <em>EN</em> do not derive from any known literary or historical text from Roman antiquity. <strong>[End Page 292]</strong></p> <p>In the introduction to this study, we follow Dionisotti as she unravels the mystery of the source of this enigmatic collection of Latin glosses. The title of the work provides a valuable clue that the glossary is an explication of \\\"notes\\\" (<em>notae</em>), but what kind of notes? While chasing down some of the more unusual Latin terms (for example, <em>plausile, intolerat</em>, and <em>disdonat</em>), instruments of reference led Dionisotti time and again to the only other early medieval source that preserved the same rare words: the <em>Commentarii Notarum Tironianarum</em> (<em>CNT</em>), a dictionary of about 13,000 symbols of Roman shorthand (that is, Tironian notes) with their Latin equivalents. According to Isidore of Seville, Cicero's freedman scribe M. Tullius Tiro devised this system to facilitate the rapid transcription of oral information. Later generations of scribes expanded the list with new symbols. There is evidence for the use of Tironian notes throughout Late Antiquity in pagan and Christian contexts. The system retained its currency in the early Middle Ages; sixteen manuscripts of the <em>CNT</em> survive from the Carolingian period. As Dionisotti argues, the <em>EN</em> is a series of glosses on the meaning of Latin terms found in a handbook of Tironian notes similar to the Carolingian exemplar of the <em>CNT</em> (but likely predating it), with which it shares around 1,100 <em>lemmata</em> in common (about 61% of its contents).</p> <p>With this mystery solved, Dionisotti spends the rest of the introduction explaining the context and character of the <em>EN</em>. Unlike the <em>CMT</em>, which may have been produced as early as the second century but grew over time as it incorporated elements that dated from the early Middle Ages, including Christian terminology, the <em>EN</em> seems to be a gloss on a \\\"thoroughly classical\\\" set of vocabulary that \\\"reflects the Republic and the early, but not later, Empire\\\" (18). As Dionisotti notes, \\\"the Ciceronian backdrop to the whole is unmistakable\\\" (23). Its companion text was most likely a Roman manual for Latin shorthand that would later inform the <em>CNT</em>. Internal evidence suggests that the <em>EN</em> itself was compiled in the first decades of the fifth century by a teacher living in North Africa and working in a secular context, one of the thousands who taught students shorthand to prepare them for positions as <em>notarii</em> in the Roman imperial administration. Like its lost companion, the <em>EN</em> comprises a list of Latin words organized by morphological similiarity or, more seldomly, by topics like family relations, political offices, and agriculture. While the <em>EN</em> survives in only a single manuscript from the eleventh century, Dionisotti demonstrates that many alphabetized Latin glossaries from the early Middle Ages borrowed substantial portions of the content from it. She devotes almost half of the introduction to generous examples of these borrowings (40–71).</p> <p>The meat of the volume (79–369) is Dionisotti's edition of the Latin <em>lemmata</em> in the <em>EN</em> with their definitions, as well as cross-references to examples of the words in question in <em>CNT</em> and other early Latin glossaries. She also supplies editorial commentary on the meaning and forms of the words themselves. While highly technical, this material...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Late Antiquity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Late Antiquity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/jla.2024.a926295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Late Antiquity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jla.2024.a926295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者 Expositio Notarum ed. by A. C. Dionisotti Scott G. Bruce Expositio Notarum Edited by A. C. Dionisotti Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 64.剑桥/纽约:剑桥大学出版社,2022 年。Pp.642.ISBN 9781316514795 本书以一份手稿开始,为读者揭开了一个谜团。牛津,伯德雷恩图书馆,Add.C.144 是一份晚期古代和早期中世纪语法和格律论文的杂录,是 11 世纪在意大利中部产生的一个 "大规模拉丁语改写项目"(71)。在第 114v 至 132r 对开页上,抄写员抄写了名为 Expositio Notarum (EN) 的拉丁文注释集。它包括一系列约 1800 个拉丁文关键词(lemmata),并附有对其含义的解释,从单词同义词到对其词源和形态的论述性评论。大多数中世纪早期的词汇表都会标明其文本来源,或者按照所注释文本的字母顺序或语法顺序来说明其来源,但这本词汇表却难以捉摸。综上所述,《EN》中的拉丁文关键词并非来自罗马古代的任何已知文学或历史文本。[在本研究的引言中,我们跟随迪奥尼索蒂揭开了这本神秘的拉丁语词汇集的来源之谜。作品的标题提供了一条宝贵的线索,即词汇表是对 "注释"(notae)的解释,但究竟是什么样的注释呢?在追寻一些更不寻常的拉丁语术语(例如,plausile、intolerat 和 disdonat)时,参考工具一次又一次地将迪奥尼索蒂引向保存了同样罕见词汇的唯一其他中世纪早期资料来源:Commentarii Notarum Tironianarum (CNT),这是一部包含约 13,000 个罗马速记符号(即 Tironian 笔记)及其拉丁语对应词的词典。据塞维利亚的伊西多尔(Isidore of Seville)记载,西塞罗的自由抄写员图利乌斯-蒂罗(M. Tullius Tiro)设计了这一系统,以方便快速抄录口头信息。后代抄写员用新的符号扩充了这一列表。有证据表明,在整个古代晚期,在异教和基督教背景下都使用过铁罗笔记。该系统在中世纪早期仍很流行;卡洛林王朝时期有 16 份 CNT 手稿存世。正如 Dionisotti 所说,EN 是一系列关于拉丁语术语含义的注释,这些注释出现在与 CNT 卡洛林典范(但很可能早于 CNT)相似的 Tironian 注释手册中,与 CNT 有大约 1100 个词表(约占其内容的 61%)。谜团解开后,迪奥尼索蒂在导言的其余部分解释了 EN 的背景和特点。CMT 可能早在 2 世纪就已产生,但随着时间的推移,它逐渐融入了中世纪早期的元素,包括基督教术语,与之不同的是,EN 似乎是对一套 "完全古典的 "词汇的润色,"反映了共和国和早期帝国,而不是后来的帝国"(18)。正如 Dionisotti 指出的,"整个作品的西塞罗背景是明确无误的"(23)。它的配套文本很可能是一本罗马拉丁语速记手册,后来为 CNT 提供了参考。内部证据表明,《EN》本身是由一位居住在北非、在世俗环境中工作的教师于五世纪头几十年编撰的,他是成千上万名教授学生速记的教师之一,目的是为他们在罗马帝国政府中担任公证人做准备。与失传的同伴一样,EN 包含一个拉丁词表,按照词形的相似性进行编排,或者按照家庭关系、政治职位和农业等主题进行编排,但比较少见。虽然 EN 仅存于 11 世纪的一份手稿中,但 Dionisotti 证明,中世纪早期的许多按字母顺序排列的拉丁语词汇表都借用了其中的大量内容。她在导言中用了近一半的篇幅大量举例说明这些借用(40-71)。本卷的主要部分(79-369 页)是 Dionisotti 对 EN 中的拉丁语词条及其定义的编辑,以及与 CNT 和其他早期拉丁语词汇表中相关词条的交叉引用。她还提供了对词义和词形本身的编辑评论。这些材料虽然技术性很强,但...
