Pirro Ligorio in context
A pre-history, told from the receiving end of Mommsen's plan 从蒙森规划的"被承接端"讲起的前史
Mommsen's 1847 memorandum (see the companion edition on this matrix) is usually read as the founding charter of modern epigraphy. But every founding charter is also a verdict on what came before, and Mommsen's verdict was severe: Gruter is "obsolete," Muratori "fundamentally defective," Ligorio's forty volumes are a hazard. The page you are reading reverses the perspective. It treats the six centuries before 1847 not as the deficient state of affairs that Mommsen's CIL had to correct, but as a continuous tradition of inscription-recording with its own logic and its own gains. By the time Boeckh accepted the 1815 Berlin commission for the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, that tradition had already produced almost every methodological choice CIL would later inherit.
蒙森 1847 年的备忘录（参本矩阵中的配套版本）通常被当作现代铭文学的奠基章程来读。但任何奠基章程同时也是对过往的一份判决, 而蒙森的判决是严厉的: 格鲁特已"过时", 慕拉托利"根本上有缺陷", 利戈里奥的四十卷手稿是隐患。本页所做的是把视角反转。它把 1847 年之前的六个世纪, 不看作蒙森 CIL 所必须矫正之"残缺现状", 而看作一段延续性的铭文记录传统, 自有其逻辑, 亦自有其所得。等到勃克 (Boeckh) 在 1815 年接下柏林学院《希腊铭文大全》(Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) 的委托时, 这一传统其实已经把 CIL 后来所继承的几乎每一项方法学选择都先行试过一遍。
The four content tabs trace that pre-history in chronological order. 02 · Medieval witnesses opens around 1200 with the writers (Magister Gregorius, Boncompagno da Signa, Odofredus, Nikolaus Muffel) who could see inscribed stones in Rome but could not yet read them as historical evidence. 03 · Renaissance recovery follows the recovery of philological apparatus through Poggio Bracciolini (1429), Ciriaco d'Ancona (1391–1452), and Pirro Ligorio (1512–1583), and shows how Ligorio's encyclopedic but uncritical method made him both the discipline's most prolific recorder and its most prolific forger. 04 · Pre-Mommsen corpora traces the printed-corpus tradition from Apian and Mazochi (1521–23) through Smetius (1588), Gruter–Scaliger (1602), Doni (1647), Maffei (1732), and Marini (1799), ending at the 1815 Berlin Academy commission that would put Boeckh and (a generation later) Mommsen at the head of organised epigraphic science. 05 · Ligorio's catalogue is the original Ligorio-inscriptions catalogue that this page rebuilds from, kept as a separate searchable view so the reader can see what the first four tabs are explaining.
四个内容标签页按年代顺序追溯此前史。02 · 中世纪见证始于约 1200 年, 介绍那些能在罗马看到刻字之石、却尚不能把它们读成历史证据的写作者: 格里高利大师 (Magister Gregorius)、博恩孔帕尼奥 (Boncompagno da Signa)、奥多弗雷杜斯 (Odofredus)、尼克劳斯·穆费尔 (Nikolaus Muffel)。03 · 文艺复兴的回归追溯语文学装备的回归过程: 波吉奥·布拉乔利尼 (Poggio Bracciolini, 1429)、安科纳人奇里亚库斯 (Ciriaco d'Ancona, 1391–1452)、皮罗·利戈里奥 (Pirro Ligorio, 1512–1583), 并指出利戈里奥那种百科全书式但缺乏批判的方法, 何以使他既是该学科最高产的记录者, 也是最高产的伪造者。04 · 蒙森之前的总集追溯印本总集之传统: 自 Apian 与 Mazochi (1521–23), 经 Smetius (1588)、Gruter–Scaliger (1602)、Doni (1647)、Maffei (1732)、Marini (1799), 直至 1815 年柏林学院之委任，它把勃克 (一代之后再加上蒙森) 推上了组织化铭文学之首。05 · 利戈里奥目录则保留了本页所重写的原始利戈里奥铭文目录, 作为独立可检索之视图, 让读者得以见到前四页所解释之内容。
Sources for the four scholarly tabs come from two mounts: the user's own course lectures 2 (line drawing), 3 (squeeze), and 5 (early corpora), and the bibliography under documents/epidoc/inschriften/scholarship (Buonocore 2015, Datchev 2023, Stenhouse 2005 and 2013, Pérez Galván 2021, Orlandi et al. 2014/2015, Vagenheim 1991/2014, Chatzidakis 2018, Mandowsky & Mitchell 1963). Citations are placed inline; a per-tab references block sits at the bottom of each section.
四个学术标签页的资料来源有二: 一是用户自己的课程讲义之第 2 讲 (线描)、第 3 讲 (拓片)、第 5 讲 (早期总集); 二是挂载于 documents/epidoc/inschriften/scholarship 之下的参考书目 (Buonocore 2015、Datchev 2023、Stenhouse 2005 与 2013、Pérez Galván 2021、Orlandi 等 2014/2015、Vagenheim 1991/2014、Chatzidakis 2018、Mandowsky & Mitchell 1963)。引用置于行内; 每个标签页末附本节专属之参考目录。
What an inscription is, what an epigrapher does, where the discipline begins 铭文是什么, 铭文学者做什么, 学科从何开始
The remaining four tabs of this page take a single tradition (Latin and Greek inscription-recording from the Middle Ages onward) and ask how it produced a forty-volume manuscript catalogue in Ligorio\'s hands and a state-funded corpus in Mommsen\'s. Before walking that history, this opening tab establishes what the object of study actually is, what an epigrapher actually does, and where the surviving record of inscription-collecting actually begins. The worked example below is the so-called Themistocles Decree from Troizen (Athens, Epigraphic Museum 13330), the inscription used in the course\'s opening lecture as the showcase of what epigraphic method looks like in practice. 本页其余四个标签页接续讲一段单一传统: 自中世纪以降之拉丁与希腊铭文记录, 如何在利戈里奥手中产出四十卷手稿目录、在蒙森手中产出国家资助之总集。在走入这段历史之前, 本起首标签页先确立三件事: 研究对象究竟是什么、铭文学者究竟做什么、铭文收录之传世记录究竟从何处开始。下文之"工作示例"是所谓"特洛伊曾忒弥斯托克勒斯决议碑"(雅典铭文学博物馆藏品编号 EM 13330), 也是本课程开篇所用之示例, 用以展示铭文学方法在实操中的样貌。
§A What is epigraphy? definition, scope, materials什么是铭文学? 定义、范围、材料
Epigraphy (Gr. epi-graphē, "writing-upon") is the study of texts inscribed on durable materials. The standard handbook definition restricts it to texts on stone or metal, with secondary attention to durable supports such as wood, bone, ceramic, and instrumentum domesticum (lead pipes, brick stamps, amphora seals). It is distinguished from palaeography (the study of hands and scripts on papyrus, parchment, paper), and from numismatics (the study of coins and seals), although the three disciplines overlap and share many tools. The course this matrix supports follows the conventional definition: Greek and Latin epigraphy, taking as its primary object texts inscribed on stone and metal in Greek and Latin between roughly the 8th century BCE and the 6th century CE. Bruun & Edmondson 2015, "The epigrapher at work," 3–6; Buonocore 2015, 21
铭文学 (Epigraphy, 希腊语 epi-graphē, "刻写于其上") 研究的是刻写于耐久材料上的文本。标准手册之定义将其范围限于石、金属之文本, 另兼及木、骨、陶、家用器物 (instrumentum domesticum: 铅水管、砖戳、双耳瓶印章) 等耐久载体。它与古文字学 (palaeography, 研究纸草、羊皮、纸上之手书与字体) 及钱币学 (numismatics, 研究钱币与印章) 不同, 然三者多有重叠并共享许多工具。本矩阵所支持课程沿用传统定义: 希腊与拉丁铭文学, 主要研究对象为约公元前 8 世纪至公元 6 世纪间, 以希腊文或拉丁文刻写于石与金属上之文本。Bruun & Edmondson 2015, "The epigrapher at work," 3–6; Buonocore 2015, 21
What an epigrapher actually does. Three jobs that recur across every period: (1) autopsy and recording, going to the stone, reading what is there, and producing a record (line drawing, squeeze, photograph, transcript, today also 3D scan); (2) text constitution, identifying letters, deciding where one word ends and another begins, marking which letters are visible and which are restored; (3) contextualisation, dating the inscription, locating its findspot, identifying its persons and institutions, connecting it to the wider historical record. Each job has its own intellectual history, its own technologies, and its own characteristic failures, and the rest of this matrix walks them in turn. Bruun & Edmondson 2015, 6–14
铭文学者实际做什么。三项工作贯穿各时代: (1) 亲勘与记录 (autopsy and recording): 前往石头处、读出其上所刻、并制作记录 (线描、拓片、照片、转录, 今日还包括 3D 扫描); (2) 文本构成 (text constitution): 辨认字母、判定词界、标记哪些字母在场、哪些为编者所补; (3) 语境化 (contextualisation): 给铭文定年、定位其出土地、辨认其中人物与机构、把它接入更广之历史记录。每一项工作各有其学术史、其技术与其特征性之失误, 本矩阵其余各标签页将一一涉及。Bruun & Edmondson 2015, 6–14
§B Worked example: the Themistocles Decree from Troizen (EM 13330)工作示例: 特洛伊曾忒弥斯托克勒斯决议碑 (EM 13330)
In 1959, in the village of Troizen in the northeastern Peloponnese, an inscribed marble stele turned up in a kapheneion (a village coffee-house). Its discoverer, Michael H. Jameson, published it the next year in Hesperia 29 (1960). It was a 47-line decree, in Attic Greek, opening with the standard edoxe tēi boulēi kai tōi dēmōi ("resolved by the Council and the People") followed by the proposer\'s name: "Themistokles, son of Neokles, of the deme Phrearrhoi." The text orders the evacuation of Athens, the embarkation of all able-bodied men onto two hundred triremes, and the entrustment of the city to Athena and the other gods. It claimed, in other words, to be the very decree of Themistocles by which Athens evacuated to Salamis on the eve of the Battle of Salamis in 480 BCE. Jameson, "A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen," Hesperia 29.2 (1960), 198–223
