PALIMPSEST, in Greek παλίμψηστος (a word formed from παλιν, again, and ψαω, to wipe, cleanse, or rub), is a term applied to a manuscript, from its having been twice cleaned, or twice written, that is, rescribed.

The value of ancient manuscripts has long been rightly estimated, and hence in every part of Europe they have been collected at great expense, and preserved with the utmost care. For some time after the invention of printing, it was indeed thought that when the contents of a manuscript had been copied, and multiplied by means of that invaluable art, the original was rendered useless. But as different manuscripts of the same work often vary in particular readings, it was soon found necessary to examine and collate a number of them, in order to ascertain the preferable readings; and without this previous care, conjoined with critical discrimination, a new edition of an ancient work would not now be well received by the learned. Such, then, is the most direct and obvious use of ancient manuscripts; which, when duly collated, furnish the means of restoring texts that had been corrupted or mutilated in the course of frequent transcription.

But, on a more minute examination of a certain class of manuscripts, it appeared that some of them might have a value hitherto unsuspected, by supplying more ancient copies than were previously known, and even furnishing portions of important works which were supposed to be entirely lost. These were manuscripts in which an attempt had been made to obliterate some more ancient writing, that the parchment might be again used to receive another work. This practice was not uncommon in the darker ages, both before and after the thirteenth century, when the material was scarce and dear, and the older works were either not understood or not duly appreciated. But, happily, the endeavour to rub out or obliterate the original writing had sometimes so far failed, that an attentive eye could, with more or less difficulty, discover traces of the older letters, and even decipher words; and certain manuscripts of respectable antiquity were thus found to conceal others several centuries older, and frequently of much superior interest and value. Manuscripts of this kind, therefore, received from the learned the name of Palimpsest or Rescribed, and became objects of curious and interesting investigation.^[1. The strict and precise sense of Palimpsest is “twice prepared for writing the repetition of such preparation being the prevailing idea in the etymology, and not erasure or obliteration, as Du Cange and others have supposed. It is indeed easy to remove from parchment, by rubbing it with pumice-stone, or some similar substance, all traces of the original writing, especially if it be of some antiquity; and if the surface be afterwards smoothed and polished, no one, by merely looking at it, would suppose that it had ever been written on. But if it be washed with an infusion of galls, and suffered to remain some time in the light, the letters obliterated will be so far restored, that they may be copied by a patient and practised decipherer, who is gifted with good vision. In those cases where the erased letters were originally written in a bold large hand,—and such are the characters of the more ancient manuscripts, the task of deciphering them will of course be less troublesome, and the results obtained more certain. It appears, also, that the method of writing employed in ancient times has been found favourable to the restoration of works which had, to all appearance, been entirely obliterated. ]

This term was not unknown to the ancients; but they applied it chiefly to leaves or books which were so prepared that one writing could easily be expunged to make room for another, and which were used by authors for correcting their works, or submitting them to revision. In this sense, palimpsests are mentioned by Cicero, Plutarch, and Catullus; and the poet, in particular, ridicules a bad author for not writing his works at first on palimpsests, but entering them at once, crude and uncorrected, in fine and costly books. But the palimpsests now to be considered are of much superior importance. They have opened to us some great discoveries, and given promise of many more. Some invaluable fragments of ancient works, believed to be entirely lost, have already been recovered; and the hopes which may fairly be entertained of future acquisitions from the same source, will best be estimated by a short account of what has actually been effected in exploring it.

The first rescribed manuscript of which any important use was made appears to have been the Codex Ephrern or Codex Regius of Paris.^[2. The Codex Ephrern, formerly numbered 1905, is now 9 in the Bibliothèque du Roì. ] The more modern writing in this manuscript contains certain works of Ephrem the Syrian, in Greek; the more ancient seems to have contained the whole of the Old and New Testament, in a character and style of Greek writing which the best critics have assigned to the sixth or seventh century. Of this manuscript there are 209 leaves remaining, but so miserably confused and misplaced, and with so many chasms of various kinds, that sometimes scarcely a word can be deciphered in a whole leaf. But the difficulties occasioned by these defects and mutilations have not deterred critics from endeavouring to make the most of the Codex Ephrern. From it Kuster first obtained several readings; and Wetstein afterwards collated, with great diligence, all that it contains of the text of the New Testament. Griesbach considers this as the most ancient manuscript collated by Wetstein; and there can be no doubt that the readings thus obtained confer a particular value on his edition. How much of the Old Testament may remain in this codex has not yet been as- *certained, nor has that part of it been collated, even for the Oxford Septuagint; a circumstance at which Griesbach expressed his surprise when he published the first part of his Symbola Critica. ^[3. “Fragmenta versionis τΰν í, a nemine adhuc (1785), quod sciamus, collata esse, mirum profecto videri debet omnibus, qui tam vetustarum membranarum excellentiam norunt.” (Syrnb. Crit, i. p. 4.)j ] This valuable palimpsest was originally pointed out for critical examination by the learned Montfaucon^[4. Palaogrophia Grceca, pp. 213, 214. ]. 4