Expositio Notarum ed. by A. C. Dionisotti (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
Expositio Notarum ed. by A. C. Dionisotti
Scott G. Bruce
Expositio Notarum Edited by A. C. Dionisotti Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 64. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. 642. ISBN 9781316514795
This book begins with a manuscript that presents a mystery. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Add. C.144 is a miscellany of late antique and early medieval grammatical and metrical treatises, a "mass Latinsalvaging project" (71) produced in central Italy in the eleventh century. On folios 114v to 132r, the scribe has copied a peculiar collection of Latin glosses entitled Expositio Notarum (EN). It comprises a series of around 1800 Latin keywords (lemmata) with explanations of their meaning ranging from single-word synonyms to discursive comments on their etymology and morphology. Most early medieval glossaries identify their textual sources or give them away by following the alphabetical or grammatical order of the text they are glossing, but this one is elusive. Taken together, the Latin keywords of the EN do not derive from any known literary or historical text from Roman antiquity. [End Page 292]
In the introduction to this study, we follow Dionisotti as she unravels the mystery of the source of this enigmatic collection of Latin glosses. The title of the work provides a valuable clue that the glossary is an explication of "notes" (notae), but what kind of notes? While chasing down some of the more unusual Latin terms (for example, plausile, intolerat, and disdonat), instruments of reference led Dionisotti time and again to the only other early medieval source that preserved the same rare words: the Commentarii Notarum Tironianarum (CNT), a dictionary of about 13,000 symbols of Roman shorthand (that is, Tironian notes) with their Latin equivalents. According to Isidore of Seville, Cicero's freedman scribe M. Tullius Tiro devised this system to facilitate the rapid transcription of oral information. Later generations of scribes expanded the list with new symbols. There is evidence for the use of Tironian notes throughout Late Antiquity in pagan and Christian contexts. The system retained its currency in the early Middle Ages; sixteen manuscripts of the CNT survive from the Carolingian period. As Dionisotti argues, the EN is a series of glosses on the meaning of Latin terms found in a handbook of Tironian notes similar to the Carolingian exemplar of the CNT (but likely predating it), with which it shares around 1,100 lemmata in common (about 61% of its contents).
With this mystery solved, Dionisotti spends the rest of the introduction explaining the context and character of the EN. Unlike the CMT, which may have been produced as early as the second century but grew over time as it incorporated elements that dated from the early Middle Ages, including Christian terminology, the EN seems to be a gloss on a "thoroughly classical" set of vocabulary that "reflects the Republic and the early, but not later, Empire" (18). As Dionisotti notes, "the Ciceronian backdrop to the whole is unmistakable" (23). Its companion text was most likely a Roman manual for Latin shorthand that would later inform the CNT. Internal evidence suggests that the EN itself was compiled in the first decades of the fifth century by a teacher living in North Africa and working in a secular context, one of the thousands who taught students shorthand to prepare them for positions as notarii in the Roman imperial administration. Like its lost companion, the EN comprises a list of Latin words organized by morphological similiarity or, more seldomly, by topics like family relations, political offices, and agriculture. While the EN survives in only a single manuscript from the eleventh century, Dionisotti demonstrates that many alphabetized Latin glossaries from the early Middle Ages borrowed substantial portions of the content from it. She devotes almost half of the introduction to generous examples of these borrowings (40–71).
The meat of the volume (79–369) is Dionisotti's edition of the Latin lemmata in the EN with their definitions, as well as cross-references to examples of the words in question in CNT and other early Latin glossaries. She also supplies editorial commentary on the meaning and forms of the words themselves. While highly technical, this material...