1959 年, 在伯罗奔尼撒东北部之特洛伊曾村, 一块刻字大理石碑在一家 kapheneion (乡村咖啡馆) 中现身。其发现者 Michael H. Jameson 翌年发表于 Hesperia 29 (1960)。碑文 47 行, 阿提卡希腊语, 开篇即标准之 edoxe tēi boulēi kai tōi dēmōi ("议事会与人民决议"), 紧接着是提案人之名: "弗里阿尔洛伊 (Phrearrhoi) 区之尼俄克勒斯之子忒弥斯托克勒斯。"文本下令疏散雅典, 让所有可服役男子登上两百艘三列桨船, 并把城邦托付给雅典娜及其余诸神。换言之, 这块碑自称是忒弥斯托克勒斯之原始决议，即公元前 480 年萨拉米斯战役前夕雅典撤离时所通过之决议。Jameson, "A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen," Hesperia 29.2 (1960), 198–223
What an epigrapher does with this stone. The decree presents an editor with a famous and immediately recognisable text and an immediate problem: the document claims 480 BCE, but the carving cannot be that old. Jameson dated the stone "to the second half of the fourth century BCE" on the basis of letter forms and Attic orthography. Sterling Dow and Jameson, in a follow-up study (AJA 66, 1962), narrowed the carving to the third century, before 230 BCE, on the basis of stele shape, grid layout, line breaks at syllable boundaries, and the small "round letters" (omicron, theta, omega) characteristic of post-Hellenistic stoichedon practice. So the inscription is genuinely an inscription of c. 250 BCE bearing a text purportedly composed in 480 BCE, and the philological question is: how much of the carved text is the historical Themistocles\' words, how much is fourth-century reconstruction (the proposer\'s patronymic and demotic, which were not used in 480 BCE), and how much is third-century elaboration? Dow & Jameson, "The Purported Decree of Themistokles," AJA 66.4 (1962), 353–368; Johansson 2004
面对这块石头, 铭文学者要做的事。这则决议给编者一个赫赫有名、立即可识之文本, 同时又给一个立即可见之问题: 文献自称来自公元前 480 年, 但刻凿之时间不可能那么早。Jameson 据字母形与阿提卡正字法, 把石碑定年于"公元前四世纪后半"。Sterling Dow 与 Jameson 在续作 (AJA 66, 1962) 中, 据石碑形制、格网布局、按音节断行之习惯, 以及那些小而圆的字母 (omicron、theta、omega, 后希腊化 stoichedon 之典型特征), 进一步把刻凿时间定于公元前 3 世纪、约 230 年之前。换言之, 这是一块真正于约公元前 250 年所刻之铭文, 其文本声称源自公元前 480 年; 语文学之问题则是: 刻文中有多少属于历史上忒弥斯托克勒斯之原话, 有多少是四世纪的重构 (提案人之父名与区名 demotic 在公元前 480 年并不使用), 又有多少是三世纪之润色? Dow & Jameson, "The Purported Decree of Themistokles," AJA 66.4 (1962), 353–368; Johansson 2004
The cross-check with Herodotus. A literary cross-check is available: Herodotus, writing in the 430s BCE, describes the same evacuation (Histories 8.40–41) and earlier (Histories 7.144) Themistocles\' famous proposal to spend the silver from the Laurion mines on warships rather than distribute it to citizens. Herodotus does not quote a decree; he summarises. Demosthenes, in 343 BCE, mentions that a "decree of Themistocles" was read aloud in Athenian public assemblies (Or. 19.303), but does not say which decree. Between the literary record and the Troizen stone, four possibilities remain open: the stone reproduces a genuine 480 BCE decree as transmitted; it reproduces a fourth-century reconstruction sincerely meant; it reproduces a third-century forgery; or it reproduces a damaged earlier text re-inscribed and partially restored. None of the four can be excluded on epigraphic grounds alone, and the choice depends on how the epigrapher weighs each piece of evidence. Johansson, "Plutarch, Aelius Aristides and the Inscription from Troizen," Rheinisches Museum 147.3 (2004), 343–355; course lecture 1
与希罗多德之对读。文献端有一处可供对读: 希罗多德, 写作于公元前 430 年代, 描述了同一次撤离 (《历史》8.40–41), 并在更早处 (《历史》7.144) 提到忒弥斯托克勒斯之著名提案，把劳里翁银矿之收入用于造船而非分给公民。希罗多德并不引用决议条文, 仅作概述。狄摩斯提尼于公元前 343 年提及, 雅典之公民大会上曾朗读过"忒弥斯托克勒斯之决议"(《演说》19.303), 但未指明是哪一道。在文献证据与特洛伊曾石碑之间, 留有四种可能: 石碑忠实保存了一份公元前 480 年之真实决议; 它保存的是真心实意之四世纪重构; 它保存的是三世纪之伪刻; 或它保存的是某份较早受损文本之重刻并经部分复原。从纯铭文学之角度看, 这四种都无法独立排除; 选择依赖于编者如何权衡每一项证据。Johansson, "Plutarch, Aelius Aristides and the Inscription from Troizen," Rheinisches Museum 147.3 (2004), 343–355; 课程讲义第 1 讲
The Troizen decree is, in this sense, a small textbook of epigraphic method packed into a single 47-line stone. It demonstrates why dating an inscription is a separate question from dating its contents; why letter forms, layout, and orthography are evidence; why a literary cross-reference (Herodotus) cannot by itself fix the date; and why "the inscription itself is the earliest evidence we have for its text," as Johansson 2004 puts it bluntly. Every later tab on this page will return to one or another of these moves. Johansson 2004, 345
在此意义上, 特洛伊曾决议碑是浓缩在 47 行石头中的一本铭文学方法小教科书。它示范了若干事: 给铭文定年, 与给其内容定年, 是两个独立问题; 字母形、版式、正字法皆为证据; 文献交叉对读 (希罗多德) 单凭其本身, 并不能确定刻凿之年代; 而正如 Johansson 2004 所直言: "关于这块铭文之文本存在的最早证据, 就是这块铭文本身。"本页其后所有标签页, 都会反复回到这其中某一动作。Johansson 2004, 345
§C Key technical concepts关键技术概念
The Troizen analysis above used several technical terms which the remainder of this matrix also uses. Glosses follow, in roughly the order they appear; readers may find this section useful as a quick reference rather than as continuous prose.
上面对特洛伊曾的分析用到了几项技术术语, 它们在本矩阵其后亦会反复出现。下面给出释义, 大致按出现次序排列; 读者可把本节当作快速参考, 不必通读。
§D The earliest surviving compilation: Einsiedeln, c. 875最早传世之汇编: 艾因西德伦, 约 875 年
Where does the record of inscription-collecting actually begin? The answer is a single Carolingian-era manuscript in a Swiss Benedictine monastery: Stiftsbibliothek Einsiedeln, codex 326, written in the third quarter of the ninth century (c. 850–875) at the abbey of Fulda in central Germany, and preserved since at least the eleventh century at Einsiedeln in modern-day Switzerland. Its eighty-or-so inscriptions from the city of Rome, copied by a scribe who almost certainly never set foot there, are the earliest known sylloge that survives.
那么, 铭文收录之传世记录究竟从何处开始? 答案是一份加洛林时期的手稿, 现存于瑞士某本笃会修院: 《艾因西德伦修院图书馆 326 号抄本》(Stiftsbibliothek Einsiedeln, codex 326), 9 世纪第三个四分之一 (约 850–875 年) 在德国中部之富尔达 (Fulda) 修院誊写, 至迟自 11 世纪起即存于今瑞士艾因西德伦。其所载约八十块罗马城之铭文, 由一位几乎可以肯定从未到过罗马之缮写员抄录而成, 是现存最早之 sylloge。
As Buonocore documents in his survey of manuscript epigraphy, the Einsiedeln codex "takes the form of an itinerary intended as a guide for pilgrims," but in practice "the text seems to address readers far away from Rome who wanted an image of the city and its main pagan and Christian monuments through epigraphic captions." A typical entry begins with a topographical heading (IN CAPITOLIO, IN ARCV CONSTANTINI, AD VII LVCERNAS) and then gives the inscription text in lowercase Carolingian minuscule with the abbreviations expanded by the scribe\'s best guess rather than reproduced exactly. The inscription on the Arch of Constantine (= CIL VI 1139 = ILS 694) recorded in this codex was to have a "particular rhetorical impact on all the later descriptions of Rome." Buonocore 2015, 23 with fig. 2.1; Walser 1987
如 Buonocore 在其手稿铭文学综述中所记, 艾因西德伦抄本"以行程录之形式呈现, 原为朝圣者所设"; 但实际上"其文本似乎面向远离罗马之读者, 想要透过铭文式之题注获得这座城与其主要异教及基督教纪念物之图像"。典型条目以地理标题开头 (IN CAPITOLIO、IN ARCV CONSTANTINI、AD VII LVCERNAS), 继以加洛林小写体抄录之铭文文本，其缩写由缮写员尽力展开, 而非如实抄写。该抄本所载君士坦丁凯旋门铭文 (= CIL VI 1139 = ILS 694) 后来"对一切关于罗马的后世描述都产生了特殊的修辞影响"。Buonocore 2015, 23 与图 2.1; Walser 1987
Einsiedeln is not alone. A parallel Carolingian sylloge, the Corpus Laureshamense ("Sylloge from Lorsch," now BAV Pal. lat. 833), was written in the first half of the 9th century at the abbey of Lorsch and contains four sections: Christian inscriptions from the basilicas of Rome; documents on popes buried in the atrium of St Peter\'s; inscriptions from cities in northern Italy; and a rich collection of metrical (Christian) inscriptions. Two further ninth-century collections survive: one from the Carolingian abbey of Corbie, now in St Petersburg (RNB, F.XIV.1), and one in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Verdun (MS 45). And there was once a sixth- to eighth-century membrana vetusta with pagan inscriptions from Rome, Ravenna, Rimini, and Trier, used by Joseph Scaliger himself before its loss. Buonocore 2015, 23–24; Silvagni 1921; Vircillo Franklin 1998
艾因西德伦并非孤例。另一部加洛林时期之 sylloge，《劳尔斯铭文集》(Corpus Laureshamense, 今藏梵蒂冈拉丁抄本 833 号"Sylloge from Lorsch") ，于 9 世纪前半在劳尔斯 (Lorsch) 修院誊写, 分为四部分: 罗马诸大殿之基督教铭文; 关于葬于圣彼得堂前廊之诸教皇的文献; 意大利北部各城之铭文; 以及罗马 (兼及拉文纳与斯波莱托) 之大量诗体 (多为基督教) 铭文。另有两部 9 世纪之集子尚存: 一份出自加洛林时期之 Corbie 修院, 今存圣彼得堡 (RNB, F.XIV.1); 一份藏于凡尔登市立图书馆 (MS 45)。还有一部 6–8 世纪之 membrana vetusta, 载有罗马、拉文纳、里米尼、特里尔之异教铭文, 在散佚之前曾为 Joseph Scaliger 亲眼读过。Buonocore 2015, 23–24; Silvagni 1921; Vircillo Franklin 1998