The next discovery amongst manuscripts of this description was one of a very interesting kind. Ulphilas, bishop of Gothland in the fourth century, is known to have translated[7:16:764] the whole Scriptures into the language of that country, for which he also invented a new character, consisting of letters borrowed chiefly from the Greek. This work, however, had long been lost, with the exception only of the part containing the four gospels, which is preserved in the University Library at Upsal, in a manuscript called Codex Argenteus, from being written chiefly in letters of silver. But in the year 1755, F. A. Knittel, having been appointed archdeacon of Wolfenbuttel, began to explore the treasures contained in the Augustan Library in that city; and, in the course of his researches, a palimpsest manuscript of the Origines of Isidorus was pointed out to him, as containing, under that writing, the translation of the Epistle to the Romans by Ulphilas. On examination, it proved that the manuscript in question did not contain the whole epistle, but only a portion of the latter part, viz. the eleventh and following chapters, as far as the thirteenth verse of the fifteenth, accompanied by a Latin version written in parallel columns. Knittel immediately set himself to work on this curious fragment; and although, from the state of the leaves to be deciphered, the difficulty of the task was great, yet his zeal carried him through, and towards the end of the year 1758 he announced the intended publication by subscription. Various obstacles, however, retarded its appearance till the year 1762, when the laborious decipherer was enabled to publish the whole in quarto, with twelve large plates, a circumstantial account of the manuscript, and copious illustrations of its contents.^[5. The manuscript of Isidorus, consisting of 330 leaves, contained portions of several older books, two of which, supposed to be of the sixth century, exhibited large fragments of the gospels in Greek. Several leaves had belonged to other works, but of these some could not be deciphered, whilst the others contained nothing to recompense the labour, excepting a fragment of the works of Galen. To these several remains, of different dates, he assigned distinctive names, classing them as separate codices. The fragments of the gospels he also printed entire. But the remains of the version of Ulphilas constitute the principal part of the volume, and are given with the most minute exactness. This part, however, occupied only four leaves of the manuscript of Isidores; the other legible remains extending to 208 leaves out of the 330, so that 118 altogether defied the labour and skill of the decipherer. ] The diligence of Knittel omitted nothing that could render useful the recovered fragments, of which there were several. That of Ulphilas, in particular, he carefully compared with the Codex Argenteus, at Upsal, and ascertained that the latter did not form part of the same, but only of a similar manuscript. From the different fragments he extracted all the various readings; and, in his ample commentary, he indulged every reasonable desire of literary curiosity. He also subjoined an account of other palimpsest manuscripts in the same library, by which it appears that printed books were, in the early times of the art, sometimes worked off on vellum from which ancient writings had been erased; and he instanced particularly an edition of the Clementine Constitutions, printed by Nicoas Janson, in 1476, upon parchment which had undergone this process of obliteration to prepare it for the purpose.

In the work of deciphering palimpsest manuscripts Knittel was followed by Paul James Bruns, the coadjutor of Dr Kennicot, in his great work of Hebrew collation. In 1773, this person discovered, at Rome, a fragment of the ninety-first book of Livy, in a rescribed manuscript of the Vatican collection; and, in the same year, it was published by the discoverer himself at Hamburg,^[6. Saxius, Onorn. viii. 263. ] and by Signor Giovenazzi at Rome. The fragment in question, which has been admitted as undoubtedly genuine into the later editions of Livy, contains part of the war with Sertorius in Spain; and the only subject of regret is, that this part is so small. Bruns first visited the Vatican on a mission from Dr Kennicot in reference to Hebrew collation; but having been thus fortunate in the investigation of a palimpsest, he renewed the inquiry in this country, and endeavoured to ascertain the number of such manuscripts in the Bodleian

Library at Oxford. An account of his researches will be found in the Literary Annals of Helmstadt, which appear to have been conducted by Bruns during the years 1782, 1783, and 1784.

But, notwithstanding these encouraging successes, no other publication of the same nature appeared until the year 1801, when Dr Barrett of Trinity College, Dublin, produced an elegant and accurate volume containing a great part of the gospel of St Matthew, copied from a rescribed manuscript in the library of that college; and this palimpsest appeared to have been re-written in the twelfth or thirteenth century, upon portions of much more ancient books. The most important of these, however, was the portion which contained the copy of St Matthew’s gospel, whereof this fragment remained, written in uncial letters; and, judging by the usual marks of antiquity, it appeared to belong at least to the sixth century. A part of Isaiah in Greek, and some of the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen, were likewise found in it, but were considered as of less moment. What remains of St Matthew’s gospel Dr Barrett published, with great accuracy, on sixty-four engraved plates, each representing a page of the manuscript, and containing from twenty-one to twenty-three lines, disposed in a single column. This valuable fragment commences with part of the genealogy, at verse 17, chapter i. and extends, with occasional chasms, to chapter xxvi. verse 71; and it is also represented in an equal number of pages, printed in the ordinary Greek character. Copious Prolegomena are prefixed, giving an exact account of the state and characters of the manuscript; and subjoined is a careful collation of the Codex Montfortianus, in the same library, with Wetstein’s edition.^[7. This work is altogether most creditable to the industry, learning, and accuracy of the editor, Dr Barrett, and also to the University of Dublin, by which the expense of the impression was defrayed. ] This publication, however, appeared too late to be used by Griesbach, whose second edition of the New Testament was published in the year 1796.

It remained, however, for another distinguished labourer in the new and interesting field of inquiry, which had thus been indicated rather than explored, to surpass all his predecessors and contemporaries, not only in discovering rescribed manuscripts, but also in extracting from them works or parts of works, which were long considered as irrecoverably lost. We allude, of course, to Signor Angelo Maio, formerly keeper of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, afterwards librarian of the Vatican, and now (1838) cardinal secretary; whose researches in this department have been so extensive and important, that he may truly be called the hero of palimpsests, and the discoverer of a new world of letters. It was not till the year 1814 that Monsignor Maio made himself known by the partial recovery of lost works. A year earlier, indeed, he had employed himself in translating a large portion of the oration of Isocrates, De Permutatione, ^[8. ∏∣φι ri⅛ αντιiernνε. ] which Mystoxides, a learned Greek, had published from a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library, more perfect than any of the codices which had been followed by the editors of Isocrates. The quantity thus inserted in the oration increased it by at least one half; and the same additional matter has since been found in some of the Vatican manuscripts. In publishing this translation, however, Maio modestly continued anonymous. But his name was destined to be soon illustrated by far more important labours.
[7:16:765]

1. His researches amongst palimpsest manuscripts commenced with certain hitherto unpublished fragments of three orations of Cicero, namely, those for Scaurus, Tullius, and Flaccus. These orations had been written in a quarto form, but had been partly erazed and folded into an octavo size to give place to the sacred poetry of Sedulius. The newer writing was judged to be as old as the eighth century, and the original to be not later than the second or third. The manuscript had belonged to a very ancient monastery at Bobium, or Bobbio, in the Milanese, founded by St Columban, who had also formed its library; and in the collection obtained from the same venerable institution, the greatest part of the rescribed manuscripts has been discovered. “In examining carefully some manuscripts in the Ambrosian Library at Milan,” says Maio, in his preface, “I observed that one of great antiquity was a palimpsest. This manuscript had belonged to the convent of Bobbio, a monastery in Liguria, situated in the midst of the Apennines, which was founded by St Columban in the year 612, and the monks of which obtained considerable reputation for learning as well as sanctity. Gerbert, a Frenchman by birth, who became pope under the name of Silvester II., and attained so much celebrity for learning that he is one of those who are reported to have sold their souls to the devil, was head of this monastery in the tenth century, and added greatly to the reputation of the place, as well as to the contents of the library. The cardinal Frederic Boromeo, who founded the Ambrosian Library at the beginning of the seventeenth century, purchased the principal part of the collection at Bobbio, and brought it to Milan. Whilst I was examining these manuscripts,” he adds, “I remarked that one, which contained some of the writings of Sedulius, a Christian poet, was a palimpsest; and on looking very closely and attentively, I discovered traces of the former writing under the latter.” He then read the titles, pro Scauro, pro Tullio, and pro Flacco, and was able, with some trouble, to decipher the whole of the fragments of these three lost orations, written in large and very beautiful characters, each page being divided into three columns.^[9. The delight of the learned librarian on making this discovery knew no bounds. “O Deus immortalis, repente clamorem sustuli, quid demum video? En Ciceronem, en lumen Romanae facundiae, indignissimis tenebris circumseptum! Agnosco deperditas Tullii orationes; sentio ejus eloquentiam ex his latebris divina quadam vi fluere, abundantem sonantibus verbis ubcribusque sententiis.” {Ρrcef.) ] The oration for Scaurus was accompanied by scholia, elegantly written in small letters of a square form; and there were others in characters of a ruder form, but still ancient. These three fragments, together with the scholia (which Maio considers the production of Asconius Pedianus), were published at Milan, 1814, in one volume 8vo.