Why these matter. Many of the inscriptions in Einsiedeln, Lorsch, Corbie, and Verdun have not been seen since. The Carolingian scribe\'s copy, made between the fifth and the ninth centuries from sources we no longer possess, is for these inscriptions the only surviving witness. When CIL VI was prepared in the second half of the 19th century, the Lorsch and Einsiedeln transcripts were treated as primary sources for hundreds of entries. The medieval philological sloppiness that Boncompagno admitted ("we cannot fully read or understand them") did not therefore end the textual record; it produced a parallel manuscript record, less accurate than the stones themselves but irreplaceable when the stones were lost. Buonocore 2015, 24
为何这些抄本重要。艾因西德伦、劳尔斯、Corbie 与凡尔登诸抄本所载铭文中, 多块自此再未现身。加洛林缮写员所据已散佚之 5–9 世纪原本作出之抄录, 对于这些铭文而言, 是唯一传世之见证。19 世纪后半《CIL VI》编纂时, 劳尔斯与艾因西德伦之抄本即被当作数百条铭文之第一手来源。博恩孔帕尼奥所坦承的中世纪语文学之力有不逮 ("我们今天已不能完全读懂或理解它们") 并未终结铭文之传世记录; 它反而生出一条平行之手稿记录, 其精度逊于石头本身, 但在石头亡佚时不可替代。Buonocore 2015, 24
§E Why the Mediterranean record is what it is为何地中海记录是其所是
A side-question worth a paragraph: why are there so many Greek and Latin inscriptions surviving from antiquity in the first place, compared to other ancient cultures? The standard answer combines three factors. First, materials: the Mediterranean limestones, marbles, and bronzes used for monumental inscriptions are unusually durable, surviving exposure for two millennia in a way that, say, the wax tablets and birch bark of northern Europe do not. Second, the public habit: from the late archaic period (roughly 7th century BCE in Greek territory, 6th c. in Etruria, 5th c. in Rome), Mediterranean polities increasingly used inscribed public documents (laws, treaties, victor-lists, funerary monuments) as a normal form of communication. Third, survival pathway: once Rome\'s public buildings, temples, and tombs were abandoned in late antiquity, the inscribed marbles were often re-used as building material in medieval churches, where they remained physically protected. A surprisingly large fraction of CIL\'s entries today come from inscribed stones reused as architraves, pavements, or thresholds in Christian basilicas. Bruun & Edmondson 2015, 4–6
值得用一段话补充一个旁支问题: 相比其他古代文明, 为何古代希腊与拉丁世界传世铭文如此之多? 标准回答有三项: 其一, 材料: 地中海所用之灰岩、大理石与青铜, 异常耐久, 露天保存两千年仍可识; 北欧的蜡板与桦皮则不然。其二, 公共习惯: 自古风晚期 (希腊大约公元前 7 世纪, 伊特鲁里亚约公元前 6 世纪, 罗马约公元前 5 世纪) 起, 地中海政体越来越倾向以刻字之公共文书 (法令、条约、胜利者名录、葬碑) 作为常规交流形式。其三, 传世通路: 古代晚期罗马之公共建筑、神庙与墓所一旦被弃用, 其刻字大理石常被作为建材重用于中世纪教堂, 在那里得以受保护。今日 CIL 之收录中, 来自重用为基督教殿堂之过梁、铺地或门槛之刻字石头, 数量惊人。Bruun & Edmondson 2015, 4–6
As of 2025 the major databases hold the following Greek and Latin counts, of which only about 40–60% can be reliably dated: roughly 218,000 Greek inscriptions (GIST), 80,000 Latin in EDH, 520,000 in EDCS, with substantial overlap between these last two (Heřmánková, Kaše & Sobotková 2021 estimate the de-duplicated total at about 130,000 datable Latin entries). The mismatch in scale (Greek to Latin, datable to undated) is itself a research question, taken up in the SDAM ETL paper and case study pages elsewhere in this matrix. course lecture 1 (database tables); Heřmánková, Kaše & Sobotková 2021
至 2025 年, 主要数据库所载之希腊与拉丁铭文数量大体如下, 其中仅约 40–60% 可可靠定年: 希腊铭文约 21.8 万 (GIST); EDH 之拉丁约 8 万; EDCS 之拉丁约 52 万 (后二者有大量重叠, Heřmánková、Kaše 与 Sobotková 2021 估算去重后之"可定年"拉丁条目约 13 万)。这一规模上之不对称 (希腊与拉丁、可定年与不可定年), 本身就是一个研究问题, 由本矩阵其他页面之 SDAM ETL 论文页与 案例研究页接续讨论。课程讲义第 1 讲 (数据库表); Heřmánková、Kaše 与 Sobotková 2021
The picture before the medieval witnesses. By the time Boncompagno walks past inscribed Roman tombs in the 13th century (next tab), the inscriptional record has already been continuously preserved by the limestone of the Mediterranean for fifteen hundred years, partially copied by Carolingian scribes who could not entirely read it, and partially built into medieval churches whose architects valued the marble more than the text. The discipline of epigraphy, as a self-aware scholarly enterprise, will not exist for another three centuries. But the material on which that discipline depends is already in place. 真正值得追问的, in the rest of this page, is how each generation of scholars learned to read what their predecessors had only managed to preserve.
中世纪见证人登场之前的图景。到 13 世纪博恩孔帕尼奥经过罗马刻字之墓时 (下一标签页), 铭文记录已被地中海石灰岩连续保存了一千五百年, 已由加洛林缮写员部分抄录 (虽然他们并不能完全读懂), 也已被部分嵌入中世纪教堂，其建筑者更重视大理石本身而非其上之文字。作为一门自觉之学术事业的铭文学, 还要再过三个世纪才会出现; 但它所赖以为基之材料, 早已就位。真正值得追问的, 是本页其后各标签页所讲述之事: 每一代学者如何学着去读他们的前辈仅仅设法保存下来之物。
Sources for §03 (medieval)第 03 节参考资料 (中世纪)
- Course lecture 1 (foundations + early recording):
20260302 intro epigraphy 1.pdf(local upload) - Jameson, M.H. "A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen." Hesperia 29.2 (1960), 198–223.
- Dow, Sterling, & M.H. Jameson. "The Purported Decree of Themistokles: Stele and Inscription." AJA 66.4 (1962), 353–368.
- Johansson, M. "Plutarch, Aelius Aristides and the Inscription from Troizen." Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 147.3 (2004), 343–355.
- Buonocore, M. "Epigraphic Research from Its Inception: The Contribution of Manuscripts." In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, ed. Bruun & Edmondson, Oxford 2015, 21–42. (Local:
1 2015 buonocore epigraphic research…pdf) - Bruun, Christer, & J. Edmondson. "The Epigrapher at Work." In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, Oxford 2015, 3–20.
- Walser, Gerhard. Die Einsiedler Inschriftensammlung und der Pilgerführer durch Rom. Stuttgart, 1987.
- Vircillo Franklin, C. The Latin Dossier of Anastasius the Persian: Hagiographic Translations and Transformations. Toronto, 1998. (esp. on the Corpus Laureshamense / Lorsch sylloge)
- Silvagni, A. "La silloge epigrafica di Cambridge." Rivista di archeologia cristiana 1 (1921).
- Heřmánková, P., Kaše, V., & Sobotková, A. "Inscriptions as data: digital epigraphy in macro-historical perspective." Journal of Digital History 1 (2021).
Seeing inscriptions, not yet reading them 能看见铭文, 却尚不能把它们读出来
Inscribed stones did not disappear in the Middle Ages. Medieval visitors to Rome walked past them constantly, copied bits of them, and tried to read them. The interesting question is what they did, and did not, manage to read. The four witnesses below, all from the 12th–15th centuries, show the same pattern: the material was visible, but the philological tools to convert it into historical evidence were not yet available. 中世纪并没有让刻字之石消失。来到罗马的中世纪访客时常从它们身旁走过, 摘抄其中片段, 试图读出来。值得追问的, 是他们读出了什么、没读出什么。下方四位见证人 (12 至 15 世纪) 显示出同一模式: 材料看得见, 但把它转化为历史证据所需的语文学工具尚未到位。
§A Boncompagno da Signa: tombs with "litterae punctatae" (c. 1235)博恩孔帕尼奥 · 带点标的字母 (约 1235 年)
Boncompagno da Signa (c. 1170, near Florence; after 1240) was the leading teacher of ars dictaminis (the art of letter-writing and official prose composition) of his generation at the University of Bologna, taught there intermittently from the 1190s until the 1230s alongside the early generations of Roman-law glossators. His Rhetorica antiqua, also called the Boncompagnus, was completed around 1215 and circulated as a standard model collection for European chancery prose for two centuries. In book 1.27.8 of that work he describes how Roman tombs are decorated with epitaphs proclaiming the dead person's virtues. He then notes, in passing, that in ancient times something different was done:
博恩孔帕尼奥·达·西尼亚 (Boncompagno da Signa, 约 1170 年生于佛罗伦萨附近, 1240 年以后卒) 是当时博洛尼亚大学 ars dictaminis (书信与公文撰写之艺) 学派的执牛耳者, 在 1190 年代至 1230 年代间断续任教博洛尼亚, 与第一代罗马法注释家同处一校。其《古修辞学》(Rhetorica antiqua, 又称Boncompagnus) 于约 1215 年完成, 此后两个世纪间作为全欧洲官署散文之标准范本流通。第 1.27.8 节描述罗马之墓如何以墓志铭装饰、以颂扬死者德行; 继而他随口指出, 古时的做法有所不同:
What did "litteris punctatis" mean to him? Almost certainly the interpuncts that Roman lapicides inserted between words on monumental inscriptions (SENATVS•POPVLVSQVE•ROMANVS). The medieval Latin tradition Boncompagno was trained in had long since abandoned this convention, moving first to scriptio continua (unspaced continuous writing) and then to medieval word-divided minuscule; the Roman dot was therefore visually present on monuments but invisible as a system. Boncompagno does not pretend to read the texts; he reports that the technique is foreign to him. The honesty is the interesting move: he registers an unfamiliar epigraphic convention without assimilating it to anything he already knows. As Orlandi, Caldelli & Gregori observe in their study of forgeries, the medieval "progressive loss of the capacity to understand and interpret ancient inscriptions in the period from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries" is precisely what kept medieval engagement honest: a tradition that could be forged was first a tradition that had to be read. course lecture 2; Orlandi, Caldelli & Gregori 2015, 43–44
他所谓的"带点的字母"是什么? 几乎可以肯定是词间点 (interpunct): 罗马石匠在纪念性铭文中在词与词之间所加的小点 (例如 SENATVS•POPVLVSQVE•ROMANVS)。博恩孔帕尼奥所受训之中世纪拉丁传统早已放弃此惯例, 先转入不分词连写 (scriptio continua), 再过渡到中世纪分词的小写体; 罗马式词间点因此在纪念物上视觉上仍在场, 但作为一种系统已经不可见。博恩孔帕尼奥并不假装能读这些文本, 他只是报告: 这种工艺对自己而言已经陌生。这份诚实正是值得注意的动作，他登记了一种自己不熟悉的铭文学惯例, 没有把它强行套进自己已知的任何一类。如 Orlandi、Caldelli 与 Gregori 在论伪刻一章中所指出, 中世纪"自 8 世纪至 13 世纪间, 理解与解释古铭文的能力逐渐丧失", 正是这种丧失使得中世纪的接触保持诚实: 一种可被伪造的传统, 其前提是先有一种可被读懂的传统。课程讲义第 2 讲; Orlandi、Caldelli 与 Gregori 2015, 43–44
§B Magister Gregorius: the bronze tabula prohibens peccatum (12th–13th c.)格里高利大师 · 青铜"禁止罪恶"之板 (12–13 世纪)
Magister Gregorius was an English cleric resident in Rome at some point in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. His Narracio de mirabilibus urbis Romae, surviving in a single Cambridge manuscript (St Catharine's College MS 3), is one of three distinct medieval "Marvels of Rome" texts, set apart from the standard Mirabilia urbis Romae tradition by its unusual willingness to measure (he records the diameter of the Pantheon's oculus) and to puzzle aloud over what he is seeing. In a typical passage, he describes how, in front of the bronze she-wolf in the papal palace forecourt, there stood a bronze tablet with what he calls "the more important precepts of the law":
格里高利大师是 12 世纪末至 13 世纪初居住在罗马的一位英国神职人员。其《关于罗马奇观之叙述》(Narracio de mirabilibus urbis Romae) 仅保存于剑桥之一份手稿 (St Catharine's College MS 3) 中, 与标准的《罗马奇观录》(Mirabilia urbis Romae) 传统并列而风格独立: 它愿意去测量 (他记下万神殿穹顶 oculus 之直径), 也愿意当面就所见之物自问自答。在一段典型文字中, 他写道: 在教皇宫前廊的青铜母狼像之前, 立有一块青铜板, 上面所载乃他所谓"较重要之法律条文":
The detail "almost all the words have to be supplied" is precise. Magister Gregorius is describing exactly what an unschooled reader encounters when meeting a Roman legal inscription full of standard abbreviations: S(enatus) P(opulus) Q(ue) R(omanus), P(ublius) F(ilius), D(is) M(anibus), and so on. Without an apparatus of expansion conventions, the surface of the text remains opaque even when the letters are individually legible. The subaudire ("to supply by understanding") that he names is the precise philological move that the round-bracket convention of Leiden 1932 would later codify. Pérez Galván 2021, "Not Set in Stone," §1
"几乎每一个词都须自行补出"，这句话的精准度很高。格里高利大师所描述的, 正是一位未受训练的读者遇上一篇满是罗马标准缩写之法律铭文时的处境: S(enatus) P(opulus) Q(ue) R(omanus)、P(ublius) F(ilius)、D(is) M(anibus) 等等。在缺乏一套展开缩写之惯例的情形下, 即便每一个字母都能辨认, 文本的表面仍然不透明。他所点出的 subaudire（"以理解补出"）, 正是 1932 年莱顿规约用圆括号予以编码之精确动作。Pérez Galván 2021, "Not Set in Stone", §1
A generation later, the Bolognese jurist Odofredus de Denariis (c. 1200–1265), one of the senior glossators of the Justinianic Corpus Iuris Civilis and a teacher of the school that gave medieval Europe its working Roman law, made the same observation. Commenting on Digest I.2.2 (Pomponius's account of the history of Roman law), he describes seeing "two bronze tablets" of legal text near the Lateran in Rome and identifies them, perhaps wishfully, with the lost Twelve Tables. His complaint about reading them is structurally identical to Magister Gregorius's: "it is badly written because there is no punctuation, no paragraph mark, and unless you separate the letters you cannot understand anything." The medieval problem is not that the stones are missing; it is that the editorial apparatus is. Odofredus on Dig. I.2.2 (Lyon, 1550); course lecture 2
一代人之后, 博洛尼亚法学家奥多弗雷杜斯·德·德纳里 (Odofredus de Denariis, 约 1200–1265) ，查士丁尼《国法大全》(Corpus Iuris Civilis) 资深注释家之一, 中世纪欧洲所行罗马法之教学派系奠基人之一，作出了同样的观察。他在注释《学说汇纂》I.2.2 (庞波尼乌斯关于罗马法史之记述) 时, 描述自己在罗马拉特朗附近所见之"两块青铜板", 并怀着或许有些一厢情愿之心愿, 把它们比附为失传的《十二表法》。他对其难以阅读的抱怨, 在结构上与格里高利大师之言完全同型: "它写得很糟, 因为那里没有标点 (punctus), 字母中也没有分隔记号 (§ in litera); 你若不把字母拆分开来 (resolveretis litteras), 就什么都看不懂。"中世纪的问题不是石头不在场, 而是编辑装备不在场。Odofredus 注《学说汇纂》I.2.2 (里昂版 1550); 课程讲义第 2 讲
§C Nikolaus Muffel: a 15th-century pilgrim and his bronze tablet (1452)尼克劳斯·穆费尔 · 一位 15 世纪朝圣者与他的青铜板 (1452 年)
The Nuremberg merchant and city councillor Nikolaus Muffel (c. 1410–1469) accompanied Emperor Frederick III to Rome in 1452 for the imperial coronation. Muffel served on Nuremberg's senior council (Innerer Rat) and held the city treasurership for nearly two decades; his German Beschreibung der Stadt Rom (preserved in a Stuttgart manuscript) belongs to a small genre of pilgrim-merchant Rome accounts that mix sacred itinerary with antiquarian curiosity. His own fortunes ended dramatically: convicted of embezzling municipal funds in 1469, he was executed in his hometown the same year. Among the marvels he records on the 1452 trip, beside the bronze she-wolf:
纽伦堡商人兼市议员尼克劳斯·穆费尔 (Nikolaus Muffel, 约 1410–1469) 于 1452 年随同神圣罗马元首弗里德里希三世赴罗马参加加冕。穆费尔在纽伦堡资深市议会 (Innerer Rat) 任职, 担任市财库长近二十年; 其德文《罗马城记》(Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, 现存于斯图加特一手稿中) 属于朝圣商人罗马见闻这一小型体裁, 把宗教行程与古物好奇糅在一起。他本人之命运最终戏剧化: 1469 年因挪用市府公款获罪, 同年于本乡被处死。他于 1452 年那次旅行所记之奇景中, 紧邻青铜母狼一处, 写道:
As the course lecture observes, none of the three witnesses (Boncompagno, Magister Gregorius, Muffel) could in fact have been looking at the Twelve Tables, whose fragments were lost in antiquity. What they were probably looking at was the bronze Lex repetundarum (the bronze repetundae law of 123–122 BCE), or the Lex agraria of the Tabula Bembina. The medieval and 15th-century identification of these bronze plaques with the legendary Twelve Tables is itself the historical fact worth recording: it shows that the inscriptional object was preserved long after the philological tradition that named it correctly was lost. course lecture 2, slide 12
如课程讲义所言, 上述三位见证人 (博恩孔帕尼奥、格里高利大师、穆费尔) 之中, 实际上不可能有任何一位看见的真是《十二表法》, 后者之残片在古代就已散佚。他们多半看到的, 是青铜的《索贿法》(Lex repetundarum, 公元前 123–122 年) 或贝姆比纳铜板之《土地法》(Lex agraria)。中世纪与 15 世纪把这些青铜板误认作传说中的《十二表法》, 这一事实本身就值得记录: 它说明铭文物件在为之命名的语文学传统消失之后, 仍长期保存了下来。课程讲义第 2 讲, 幻灯 12
§D The pattern: visible material, missing apparatus总体模式: 材料在, 装备不在
The lesson from the four witnesses is uniform. Inscribed stones and bronzes were physically available in medieval Rome. What did not yet exist were three things: a vocabulary for naming editorial interventions (the brackets and dots later codified at Leiden), a tradition of cross-referencing the inscription with literary sources, and a notion that an inscription is a historical document with a precise date and provenance. These three are what the Renaissance recovery (next tab) had to invent. The medieval witnesses did not invent them, but they did the prerequisite work of being honest about not understanding what they were looking at. That honesty matters. As the standardization section of the Mommsen page argues, it is precisely the editor's willingness to mark uncertainty rather than smooth it over that distinguishes a philological tradition from a poetic one. cf. the Mommsen page, "Standardization" §A
这四位见证人给出的教益是一致的。中世纪罗马在物质上是有铭文之石和青铜板可看的。当时还不存在的, 是三件事: 一种用于命名编辑介入之词汇 (即后来在莱顿被规约编码的括号与点)、一种把铭文与文献来源加以交叉对读之传统, 以及"铭文是带有精确日期与出处之历史文献"这一观念。这三件正是文艺复兴回归 (下一标签页) 所必须发明的。中世纪见证人并未发明这三件, 但他们做了先决之工: 对自己看不懂的东西保持诚实。这份诚实重要。正如蒙森页"标准化"一节所论, 一个语文学传统之所以区别于诗学传统, 关键正在于编者愿意把不确定性标出、而不是把它抹平。参蒙森页"标准化"§A
Sources for §03 (medieval)第 03 节参考资料 (中世纪)
- Course lecture 2 (line drawing):
20260312 intro epigraphy 2 line drawing.pdf(local upload) - Boncompagno da Signa, Rhetorica antiqua 1.27.8 (excerpted in course lecture 2)
- Magister Gregorius, De mirabilibus urbis Romae, §33 (12th–13th c.)
- Odofredus, gloss on Dig. I.2.2 (13th c.)