2. In the course of the same year, Monsignor Maio produced a second volume, containing various fragments of three other orations of Cicero, with some ancient annotations and commentaries never before published. The portions thus recovered belonged to the orations against Clodius and Curio, to that De Aere alieno Milonis, and to the oration De Rege Ptolemaeo. ^[10. For the first and third, see the fragments of Cicero, numbered “ Orat. 15, 16,” in Ernesti’s edition. But of the second, namely, that .D♯ Aere alieno Milonis, no fragment existed anterior to the discovery of Maio. ] These treasures had lain concealed under a Latin translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and were adjudged by the discoverer to belong to the fourth century. The palimpsest from which they were discovered had formed part of the collection obtained from Bobbio. The older writing was in very large and handsome characters, but less beautiful than that which contained the fragments of the three orations mentioned in the preceding paragraph; and there were only two columns in each page, a circumstance which seems to indicate that the writing is somewhat less ancient. The contents of these two volumes the learned editor afterwards united into one, which he published in 1817, with corrections of the fragments that had first appeared, and some additional notes and illustrations.^[11. This edition is entitled, “Μ. Tullii Ciceronis sex orationum partes, ante nostram actatem ineditae, cum antiquo interprete, qui videtur Asconius Pedianus, ad Tullianos septemtriones. Accedunt scholia minora vetera.” Milan, 1817, 8vo. ] The great antiquity of the practice of rescription is sufficiently attested by these various fragments of Cicero’s orations; indeed it is supposed that the speech for Scaurus was obliterated in the eighth century. But Latin manuscripts appear to have been more frequently subjected to this treatment than Greek manuscripts. The former are found to have undergone rescription at a date as remote as the seventh century; but of the latter not one has been met with in which the second writing seemed older than the eleventh century. With regard to the manuscripts from which the fragments above mentioned were recovered, Maio assures us that, in both, the ancient writing was as much superior to the modern, as the matter it contained was more precious; that, in fact, the form and the substance were both more excellent.^[12. Of the more modern matter the learned editor observes, a Sed enim et illud fatendum est plerosque palimpsestos Christiana argumenta, immo ipsos divinos libros excepisse, quorum materiam, quanquam religionis gratia exosculamur, eam tamen vacuas membranas multo mallemus occupâsse.” ]

3. The year 1815 proved very rich in discovery, and gave birth to no less than three volumes of unpublished works. One of these is peculiarly valuable and curious, as containing large portions of several orations of Symmachus, in whom, as Maio expresses it, breathed the last inspiration of Roman eloquence. 'The epistles of this famous orator were the only productions of his pen previously extant; but in these recovered fragments we have a copious specimen of his eloquence in two panegyrics on Valentinian, one on Gratian, a gratulation addressed to the father of the orator on his being appointed consul, and parts of several other works of the same kind, making eight in all. Maio likewise deciphered a portion of a panegyric of the younger Pliny, which was contained in the same palimpsest, but of which only the various readings are here given. The original manuscript is supposed to have belonged to the seventh or eighth century. These interesting fragments were reprinted at Frankfort in 1816, in one volume 8vo.

4. The same year another very ancient palimpsest was found in the Ambrosian Library, containing all the comedies of Plautus which have reached us, except four; and a fragment of the Vidularia, a lost comedy, of which all that previously remained consisted of about twenty lines, preserved by Priscian and Nonius. The ancient writing in this manuscript is exceedingly beautiful, and is supposed to be of the time of the Antonines; the more modern, consisting of part of the Old Testament in Latin, is conjectured to be of the seventh century. Maio deciphered a number of various readings, together with about sixty . inedited lines belonging to the different comedies; and restored the following spirited lines of the Stichus (act i. sc. 5), which had previously existed in an imperfect state:

Famem fuisse suspico matrem mihi, Nam postquam natus sura, satur nunquam fui; Neque quisquam melius referet matri gratiam, Quam ego matri meae retuli invitissimus.

This, therefore, is an important discovery, not so much on account of what has actually been recovered, as by reason of the expectations which it is calculated to encourage.
[7:16:766]

For if Monsignor Maio found a Latin Bible containing almost an entire copy of Plautus, it cannot be affirmed that any classical author is irrecoverably lost until every Bible in manuscript, and every other writing upon ancient parchment, has been diligently examined. There is no moment at which some important discovery may not be made, provided the labour of scrutinizing parchments be persevered in. That there are many palimpsests in the public libraries of Great Britain, particularly in the Bodleian at Oxford, which is singularly rich in manuscripts, can scarcely admit of a doubt. The number of manuscripts in Spain, and her vast mass of archives, have long been equally famous; nor is it impossible that several lost works, or portions of works, by Latin authors, may yet be found in that country. Although the search for manuscripts that are directly and obviously valuable may have proved fruitless, yet a very different result may follow when parchments are examined with a view to ascertain whether a lower stratum of writing exists beneath the sterile surface, and whether some of the most precious remains of ancient genius and eloquence may not be covered or concealed by the rubbish of chroniclers and ecclesiastical writers. Great as was the destruction which took place at the Reformation,^[13. In the Protestant parts of Europe the most frightful havoc was committed at the Reformation. Huge volumes containing the ancient services abounded in all the churches and monasteries. Most of these had been brought directly from Rome; and in the days when books of this kind were transcribed, it must have been considered as an act of piety to erase almost any writing whatever, to make way for the sacred offices. From the very nature of these books, indeed, there can be little doubt that much αηΑenl parchment entered into their formation; and as they were carefully preserved, exempt from accident or injury, there can be little doubt that in many, perhaps in most of them, there existed under the rescription the remains of more ancient writings. Yet, wherever they could be found, they were consigned to the flames without mercy, in virtue of enactments which enjoined the destruction of all popish books; and inestimable chances of discovery were thus for ever lost to the world. ] enough still remains to warrant the conviction, that were there more Maios to examine and decipher palimpsest manuscripts, there would be numerous additional and most important discoveries. Who knows but that, in the most paltry and unpromising volume, may be found the works of the most eloquent of historians; that

Pellibus exiguis arctatur Livius ingens?

5. The next discovery effected by Maio, from a manuscript of the same class, was that of the remains of the orator Fronto, who had flourished in the reign of Hadrian. This writer, though by birth an African, was in his day esteemed almost a second Cicero; yet of his writings little more remained than a few scattered sentences, preserved in the works of other authors. Maio, however, by his acuteness and perseverance, was enabled to recover a very considerable portion of Fronto’s works, which he published at Milan in 1815, in two vols. 8vo, under the title of M. Cornellii Frontonis Opera inedita, cum Epistolis item ineditis Antonii Pii, M. Aurelii, L. Veri et Appiani, necnon aliorum veterum fragmentis ^[14. This work, like a former one, was reprinted at Frankfort, in the year 1810. ]. The contents of the first volume consist of one book of epistles addressed to Antoninus Pius, two books to Marcus Aurelius, and two to Lucius Verus; two books of letters to friends; several letters addressed to Marcus Aurelius, on the subject of the Feriae at Alsium, a town in Etruria; and one to Lucius Verus, in which the orator laments the death of his grandson, one of the children of his son-in-law Victorinus. The second volume exhibits a considerable portion of two books, De Orationibus, addressed by Fronto to Marcus Aurelius; parts of various orations and epistles; and also a portion of an address to Antoninus, entitled De Bello Parthico consoling him for the reverses experienced in the Parthian war. Then follow some important fragments under the title of Principia Historiae ; a few playful prolusions on lighter subjects; and a book of epistles written in Greek. The work is concluded with a collection of all the fragments of Fronto’s works which have elsewhere been preserved, and with copious illustrations of those which were then for the first time published. In the palimpsest from which these curious remains were deciphered, the more recent writing formed part of the Council of Chalcedon; but the manuscript was unhappily much damaged, and altogether in a very imperfect state. Fronto was a voluminous writer, and composed works upon various subjects, amongst which was an Tnvective against the Christians. He had a great reputation as an orator, and was accounted the Cicero of his time; although his style, which is said to have united the siccum and the grave, does not very well accord with such a distinction. The writings of so remarkable a person, however, would, in any circumstances, be an object of interest; but they become doubly curious from having been thus marvellously brought to light.