- N. Muffel, Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, c. 1452
- Pérez Galván, "Not Set in Stone: Epigraphy between Manuscript and Print in Renaissance Europe, 1521–1603," 2021. (Local:
2021 pérez galván not set in stone…pdf) - Buonocore, "Epigraphic Research from Its Inception: The Contribution of Manuscripts," in Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 2015, esp. 23–24 on the Einsiedeln manuscript tradition. (Local:
1 2015 buonocore epigraphic research…pdf)
From rediscovered manuscripts to the encyclopedic antiquarian 从抄本之再发现到百科全书式的古物学家
The 15th century recovered three things that medieval witnesses had lacked: a manuscript-philology trained eye (Poggio Bracciolini), the habit of systematic on-site recording (Ciriaco d'Ancona), and the ambition of an encyclopedic corpus that would name every inscription, every god, every magistracy (Pirro Ligorio). The first two would feed forward into CIL. The third would also feed forward, but as a problem. 15 世纪从中世纪所缺中找回了三样: 一双在抄本语文学中受过训练的眼睛 (波吉奥·布拉乔利尼)、系统性现场记录之习惯 (奇里亚库斯), 以及"以一部百科全书式总集为每一块铭文、每一位神祇、每一种官职命名"之雄心 (皮罗·利戈里奥)。前两者会前向汇入 CIL。第三者也会前向汇入, 但是作为一个问题汇入。
§A Poggio Bracciolini and the Sylloge Poggiana (1429)波吉奥·布拉乔利尼与《波吉奥铭文集》(1429)
Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380, Terranuova in Tuscany; 1459, Florence) served as apostolic secretary to eight popes between 1404 and 1452 (Innocent VII, Gregory XII, Alexander V, John XXIII, Martin V, Eugenius IV, Nicholas V, Calixtus III) and ended his career as chancellor of Florence (1453–1458). During the Council of Constance (1414–1418) he hunted manuscripts in the German-speaking monastic libraries the council had brought within reach: at St Gall in 1416 he recovered Quintilian's Institutio oratoria; in January 1417 (perhaps at Fulda or Murbach) he recovered the only surviving manuscript of Lucretius' De rerum natura; in the same campaign he found Cicero's pro Quinctio, pro Caecina, pro Murena, and Statius's Silvae. The same eye that recognised a Carolingian copy of Lucretius as worth recovering recognised Roman inscriptions as worth copying. As Datchev tabulates, between roughly 1405 and 1430 Poggio personally copied 87 ancient inscriptions in Rome; around 1429–1430 he gathered approximately 52 of these into the so-called Sylloge Poggiana, preserved among others in Vat. lat. 9152, fol. 28v–29r, and woven into book IV of his De varietate fortunae. Datchev 2023, 445; Weiss 1973, ch. 4; course lecture 2, slides 14–18
吉安·弗朗切斯科·波吉奥·布拉乔利尼 (Poggio Bracciolini, 1380 年生于托斯卡纳之 Terranuova; 1459 年卒于佛罗伦萨) 于 1404 至 1452 年间, 先后任八位教皇之使徒书记 (英诺森七世、格列高利十二世、亚历山大五世、若望二十三世、玛尔定五世、欧根尼乌斯四世、尼古拉五世、加里斯都三世), 1453–1458 年担任佛罗伦萨之最高文官 (chancellor)。康斯坦茨大公会议期间 (1414–1418), 他在该会议带至其够得着之德语区修院图书馆中遍寻手稿: 1416 年于圣加伦 (St Gall) 找回昆体良《演说家训练》(Institutio oratoria); 1417 年 1 月 (或在富尔达 Fulda 或在穆尔巴赫 Murbach) 找回卢克莱修《物性论》(De rerum natura) 之唯一传世抄本; 同期还找回西塞罗《为昆克提乌斯辩》、《为凯齐纳辩》、《为穆雷纳辩》以及斯塔提乌斯《林木集》(Silvae)。把卡洛林时代之卢克莱修抄本认作"值得重见之物"的那双眼睛, 也把罗马铭文认作"值得抄录之物"。如 Datchev 所列数据, 1405 至 1430 年间, 波吉奥亲手在罗马抄录了 87 块古铭文; 约 1429–1430 年, 他把其中约 52 块整理成所谓《波吉奥铭文集》(Sylloge Poggiana), 留存于梵蒂冈拉丁抄本 9152 号第 28v–29r 等处, 并被编入其《论命运之多变》(De varietate fortunae) 第四卷。Datchev 2023, 445; Weiss 1973, 第 4 章; 课程讲义第 2 讲, 幻灯 14–18
Two features of Poggio's practice already mark a discontinuity with the medieval pattern. First, he distinguishes inscriptions he has copied from autopsy from those he has taken from earlier manuscripts. Second, he writes the copies in a humanistic script designed to imitate the Roman square capital of the original. As Pérez Galván argues, this is not antiquarian theatre; it is an editorial choice that signals "this came from an inscription," distinct from "this came from a book." Renaissance philology is, at heart, a question of how to declare your source. Pérez Galván 2021, §1
波吉奥实践的两个特征已经把这一时期与中世纪模式拉开。其一, 他把自己亲勘所抄之铭文, 与他从更早抄本中转录之铭文加以区分。其二, 他用一种刻意模仿罗马方块大写体之人文主义字体来书写, 以暗示"此条来自铭文"而非"此条来自书本"。如 Pérez Galván 所论, 这并非古风作秀, 而是一种用以申明出处之编辑选择。文艺复兴语文学其内核, 正是"如何申明你的来源"之问题。Pérez Galván 2021, §1
§B Ciriaco d'Ancona: the first systematic traveller-recorder (1391–1452)安科纳人奇里亚库斯: 第一位系统性的旅行记录者 (1391–1452)
Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli of Ancona (1391–1452) is the figure that both Mommsen in the 19th century and Giovanni Battista de Rossi in the early days of Christian epigraphy called "the founder of our discipline." He was born to a patrician but downwardly-mobile Ancona merchant family (his father had lost the family fortune to shipwrecks and pirates), apprenticed to the family commercial company as a boy, promoted to senior clerk in 1412, and elevated to the senior magistracy of anziano of Ancona while still in his early twenties. His Adriatic and Aegean commercial travels gave him access to the entire eastern Mediterranean: in 1415 he was in Palermo trading chestnuts and fir-trees; in 1418 he reached Constantinople; in subsequent decades he visited Athens and the Peloponnese, Egypt, Cyprus, Anatolia, the Black Sea ports, and the Aegean islands. He learned Latin in mid-life under the Mantuan humanist Gasparino Barzizza and later self-taught Greek to read inscriptions. By the end of his life he had recorded approximately 1,000 ancient inscriptions across six notebooks (commentaria) and his letters and presentation copies; most of the notebooks were destroyed in the Sforza library fire at Pesaro in 1514, and the modern reconstruction relies on his friend Francesco Scalamonti's biography (composed 1434–1452) and on the surviving fragments edited by Bodnar with Foss (2003). Datchev 2023, 446–449; Bodnar with Foss 2003, ix; Scalamonti, Life of Ciriaco, §§5–43
安科纳人奇里亚库斯·德·皮齐科利 (Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli, 1391–1452) 是 19 世纪之蒙森与早期基督教铭文学界之 Giovanni Battista de Rossi 共同称为"我们学科之奠基者"的人。他出身安科纳一个贵族但家道中落的商人之家 (其父因海难与海盗劫掠而散尽家财), 少年时入家族商业公司学徒, 1412 年升任高级账房, 仍二十出头便已选任安科纳之 anziano 高级行政职。亚得里亚海与爱琴海的商业行旅使他得以遍访整个东地中海: 1415 年他在巴勒莫贩运栗子与冷杉; 1418 年到达君士坦丁堡; 此后数十年间访问雅典与伯罗奔尼撒、埃及、塞浦路斯、安那托利亚、黑海诸港与爱琴诸岛。他于中年时从曼图亚人文学家 Gasparino Barzizza 学拉丁文, 后又自学希腊文以读铭文。临终时他已记录约 1000 块古铭文, 分藏于六本笔记 (commentaria) 与书信赠本中; 这些笔记大多在 1514 年佩萨罗 (Pesaro) 之斯福尔扎家族图书馆大火中焚毁, 现代重建工作依赖其友 Francesco Scalamonti 1434–1452 年间所撰之传记, 及 Bodnar 与 Foss (2003) 所编纂之传世残篇。Datchev 2023, 446–449; Bodnar with Foss 2003, ix; Scalamonti《奇里亚库斯传》§§5–43
What was new in Ciriaco's method was not the volume but the discipline: he records inscriptions together with their architectural and material setting. The course lecture reproduces his entry on Sparta, where he notes the diameter of a column ("7 feet, 8 with capital") alongside the architrave text, transcribes the dedicatory inscription in capital letters, and notes who dedicated it ("Julius Agesiaos and Flavius Agesilaos, sons of Kallistonikas, to the August gods and to Lacedaemon"). Likewise his note on the Temple of the Winds at Athens describes the eight-sided marble, names each wind, and pairs each name with its inscription. course lecture 2, slides 22–28
奇里亚库斯方法的新意, 不在数量而在纪律: 他在记录铭文时把它与建筑及物质环境一起记录下来。课程讲义复制了他关于斯巴达的一条: 他记下柱身直径 ("7 英尺, 含柱头 8 英尺"), 旁附柱顶横梁之铭文, 以大写字母转录献辞, 并注明献主 ("Kallistonikas 之子 Julius Agesiaos 与 Flavius Agesilaos, 献给 August 诸神与拉凯代孟")。同样, 他对雅典风之神庙之记述, 记下八面大理石、八方风名, 并把每个风名与其铭文配对。课程讲义第 2 讲, 幻灯 22–28
As Datchev has demonstrated, Ciriaco's contribution lay in transforming the sylloge form (which Poggio had already inherited from medieval practice) into something closer to an artifact catalogue, in which the physical monument, not merely the words carved on it, became the unit of scholarly attention. When text was missing, Ciriaco used ellipses to indicate the lacuna, a proto-notation of uncertainty that anticipates the bracket conventions of much later centuries. None of his contemporaries did this. Datchev 2023, 462, 470–471
如 Datchev 所示, 奇里亚库斯的贡献在于把 sylloge 形式 (波吉奥已从中世纪手稿实践中继承下来) 转化为更接近一份器物目录 (artifact catalogue) 的东西，其中作为学术关注单位的, 不仅是石上之字, 更是物件本身。文本残缺时, 奇里亚库斯以省略号标示阙文, 这是一种关于不确定性的原型化记法, 早于后世数百年的括号规约。他的同代人无一这样做。Datchev 2023, 462, 470–471
§C Pirro Ligorio: encyclopedic ambition and its cost (1512–1583)皮罗·利戈里奥: 百科式雄心及其代价 (1512–1583)
Pirro Ligorio (c. 1512, Naples; 30 October 1583, Ferrara) is one of the most prolific antiquarians of the Italian sixteenth century and also the most prolific Renaissance forger of Roman inscriptions. Trained in Naples as a painter and active in his early Roman years (from 1534) as a façade-fresco painter for several Roman cardinals and for Pope Paul III, he moved decisively to architecture and antiquarian studies under the patronage of Cardinal Ippolito II d'Este of Ferrara, for whom he excavated Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli and designed the Villa d'Este (1549 onward). After Cardinal Ippolito's death in 1572 he transferred to Ferrara, working for Duke Alfonso II d'Este until his own death. Across four decades he produced approximately 40 manuscript volumes on Roman antiquity, organized first by topical category (gods, places, professions) and then absorbed into an alphabetical encyclopedic structure. The volumes were divided after his death between two ducal libraries: about 30 volumes are now in the State Archive of Turin (where they survived a 1904 fire only partially), and 10 volumes are in the National Library of Naples (Ms. XIII.B.7 being the volume that Erna Mandowsky and Charles Mitchell edited in 1963). Across these volumes are drawings, plans, sketches, and transcriptions of many thousands of inscriptions, integrated with architectural reconstructions and learned commentary. Mandowsky & Mitchell 1963, 1–14; Stenhouse 2005, ch. 5; Loffredo & Vagenheim 2019