6. In the mean time, Maio was preparing another publication of similar origin, which, in 1816, he gave to the world, under the following title, viz. Interpretes Veteres Virgilii Maronis ; Asper, Cornutus, Haterianus, Longus, Nisus, Probus, Scaurus, Sulpicius, et anonymus; e Veronensi palimpsesto. We have not met with any account of the Verona palimpsest here mentioned; but the work consists of previously inedited fragments of all the commentators enumerated in the title. A palimpsest manuscript, however, which soon afterwards engaged the attention of Monsignor Maio, enabled him to make most important additions to the discovery of Knittel already described; namely, that of the Gothic version of Ulphilas. This manuscript belonged to the Ambrosian collection, and from it Maio published, in 1820, Ulphilae Interpretatio Gothica, in Ambrosiano palimpsesto detecta, epistolarum tredccirn Divi Pauli, aliarumque partium aliquot Biblicarum, Esdroe nimirum, Nehemiae, Divi Matthiae, cum anonymi Hornilia, seu Tractatu, et cum parte Gothici calendarii. Not having seen this work, however, we are unable to give any particular account of it, or to specify the various important additions which it is understood to have made to the discovery of Knittel.

7. Maio now entered upon a more enlarged and important scene of action. ι His distinguished merit in this new field of discovery having obtained for him the notice of Pius VII., he was, by that pontiff, appointed keeper of the Vatican Library, and speedily justified this preferment by a discovery more interesting and valuable than any which he had hitherto made. In a palimpsest volume, which had formed part of the manuscript collection originally brought from Bobbio,^[15. The history of the manuscript which contained these precious remains may be very shortly stated. It originally belonged to the famous monastery at BotΛum, and was purchased by Paul V. more than two centuries'ago, with the knowledge that it was a palimpsest, and contained part of Cicero’s treatise De Iiepublica ; though, by some strange neglect, it was reserved for Maio to bring its contents to light. From the same original library most of the other manuscripts at Milan and Turin were also purchased. This library, as well as the monastery, was founded by the famous Irish saint, Columbanus, in the beginning of the seventh century; and most of the manuscripts, from which remains of ancient authors have been recovered, are inscribed, in a very old handwriting, Liber Sancii Columiani de Bobiο. ] and which contained, in the exterior writing, part of the commentary of St Augustin on the Psalms, he found [7:16:767]that the interior or more ancient writing had consisted of the long-lost books of Cicero De Republica, the most celebrated of all his works, and of which nothing had been known, in modern times, beyond the fragments preserved in the writings of Macrobius, Lactantius, Augustin, Nonius, and others. The manuscript was in excellent order; the characters were large and plain; and, in the leaves which remained, there was scarcely a page that could not be deciphered; but many of the pages were wanting. And there seemed reason to apprehend that the same deficiency would often occur in future discoveries, because the work last inscribed might not have been co-extensive with the original writingobliterated, and because, when the volume had been taken to pieces for the purpose of rescription, the whole of the leaves that contained the original writing might not have been put together again, but some of them applied to other purposes, and leaves taken from other works, or of new parchment, inserted in their place. But however this may be, in these invaluable pages a very considerable part of the first and second books of the celebrated treatise in question was found so perfect as to be completely recovered by the labour and sagacity of Monsignor Maio. The portions of the work thus rescued from oblivion were published at Rome in 1821,^[16. The work, as stated in the text, was published at Rome, with a grateful dedication to Pius VII. to whom Maio had been indebted, not only for his preferment, but also for numerous other acts of kindness and favour. It was also republished at London, 1823, in one vol. 8vo. ] with copious notes and illustrations, particularly an accurate account of the various chasms occasioned by the loss of original leaves, and accompanied with such a restoration of the four remaining books as could be effected from the less perfect portions of the manuscript, and the various fragments preserved by Sigonius and other critics. A finer specimen of editorial skill, learning, and sagacity, is nowhere to be found.

The part of this important treatise which has thus been unexpectedly brought to light, is amply sufficient to give a clear insight into the plan and style of the dialogues, as well as into the characters of the various interlocutors, under whose names the illustrious author chose to develope his own opinions. These were, the second Scipio Africanus, and his friend Laelius; L. Furius Philus; Μ. Manilius, whom Cicero elsewhere praises for his knowledge of the law; Sp∙ Mummius, the brother of Mummius Achaicus; Q. Aelius Tubero; P. Rutilius Rufus; Q. Mucius Scaevola; and C. Fannius, son-in-law of Laelius. The introduction to the first book is nearly complete; but that which stamps the highest value on the work is the luminous philosophy of the author on the subject of government and policy, as expounded by Scipio, the principal interlocutor, with unrivalled eloquence and felicity of expression. We now understand the grounds upon which the ancients preferred this to all Cicero’s philosophical works; and, on the whole, notwithstanding its still imperfect state, it is unquestionably one of the most interesting acquisitions that have been made, in the department of classical literature, since the original publication of the ancient authors, soon after the revival of letters. May we not indulge the hope that, ere long, some important additions will be made to the invaluable fragment which Maio has so laboriously and skilfully brought to light?^[17. In proof of the great antiquity of the practice of obliterating one writing to make room for another, Maio, in the learned preface to his edition of the dialogue De llepublica, cites part of a letter from Cicero to Trebatius, which is conclusive on the point. “Ut ad epistolas tuas redeam, caetera belle....nam quod in Palimpsesto, laudo equidem parsimoniam; sed miror quid in illa chartula fuerit quod delere malueris quam haec non scribere, nisi forte tuas formulas. Non enim puto to meas epistolas delere, ut reponas tuas. An hoc significas, nihil fieri? frigere te? Ne chartam quidem tibi suppeditare ?” (Ad Familiares, vii. 18.) The learned editor further informs us, that he had only met with palimpsest parchment, and that paper of every kind seemed to be unfit for such a purpose. ]