皮罗·利戈里奥 (Pirro Ligorio, 约 1512 年生于那不勒斯; 1583 年 10 月 30 日卒于费拉拉) 是意大利 16 世纪最多产的古物学家之一, 同时也是文艺复兴时期产出罗马铭文伪刻最多的人。他在那不勒斯习画, 进入罗马早期 (1534 年起) 主要为多位罗马红衣主教与教皇保罗三世绘制建筑外墙湿壁画; 后转向建筑与古物学, 受费拉拉红衣主教伊波利托二世·德·埃斯特 (Ippolito II d'Este) 资助, 为其主持哈德良别墅 (Villa Adriana) 之发掘, 并设计了埃斯特别墅 (Villa d'Este, 1549 年起)。1572 年伊波利托去世后, 利戈里奥转赴费拉拉, 为公爵阿方索二世·德·埃斯特 (Alfonso II d'Este) 服务直至辞世。四十年间他完成约 40 卷关于罗马古物之手稿; 编排方式先按主题分类 (神祇、地点、职业), 后归入字母顺序之百科结构。这些卷帙在他去世后分藏两大公爵图书馆: 约 30 卷今存都灵国家档案馆 (1904 年一场大火使其部分受损), 另 10 卷藏于那不勒斯国家图书馆 (其中 Ms. XIII.B.7 一卷即 Erna Mandowsky 与 Charles Mitchell 1963 年所校订之底本)。各卷中含数千幅图、平面、草图与铭文转录, 并伴有建筑复原与博学评注。Mandowsky & Mitchell 1963, 1–14; Stenhouse 2005, 第 5 章; Loffredo & Vagenheim 2019
Some of what Ligorio recorded is uniquely valuable. Marble Plan with Funerary Inscription of a Freedwoman and a Freedman of Octavia and Nero (CIL VI 9015, now in the Perugia Archaeological Museum) is preserved partly because Ligorio drew the stone in the early 1550s, with the structural plan engraved on it intact, before later breakage. Vagenheim 1991 showed that Ligorio's drawing remains the most reliable witness to the plan as the lapicide originally laid it out. Vagenheim 1991, "Pirro Ligorio et la découverte d'un plan ichnographique"
利戈里奥所记之物中, 有一些独具价值。带有屋大维娅与尼禄之自由民夫妇墓志的大理石平面图 (CIL VI 9015, 今藏佩鲁贾考古博物馆) 之所以局部保存下来, 一部分原因是利戈里奥在 1550 年代初为之绘了图，图上所刻之建筑平面尚完整, 在后来的破损之前。Vagenheim 1991 已证明: 利戈里奥的此图仍是石匠当初布局之最可靠见证。Vagenheim 1991, "Pirro Ligorio 与一份图解平面之发现"
Some of what Ligorio recorded was forged. Of the approximately seventy stone-carved forgeries that the CIL editors would later condemn under the principle probato dolo totum testem infirmari ("once his deceitful intent has been proven, his entire credibility as a source is invalidated"), the vast majority pass through Ligorio's manuscripts. Orlandi, Caldelli & Gregori 2014 / 2015 estimate that CIL VI alone contains 3,643 falsae, of which a substantial share traces back to Ligorio. Orlandi et al. 2014/2015, 43–45
利戈里奥所记之物中, 有一些是伪造的。CIL 编者后来依"probato dolo totum testem infirmari"原则 (一旦其欺诈意图获证, 其整体作为来源之可信度即作废) 判作伪造的约七十块石刻伪造, 绝大多数都从利戈里奥的手稿中过手。Orlandi、Caldelli 与 Gregori 2014/2015 估算, 仅 CIL VI 一卷便含有 3,643 项伪刻, 其中相当大一部分可追溯至利戈里奥。Orlandi 等 2014/2015, 43–45
The interesting question is why. Recent scholarship (Stenhouse 2005; Orlandi 2009; Balistreri 2019; Hopkins & McGill 2023) has largely abandoned the moralising reading that takes Ligorio for a counterfeiter in the criminal sense. Orlandi describes him as "moved by the desire to give the dead their souls back" (restituire l'anima agli estinti): faced with epigraphic gaps in the historical record (a magistrate without an inscription, a known temple without a dedicatory text), Ligorio supplied the missing material the way a Renaissance painter supplied a damaged fresco. He was operating in a register that the modern philological apparatus rules out, but that in his own time was not yet illegitimate. About one fifth of the seventy stone-carved forgeries originally condemned under probato dolo have since been rehabilitated as genuine. Orlandi et al. 2015, 45, 50; Hopkins & McGill 2023
值得追问的是: 为什么? 近来的研究 (Stenhouse 2005; Orlandi 2009; Balistreri 2019; Hopkins & McGill 2023) 大体已放弃把利戈里奥视为刑事意义上之造假者的道德化读法。Orlandi 把他描述为"为复活死者灵魂所驱使" (restituire l'anima agli estinti): 面对历史记录中的铭文学缺口 (一位有官职而无铭文的高官, 一座有名而无献辞之神庙), 利戈里奥就像文艺复兴画家修复残损湿壁画那样, 把缺失之物补上去。他所操作之语域, 是现代语文学装备所排除的, 但在他自己的时代尚未被定为非法。原本依 probato dolo 原则被判伪造的七十块石刻伪造中, 约五分之一已被重新认定为真品。Orlandi 等 2015, 45, 50; Hopkins & McGill 2023
§D Recording technologies: drawing, copying, eventually the squeeze记录技术: 绘图、抄录, 最终走向拓片
Throughout this entire period (1429–1583) the only recording technology available was drawing and copying by hand. Plaster casts (Gipsabguss) would later prove the most faithful reproduction medium but were prohibitively expensive even in the 18th and 19th centuries. Photography (1840s onward) had not been invented. The paper squeeze (estampage, Papierabklatsch): a process in which damp unsized paper is brushed into the carved grooves of the stone to produce a 1:1 negative impression, only emerged in the 1840s and became routine in the second half of the 19th century. course lecture 3, on the history of squeeze techniques
在整个这一时段中 (1429–1583), 唯一可用之记录技术就是手绘与手抄。石膏翻模 (Gipsabguss) 后来虽然被证实是最忠实的复制方式, 但即便在 18、19 世纪也代价高昂、令一般记录者难以承担。摄影 (1840 年代起) 尚未发明。纸拓 (estampage、Papierabklatsch): 把潮湿未上浆之纸用毛刷压入石面阴刻槽中, 取得 1:1 之负像复制，直到 1840 年代才出现, 至 19 世纪下半叶方成为常规手段。课程讲义第 3 讲, 关于拓片史
This matters for understanding what Ligorio could and could not do. When he transcribes an inscription that no longer survives, our only check on his accuracy is to compare his copy with other Renaissance witnesses (if any) and with what later editors knew. When he draws a monument with its inscription in situ (as in the CIL VI 9015 plan), we have a record of dimensions and layout that no later editor could reproduce. The medieval witnesses of §A–C produced no such drawings; the Renaissance antiquarians did. This is the moment when the inscription begins to be treated as a three-dimensional object whose materiality matters, not merely as a text floating free of its support. cf. McLean's argument against text-centric epigraphy, in the Mommsen page §B
这一点对理解利戈里奥能做什么、不能做什么有关键意义。当他转录一块今已不存之铭文时, 检验其准确性的唯一办法是与其他文艺复兴时期的见证 (若有) 以及后世编者所知者相比较。当他把带有铭文的纪念物连同其原位绘下来 (如 CIL VI 9015 平面图所示), 我们就得到了一份后世编者无法再现的尺寸与布局记录。第 A–C 节所述的中世纪见证人未作此类绘图, 文艺复兴的古物学家则作了。这正是铭文开始被作为一件三维物件、其物质性须被纳入考量、而不再仅仅作为漂浮于支撑物之外之文本的时刻。参蒙森页§B 中 McLean 对"以文本为中心"之铭文学的反对论证
Sources for §04 (renaissance)第 04 节参考资料 (文艺复兴)
- Course lecture 2 (line drawing):
20260312 intro epigraphy 2 line drawing.pdf(local upload) - Course lecture 3 (squeeze):
20260318 intro epigraphy 3 squeeze.pdf(local upload) - Datchev, "Ciriaco d'Ancona and the Origins of Epigraphy," Renaissance Quarterly 76 (2023), 444–496. (Local:
2023 datchev ciriaco d ancona…pdf) - Mandowsky & Mitchell, Pirro Ligorio's Roman Antiquities: The Drawings in MS XIII.B.7 in the National Library in Naples, 1963. (Local:
1963 mandowsky mitchell…pdf) - Stenhouse, Reading Inscriptions and Writing Ancient History: Historical Scholarship in the Late Renaissance, 2005. (Local:
2005 stenhouse reading inscriptions…pdf) - Vagenheim, "Pirro Ligorio et la découverte d'un plan ichnographique gravé sur marbre (CIL VI 9015 = 29847b)," 1991. (Local:
1991 vagenheim pirro ligorio…pdf) - Orlandi, "Pirro Ligorio, Mommsen e alcuni documenti epigrafici del Latium adiectum," 2009. (Local:
2009 orlandi pirro ligorio mommsen…pdf) - Orlandi, Caldelli & Gregori, "Epigraphic Forgeries and Fakes," in Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 2015, 42–65. (Local:
2 2015 orlandi et al forgeries and fakes.pdf) - Balistreri, "The Epigraphical Forgeries in the Construction of Pirro Ligorio's Libro XXXIX on Roman Antiquities," 2019. (Local:
2019 balistreri…pdf) - Loffredo & Vagenheim (eds.), Pirro Ligorio's Worlds: Antiquarianism, Classical Erudition and the Visual Arts in the Late Renaissance, Brill, 2019. (Local:
2019 loffredo vagenheim…pdf) - Hopkins & McGill, Forgery Beyond Deceit: Fabrication, Value, and the Desire for Ancient Rome, Oxford, 2023. (Local:
2023 hopkins mcgill forgery beyond deceit.pdf) - Pérez Galván, "Not Set in Stone: Epigraphy between Manuscript and Print in Renaissance Europe, 1521–1603," 2021. (Local:
2021 pérez galván…pdf)
From the first printed corpus to the Berlin commission 从第一部印本总集到柏林学院的委任
Once Renaissance recording stabilized, the next move was to print. Printed corpora exposed the problem the manuscript tradition had concealed: editorial conventions diverge silently when copies remain in private circulation, but disagree visibly once a hundred copies of the same line stand in different printed volumes. This tab follows the printed-corpus tradition across three centuries, and ends at the 1815 Berlin Academy commission that for the first time made corpus-production an institutional rather than a personal task. 文艺复兴的记录方式一旦稳定下来, 下一步便是付印。印本总集把手稿传统所掩盖的问题暴露了出来: 抄本各自私下流通时, 编辑惯例的歧异是隐形的; 而一旦同一行字以印本形式分别出现在百种刊物里, 歧异就一望可见。本标签页追踪印本总集传统跨越三个世纪的发展, 终结于 1815 年柏林学院之委任，这是史上第一次, 总集编纂被定为制度性任务而非个人任务。
§A The Carolingian and the first printed: Einsiedeln to Mazochi (9th c.–1521)从加洛林到第一部印本: 艾因西德伦到 Mazochi (9 世纪–1521)
The oldest surviving manuscript collection of Roman inscriptions is the Einsiedeln Itinerary, written in the third quarter of the 9th century in the scriptorium of the Benedictine monastery of Einsiedeln in Switzerland (Stiftsbibliothek, Codex 326). It carries roughly 80 inscriptions copied from the city of Rome, organized by an itinerary describing routes through the city. The Itinerary is a Carolingian act, not a Renaissance one: the impulse to record inscribed monuments did not require humanist learning, only the institutional capacity of a Benedictine scriptorium. Buonocore 2015, 23
现存最古之罗马铭文手稿集是《艾因西德伦行程录》(Einsiedeln Itinerary), 9 世纪第三个四分之一时段, 在瑞士艾因西德伦本笃会修院的缮写室写成 (院图书馆 326 号抄本)。它收录约 80 块自罗马城所抄之铭文, 按一份描述城内路线之行程录加以编排。《行程录》是加洛林时代的产物, 不是文艺复兴的: 记录刻字纪念物之冲动, 并不需要人文主义之学问, 只需要本笃会缮写室的制度能力。Buonocore 2015, 23