8. The zeal and the industry of Maio did not relax from success. On the contrary, soon after the appearance of the fragment of Cicero’s treatise De Fepublica, he gave to the learned world another elaborate publication, containing, 1. Juris Civilis Antejustinianei Reliquia inedita; 2. Symmachi Orationum partes; 3. C. Julii Victoris Ars Rhetorica; and, 4. L. Caecilii Minutiani Apulei Fragmenta de Orthographia. These remains were also recovered from a rescribed manuscript in the Vatican Library, and were, as usual, accompanied by notes, appendices, and illustrative plates. In the preface to this work, the learned editor expresses his unabated enthusiasm in exploring and deciphering the palimpsest manuscripts of the Vatican collection: “Pergo alacriter,” says he, “rescriptos Vaticanae Bibliothecae codices, pro meae stationis munere, ad publicum commodum explicare.” The praises due to his alacrity, as well as to his sagacity and perseverance, will not certainly be denied, nor even grudgingly awarded, by those who are capable of appreciating the full extent and importance of his long-continued labours in this interesting department of literary investigation.^[18. To do full justice to the merits of Monsignor Maio, it would be necessary to expatiate upon several learned and elaborate works, which, within the same period, his unexampled industry produced, from very different sources. As specimens of these, we shall mention only two, viz. 1. The splendid folio volume of fragments of the Iliad, with ancient illustrations, elegantly copied in outline, and unpublished scholia on the Udyssey, from a most valuable manuscript in the Ambrosian Library; to which are prefixed large and important prolegomena : and, 2. The Latin edition of the Chronological Canons of Eusebius, in two books, the first of which had been wholly lost to the western world, until it was recovered by Maio from an Armenian manuscript. In the latter work the editor had the valuable assistance of Dr Zohrab, a very learned Armenian. These and other works, a list of which will be found at the end of his Homer, may serve to show that, difficult and laborious as the task of deciphering palimpsest manuscripts may appear, it does not so exhaust the energies of an active mind, as to prevent the successful pursuit of other learned inquiries and researches. ]

The example of this extraordinary success could scarcely fail to excite the curiosity and stimulate the diligence of the learned; and, accordingly, another labourer of high qualifications soon entered the same field of inquiry. The library of the Chapter of Verona had long been famous for the number of the manuscripts contained in it; and it was also known to be remarkably rich in those which related to jurisprudence. In the Verona Illustrata of Maffei, published in 1732, the author had given an index to all the manuscripts, and particularly mentioned several leaves of parchment, some of which treated of Prescriptions and Interdicts, whilst others contained fragments of the Pandects, and part of the work of an ancient jurisconsult; “quai codici, se si fossero conservati, niente si ha in tal genere, che lor si potesse paragonare.” The leaves in question were afterwards bound up in a small volume, composed of fragments of different manuscripts; and extracts from both were published by Maffei, with a fac-similé of the characters, in his Istoria Teologica. But these curious relics attracted little attention, or rather were altogether forgotten, until the successful researches of Maio had awakened and animated the curiosity of the learned. In the year 1816, however, Haubold revived the recollection of them by printing at Leipzig a treatise entitled Notitia Fragmenti Veronensis de Interdictis; which appears to have attracted considerable notice. In the same year, Niebuhr, passing through Verona on his way to Rome, as Prussian envoy to the court of the Vatican, visited the library of the Chapter, and, during two days which he passed at Verona, [7:16:768]took an accurate copy of the fragment De Praescriptioni-bus et Interdictis, and also transcribed another, De Jure Fisci. But if this had been all, the labours of these two days, however meritorious, would perhaps have soon been forgotten. Fortunately for letters, however, he examined another manuscript, then numbered xiii., and found that the exterior writing contained some epistles of St Jerome, whilst a more ancient writing appeared underneath. On further examination Niebuhr perceived that the latter contained the work of some ancient jurisconsult; and having applied the infusion of galls to folio 97, he so far restored the characters as to be able to transcribe the portion of the original text therein contained. He then communicated his discovery to Savigny, and, with the assistance of the latter, published, in a periodical work, the specimen transcribed, accompanied with an ingenious commentary, in which he maintained that the manuscript referred to contained the Institutions of Gaius, and that the fragment De Praescriptiombus et Interdictis formed part of that work.

The result fully established the soundness of this conclusion. Two other labourers were therefore sent by the Berlin Academy of Sciences to work the mine which Niebuhr had thus happily opened; and having obtained the permission of the Chapter, they transcribed the manuscript almost entirely, only about one ninth part of the whole, or rather less, being found illegible. The transcript was immediately submitted to the academy, and the Institutions of Gaius first appeared at Berlin in the year 1820.^[19. Gaii Institutionum Commentarii iv. e codice rescripto Bibliothecae Capitularis Veronensis, a Frid. Bluhmio iterum collato secundum edit. J. F. L. Goeschen. Accedit Fragmentum veteris Jurisconsulti de Jure Fisci, ex aliis ejusdem Bibliothecae membranis transcriptum. Berolini, 1824, 8vo. We have not met with the less perfect edition of 1820. ] The manuscript from which this invaluable relic of ancient jurisprudence was recovered consists of 127 leaves. The more recent writing, which is in uncial characters, and of considerable antiquity, contains some of the works of St Jerome, chiefly his epistles, of which there are twenty-six. The more ancient is of two kinds; the one remarkable for its antiquity and elegance, and the other intermediate, that is, written over the first, and under the third or last writing The former of these is that in which the Institutions of Gaius were written; so that the intermediate kind had superseded the work of the Roman jurisconsult, but had, in its turn, yielded to the third and last writing. As to the age of the original manuscript, Niebuhr very early expressed an opinion that it was older than the time of Justinian; and Kopp, judging from the forms of the letters, the contractions, and various other indications, arrived at the same conclusion. It is creditable to the literary curiosity of Germany that the first edition of this work was almost immediately sold off. Bluhm, who had been concerned in the first transcription, paid another visit to Verona, where he re-examined the manuscript with great care; and the fruits of his labour appeared in the second edition, which was published in 1824. In the following year, a third edition appeared at Leipzig, without the notes of Goeschen, and with the piodern instead of the ancient orthography, which had been religiously retained in the two Berlin editions. Gaius was somewhat late in attracting attention in France, where learned lawyers were once so abundant; but the translation of M. Boulet had the effect of partially awakening the curiosity of his countrymen, by rendering this invaluable relic of Roman jurisprudence more easily and generally accessible.^[20. Who was Gaius, and when did he flourish? This is a question which it has been found exceedingly difficult to answer. From a number of circumstances, however, it has been conjectured that he was born under Hadrian, that he began to write about the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius, that be attained the summit of his celebrity under Μ. Aurelius, and probably died under Commodus. “Scripsit autem ille, quisquis fuerit, Institutiones,” says Gravina, “unde suas magnam in partem depromsit Justinianus and Justinian himself, in speaking of his own Institutions, thus acknowledges his obligations to Gaius: “Quas, ex omnibus antiquarum institutionibus, et pracipue ex Commentante Gaii nostri, compositus,” c. ]

The history of such extraordinary successes in deci phering palimpsest manuscripts ought surely to excite the emulation of scholars in other parts of Europe, where large collections are deposited, and lead them to examine whether, in many of these, similar materials may not be found. Knittel aptly denominates his rescript of various contents another Herculanum; and, in fact, more of importance has already been recovered from this class of manuscripts than from all the half-consumed volumes obtained from that once promising repository. Every information that may be wanted as to the true mode of examining and deciphering such manuscripts, will be found in the learned prefaces of Knittel, Barrett, and Maio; with much to encourage scholars to engage in the same pursuit, unless perchance their ardour be cooled by the prospect of the severe and unremitting labour which is indispensably necessary to ensure success. It should also be remembered, that the Latins commenced the practice of rescription as early as the sixth or seventh century, and continued it not only till the invention of printing, but even after that period; and that, making every allowance for the destruction which took place at the Reformation, the number of palimpsests still in existence must, beyond all question, be very great. All that is wanted, therefore, to ensure further acquisitions, is labour and research, united with patience and ordinary sagacity. By what has already been achieved, we are, so to speak, placed upon a vast plain, which has no defined limits; and although the horizon may seem to our senses to circumscribe the prospect, yet, on whichever side we advance, the apparent obstacles vanish, and our view still continues as extensive as before. (a.)