Print arrives in 1521. Jacopo Mazochi's Epigrammata antiquae Urbis (Rome, 1521), prepared with Andreas Fulvius and Mariangelo Accursio, gathers roughly 3,000 Roman inscriptions into a single printed volume. Two years later, Peter Apian (Bennewitz) and Bartholomäus Amantius's Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis (Ingolstadt, 1534, but with the woodcut illustrations engraved from 1523) extends the project to the entire empire. The two volumes establish what the next four centuries of printed corpus will inherit: a fixed text on the page, with no apparatus for marking restorations or expansions, accompanied by woodcuts that imitate the original letter forms. This is also the first generation in which the printer becomes a co-author of the editorial decisions, since the typeset square capital is itself a stylistic claim. Pérez Galván 2021, §2; Liddel, "Collection and Publication," 3
印本时代始于 1521 年。Jacopo Mazochi 的《古城名刻》(Epigrammata antiquae Urbis, 罗马 1521 年), 在 Andreas Fulvius 与 Mariangelo Accursio 的协助下编成, 把约 3000 块罗马铭文汇为一卷。两年后, Peter Apian (Bennewitz) 与 Bartholomäus Amantius 的《神圣古物铭刻》(Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis, 因戈尔施塔特 1534 年, 但其木刻插图自 1523 年起即已雕刻) 把此一项目扩展至全帝国。这两卷确立了之后四个世纪印本总集所要继承之物: 印刷页面上固定的文本, 无任何用以标示补字或缩写展开之装备, 配以模仿原始字形之木刻图。这也是史上第一代印刷工成为编辑判断之共同作者，因为铅字所打出之方块大写体, 本身就是一种风格主张。Pérez Galván 2021, §2; Liddel, "Collection and Publication", 3
§B Martin Smetius (1588): organising by function rather than findspotMartin Smetius (1588): 按功能而非按出土地编排
Martin Smetius's (c. 1525–c. 1578) Inscriptionum antiquarum quae passim per Europam liber, published posthumously at Antwerp in 1588 under Justus Lipsius's editorship, made two methodological moves that print corpora would not undo for another two centuries. First, Smetius arranged his approximately 4,000 inscriptions by function rather than by findspot, breaking with Apian and Mazochi: public inscriptions, inscriptions on altars and divine statues, statue-bases of mortals, funerary monuments. Second, he built an apparatus of seventeen separate indices to compensate for the loss of geographic context that this rearrangement caused. Liddel 2018, 3; Pérez Galván 2021, §3; Stenhouse 2005, 58
Martin Smetius (约 1525–约 1578) 的《散布欧洲各地古铭文集》(Inscriptionum antiquarum quae passim per Europam liber), 由 Justus Lipsius 主编, 于 1588 年安特卫普身后出版。它作出了两个方法学举措, 之后两个世纪的印本总集都未能撤回。第一, Smetius 把他的约 4000 块铭文按功能编排, 而非按出土地编排, 由此与 Apian 与 Mazochi 决裂: 公共类铭文、祭坛与神像铭文、人之像座、丧葬纪念物。第二, 他建立了由十七种独立索引构成的检索装备, 以补偿因这一重排而失去的地理语境。Liddel 2018, 3; Pérez Galván 2021, §3; Stenhouse 2005, 58
In his preface Smetius explained the choice in terms that anticipate modern information science: "Having abandoned an arrangement by place, which could easily be shown by an index, I have preferred rather to follow an order by content and subject-matter: I have made sure to link like with like, as far as it could conveniently be done." The implicit theory is that the inscription's category is more important than its findspot for the reader's purposes, and that the findspot can always be retrieved through the index. Mommsen, two and a half centuries later, would reject the first premise and reverse the relationship: findspot is primary, category is what the index is for. Mommsen 1847, §II; see the companion Mommsen page
Smetius 在序中解释这一选择时, 用了一种近乎现代信息科学的语言: "已放弃按地编排，后者透过索引便能轻易展示，我宁可采取按内容与主题之顺序: 我已尽量做到把同类置于同类之旁, 凡可以方便如此操作之处皆然。" 其隐含理论是: 对读者目的而言, 铭文之类别比其出土地更重要; 出土地总可通过索引找回。两个半世纪之后的蒙森, 会拒绝其第一个前提, 并把这一关系倒转: 出土地为主, 类别交给索引去管。蒙森 1847, §II; 参配套之蒙森页
§C Gruter and Scaliger (1602): "Index ipse est anima illius corporis"Gruter 与 Scaliger (1602): "索引乃此身之灵魂"
Janus Gruterus (Jan Gruter, born Antwerp 1560 to a Flemish father and an English mother; died Heidelberg 1627) was a Calvinist scholar exiled from the Spanish Netherlands during the Dutch Revolt. He studied with Justus Lipsius at Leiden, then taught at Wittenberg, Rostock, and Heidelberg; from 1602 he was head librarian of the famed Bibliotheca Palatina at Heidelberg, a position he held until the library was sacked by Imperial troops in 1622 during the Thirty Years' War (his own books and manuscripts were destroyed at the same time). It was at Heidelberg, in the years immediately before the catastrophe, that he prepared his Inscriptiones antiquae totius Orbis Romani (1602–1603), in collaboration with Joseph Scaliger (1540–1609) at Leiden and Marcus Welser (1558–1614) at Augsburg. The corpus enlarged Smetius's collection to roughly 12,000 inscriptions and gave it a hierarchical classification that future corpora would inherit: deities, magistracies, military careers, imperial family. The first volume opens with an extraordinary dedication to Emperor Rudolf II, in which Gruter explicitly frames himself as a small client of two senior scholarly "eagles" (Scaliger and Welser), with a third (Johannes Matthias Wacker) bearing him up. The dedication is rhetorically elaborate, but the substantive claim is institutional: a corpus of this scale requires patronage of imperial scale. course lecture 5, slides on Gruter; Datchev 2023, 445
扬·格鲁特 (Janus Gruterus / Jan Gruter, 1560 年生于安特卫普, 父为佛兰德人、母为英格兰人; 1627 年卒于海德堡) 是荷兰起义期间从西属尼德兰流亡之加尔文宗学者。他在莱顿从尤斯图斯·利普修斯 (Justus Lipsius) 受学, 其后任教于维滕贝格、罗斯托克与海德堡; 1602 年起任海德堡著名之"巴拉廷图书馆" (Bibliotheca Palatina) 首席馆长, 直至 1622 年三十年战争中该馆被帝国军队洗劫为止 (其自己之藏书与手稿同时被毁)。正是在海德堡, 在大难临头前数年, 他与莱顿之 Joseph Scaliger (1540–1609) 及奥格斯堡之 Marcus Welser (1558–1614) 合作, 编出《罗马世界古铭文集》(Inscriptiones antiquae totius Orbis Romani, 1602–1603)。该总集把 Smetius 之语料扩充至约 12,000 块, 并赋予一套等级化分类: 后世总集皆继承其中心范畴: 神祇、官职、军旅生涯、皇室成员。卷首的题词献给元首鲁道夫二世, 极尽修辞铺张; Gruter 在其中明确把自己置于两位资深学术"雄鹰" (Scaliger 与 Welser) 之"小客", 由第三只雄鹰 (Johannes Matthias Wacker) 托起。题词修辞繁复, 但其实质要点是制度性的: 此种规模之总集需要帝国规模之资助。课程讲义第 5 讲, 关于 Gruter 之幻灯; Datchev 2023, 445
Scaliger's contribution was the index. He compiled twenty-four separate indices and spent ten months organising them into seven thematic sections at the back of the corpus. The phrase Scaliger himself sent to Isaac Casaubon names the editorial theory: "Index ipse est anima illius corporis", "the index itself is the soul of that body." The pun on corpus is deliberate: without the index, a printed corpus is a body without a soul, undifferentiated mass without organisation; with the index, the same body becomes a queryable instrument. Stenhouse points out that this remark anticipates with remarkable precision the function that digital search would later perform: indices animate inert data. Stenhouse 2005; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
Scaliger 的贡献是索引。他编出二十四种独立索引, 并花了十个月把它们组织为卷末七大主题部分。Scaliger 写给 Isaac Casaubon 的一句话, 一语点出其编辑理论: "Index ipse est anima illius corporis", "索引本身乃此身之灵魂。"此处对 corpus 的双关是有意为之: 没有索引, 一部印本总集是无灵之身、未经组织之集合; 有了索引, 同一具身体便成为可查询之工具。Stenhouse 指出, 这句话精准地预告了后来数字检索所担当之功能: 索引使死寂之数据复活。Stenhouse 2005; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
Yet, as Liddel has observed, Gruter's achievement and the achievement of the Carolingian Einsiedeln scribe shared a deep similarity: "Gruter's achievement, like that of Boeckh's CIG, was based not upon close autopsy of particular inscriptions, but brought together the records of those who had carried out autopsy." Two centuries later, Mommsen would close that gap by making autopsy a requirement of the editor in chief, not just of his sources. Liddel 2018, 3
然而, 如 Liddel 所论, Gruter 之成就与加洛林艾因西德伦缮写者之成就, 在一深层意义上是相似的: "Gruter 的成就, 一如勃克之 CIG, 不是建立在对特定铭文之近距离亲勘之上, 而是把那些已作过亲勘者之记录汇聚起来。" 两个世纪之后, 蒙森会封上这道缝隙，把亲勘从"来源人之职责"变为"主编之职责"。Liddel 2018, 3
§D Doni and Maffei (1647–1732): the rise of antiquarian apparatusDoni 与 Maffei (1647–1732): 古物学装备之兴起
Giovanni Battista Doni's (1595–1647) Inscriptiones antiquae, published posthumously in 1731, is exemplary of what a 17th-century antiquarian apparatus looked like. Doni glosses an inscription dedicated to Iovi Fulgeratori ("To Jupiter the Lightning-Wielder") by cross-referencing six other inscriptions in Gruter's Thesaurus, the Greek poets' epithets for Zeus (astrapaios, asteropetes, astraphaios), Lucian's mocking enumeration in Timon, and an Etruscan-Latin bilingual at Pisaurum (Fabretti p. 696 §17). The gloss runs to eleven dense lines and corrects an error in Gruter at Thesaurus xxi.3. This is the kind of antiquarian apparatus that Mommsen would later set aside as "desirable but not necessary" for the CIL: too valuable to lose, but too time-consuming to require of every editor. course lecture 5, on Doni
Giovanni Battista Doni (1595–1647) 之《古铭文集》(Inscriptiones antiquae, 1731 年身后出版) 典型地展现了 17 世纪古物学装备之样貌。Doni 在解释一块献给 Iovi Fulgeratori（"擎雷之朱庇特"）的铭文时, 把它与 Gruter《宝库》中另外六块铭文相互参照, 把希腊诗人对宙斯之诸种擎雷称号 (astrapaios, asteropetes, astraphaios) 一并列出, 援引琉善 (Lucian)《泰门》中之嘲弄式枚举, 并提到皮萨乌鲁姆 (Pisaurum) 之一处带拉丁与伊特鲁里亚双语的纪念物 (Fabretti 第 696 页第 17 号), 末后又指出 Gruter《宝库》xxi.3 中的一处错误。这种古物学装备, 蒙森后来在 CIL 中将之贬为"可取而非必需"的: 太宝贵不能丢, 但若要每位编者都做这一程度的注解, 工程则不堪其重。课程讲义第 5 讲, 关于 Doni
Francesco Scipione Maffei (1675–1755) takes a different step. The Veronese marchese was simultaneously the leading antiquarian and one of the leading literary figures of his generation, author of the verse tragedy Merope (1713) and of the encyclopedic four-volume Verona illustrata (1731–1732), which compiled the history, antiquities, and inscriptions of his native city. In 1732 he circulated a printed broadside, the Prospectus universalis collectionis, proposing to gather "into a single corpus, together with unpublished inscriptions, all those that are scattered" (in unum corpus una cum ineditis universas) and to arrange them in an order conducive to correct understanding. He sent copies to learned societies and individual scholars across Europe and embarked himself on visits to Paris, London, and Amsterdam (1736–1739) to inspect the major collections. As Buonopane has argued, the profoundly innovative character of Maffei's project lay in his awareness of what would become epigraphy's central methodological problem: the revision of already-published texts and the updating of preceding collections. The project was never completed (Maffei lacked the institutional support to do so), but the proposal articulates for the first time the logic of a universal critical corpus. The 1815 Berlin commission to Boeckh, and ultimately Mommsen's 1847 plan, both descend from this Prospectus. Buonopane 1998; Stenhouse 2005, 192–196
Francesco Scipione Maffei (1675–1755) 走出了另一步。这位维罗纳侯爵同时是其时代的顶级古物学家与顶级文学家之一, 既著有诗体悲剧《梅罗珀》(Merope, 1713), 又编纂了百科全书式之《维罗纳古迹志》(Verona illustrata, 四卷, 1731–1732), 汇编其故乡之历史、古物与铭文。1732 年, 他散发一份印本传单《合一总集预案》(Prospectus universalis collectionis), 提议: 把"散布于各处之全部铭文, 连同尚未出版者, 集为一编" (in unum corpus una cum ineditis universas), 并按有助于正确理解之次序加以排列。他把副本寄给欧洲各地学会与个别学者, 并亲自启程于 1736–1739 年间访问巴黎、伦敦、阿姆斯特丹, 实地检视各大藏品。如 Buonopane 所论, Maffei 项目之深刻创新, 在于他意识到铭文学日后之核心方法论问题, 即对已经出版之文本之修订, 以及对前辈语料之更新。该项目从未完成 (Maffei 不具备完成它所需的制度支持), 但其提议第一次清晰道出"通用批判性总集"之逻辑。1815 年柏林学院对勃克之委任, 以及最终蒙森 1847 年之规划, 二者皆源自此《预案》。Buonopane 1998; Stenhouse 2005, 192–196
§E Gaetano Marini (1742–1815): the limit of one scholarGaetano Marini (1742–1815): 一人之力的极限
Between Maffei's 1732 Prospectus and Boeckh's 1815 commission stands a generation of antiquarians who tried to do alone what Maffei had said could only be done institutionally. Gaetano Marini (1742, Sant'Arcangelo di Romagna; 1815, Paris) was the most prodigious. He entered the Vatican Library as a young custodian in 1772, became its prefect in 1800 and Cardinal Librarian in 1802, and held those offices through the Napoleonic occupation, the dispersal of much of the Vatican's collections to Paris in 1798–1810, and the partial restitution that began at the Congress of Vienna. His major works are the Iscrizioni antiche delle ville e de' palazzi Albani (1785), the Atti e monumenti de' fratelli arvali (1795, on the Arval Brothers' inscriptions found in the Vigna Ceccarelli outside Rome), and the posthumous Iscrizioni antiche doliari (Rome 1884, on brick stamps). These works compile, classify, and annotate tens of thousands of inscriptions with cross-references to Vatican manuscript collections no one else had read. Marini was, by every account, the best epigrapher in Europe between Doni and Mommsen, and Mommsen would later treat his unpublished schedae as one of the foundational layers of the CIL. course lecture 5; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
从 Maffei 1732 年《预案》到勃克 1815 年获委任之间, 还有一代古物学家试图以一己之力做 Maffei 所言"必须由制度来做"之事。Gaetano Marini (1742 年生于罗马涅之圣阿尔坎杰洛 Sant'Arcangelo di Romagna; 1815 年卒于巴黎) 是其中最为多产之一位。他 1772 年作为青年保管员进入梵蒂冈图书馆, 1800 年升任图书馆馆长, 1802 年获红衣主教图书馆长之衔, 在拿破仑占领、1798–1810 年梵蒂冈藏品大量流散巴黎, 以及维也纳会议起步之部分归还过程中, 始终在任。其主要著作有《阿尔巴尼别墅与宫殿古铭文》(Iscrizioni antiche delle ville e de' palazzi Albani, 1785)、《亚瓦尔兄弟会文献与纪念物》(Atti e monumenti de' fratelli arvali, 1795, 关于在罗马城外 Vigna Ceccarelli 发现之亚瓦尔兄弟会铭文), 与身后出版之《古铭刻陶文》(Iscrizioni antiche doliari, 罗马 1884, 关于砖戳铭)。这些著作编纂、分类并注解数以万计之铭文, 并与他人未曾读过之梵蒂冈手稿藏品交叉对读。在 Doni 与蒙森之间, Marini 几乎是公认欧洲最杰出之铭文学家; 后来蒙森把他未刊之笔记 (schedae) 视为 CIL 之奠基性资料之一。课程讲义第 5 讲; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
And yet his case showed what Maffei had already suspected: one scholar cannot do this work. The volume of new material was outrunning even the most prodigious individual reader. Marini died in 1815 with corpus drafts unfinished, manuscripts unsorted, and notes uncatalogued. The course lecture's diagnosis is precise: "Even an extraordinary scholar of the next generation, like Gaetano Marini, could no longer cope with such vast material on his own." course lecture 5, opening slide
然其个案恰恰证实了 Maffei 早已怀疑之事: 一位学者承担不起此一工作量。新材料之总量, 已超过任何最高产个体读者的承受能力。1815 年 Marini 去世时, 多种语料草稿未竟、手稿未分类、笔记未编目。课程讲义的诊断很精确: "即便是后继几代中极为杰出的人物, 如 Gaetano Marini, 也已无法仅凭一己之力应对如此浩繁的材料。"课程讲义第 5 讲, 开篇幻灯
§F 1815: Berlin commissions Boeckh, and corpus-production becomes institutional1815: 柏林委任勃克, 总集编纂从此成为制度性事务
In 1815, the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin (reorganized in 1809 by Wilhelm von Humboldt) commissioned August Böckh (1785, Karlsruhe; 1867, Berlin) to produce the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, a comprehensive edition of all known Greek inscriptions. Böckh had been a student of F. A. Wolf at Halle; from 1811 he held the chair of classical philology at the new University of Berlin, where he would remain for fifty-six years (serving as Rector five times and as Dean six times) and shape the Humboldtian model of Altertumswissenschaft. Accepting the CIG commission against Wolf's explicit advice (Wolf warned that it would consume his career), Böckh organised a Europe-wide network of correspondents and copyists; the four volumes appeared in 1828, 1843, 1853, and 1856, with the indices completed in 1877. The 1815 commission transformed the mode of production of epigraphic knowledge in three ways. First, a corpus was no longer a personal achievement dedicated to a patron, as Gruter's had been; it was a state-academy task with multi-decade funding. Second, the editor in chief acquired institutional authority to coordinate a network of collaborators rather than relying on personal correspondence. Third, the funding model permitted what Maffei had wanted but Marini had been denied: a corpus of scale that no individual scholar could complete in a lifetime. Liddel 2018, 9; Lanza & Ugolini 2020, 133–154; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
1815 年, 柏林皇家普鲁士科学院 (1809 年由 Wilhelm von Humboldt 加以重组) 委任奥古斯特·勃克 (August Böckh, 1785 年生于卡尔斯鲁厄; 1867 年卒于柏林) 编纂《希腊铭文大全》(Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum), 即一部已知希腊铭文之综合版本。勃克曾从 F. A. Wolf 于哈勒受学; 自 1811 年起任新设立之柏林大学古典语文学讲席, 在此任教达 56 年 (并五任校长 Rektor、六任院长 Dekan), 形成了洪堡式 (Humboldtian) 之"古代学" (Altertumswissenschaft) 的奠基模型。他接受 CIG 委任时违背了 Wolf 之明确劝阻 (Wolf 警告该项目将吞噬其整个学术生涯); 之后他组织起一个遍布欧洲的通讯人与抄录员网络, CIG 四卷分别于 1828、1843、1853、1856 年面世, 索引则迟至 1877 年方告竣。1815 年之委任从三个方面改变了铭文学知识之生产方式。其一, 总集不再是为某位赞助人所作之个人成就 (如 Gruter 那部所然), 而是国家学院级、跨数十年资助之任务。其二, 主编因之获得了协调合作者网络之制度性权威, 不再倚仗个人书信往来。其三, 资助模式使 Maffei 所欲、Marini 所未能企及之事成为可能: 一部任何个体学者均不能毕其一生而完成之大规模语料。Liddel 2018, 9; Lanza & Ugolini 2020, 133–154; chapter4-english-revised.md §1
The CIG's first fascicle appeared in 1825, the entire corpus only in 1877. By that date Mommsen had already published his 1847 plan, had run the CIL for two decades, and had completed CIL X (containing the bilingual Palermo stone that recurs in this matrix). The Greek and Latin corpora are sister projects, born of the same Berlin institutional moment, separated only by which scholar accepted the commission first. cf. the Mommsen page §C
CIG 之首册于 1825 年面世, 全编则迟至 1877 年方告竣。届时蒙森已发表 1847 年规划、已主持 CIL 二十年, 亦已完成 CIL X (即载有本矩阵中反复出现之巴勒莫双语石的那一卷)。希腊与拉丁两部总集是同胞工程, 出自同一柏林制度性时刻, 唯有"哪位学者先接下委任"之别。参蒙森页§C
The line that began with the Carolingian Einsiedeln scribe (c. 875), passed through Mazochi (1521), Smetius (1588), Gruter–Scaliger (1602), Doni (1647), Maffei (1732), and Marini (1815), arrives here. The next document to read is Mommsen's 1847 memorandum. The most useful thing to notice about it, having read this tab, is that almost every clause has a pre-history in the centuries above. What Mommsen did was not invent the project; it was to institutionalize it.
起于 9 世纪艾因西德伦缮写者 (约 875)、经 Mazochi (1521)、Smetius (1588)、Gruter–Scaliger (1602)、Doni (1647)、Maffei (1732)、Marini (1815) 而至此处的脉络, 在 1815 年抵达柏林。接下来要读的文献, 就是蒙森 1847 年备忘录。读完本标签页之后, 最值得留意的一点是: 蒙森每一条主张之背后, 都有上文若干世纪之前史。蒙森所做的, 不是发明这一工程, 而是把它制度化。
Sources for §05 (pre-Mommsen corpora)第 05 节参考资料 (蒙森之前的总集)
- Course lecture 5 (early corpora & markup):
20260402 intro epigraphy 5.pdf(local upload) - Buonocore, "Epigraphic Research from Its Inception," Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, 2015, 21–42. (Local:
1 2015 buonocore…pdf) - Buonopane, "Il Prospectus universalis collectionis di Scipione Maffei e la nascita della scienza epigrafica," 1998. (Local:
1998 buonopane…pdf) - Liddel, "The Collection and Publication of Inscriptions before Boeckh," in Epigraphy and History: Ancient Greece and Rome, Edinburgh, 2018.
- Chatzidakis, "Le eredità di Ciriaco d'Ancona: il Novus Thesaurus di Muratori e lo studio dell'epigrafia greca nel primo Illuminismo," 2018. (Local:
2018 chatzidakis…pdf) - Stenhouse, Reading Inscriptions and Writing Ancient History, 2005.
- Stenhouse, "Classical Inscriptions and Antiquarian Scholarship in Italy 1600–1650," 2000. (Local:
2000 stenhouse classical inscriptions…pdf) - Mining report:
chapter4-english-revised.md §1(underdocuments/epidoc/inschriften/) - Mining report:
epigraphic-method-revised.md §1(underdocuments/epidoc/inschriften/)
The original Ligorio-inscriptions catalogue this page rebuilds from. It carries its own filter controls (All / Genuine / Forged / About) and per-corpus filters (CIL VI / CIL X / IG / IGUR), and links each entry to EDR, EDCS, and other photographic archives. 本页所重写之原始利戈里奥铭文目录。它带有自己的筛选控件 (全部 / 真品 / 伪刻 / 关于) 与按语料的筛选 (CIL VI / CIL X / IG / IGUR), 并把每一条目链接至 EDR、EDCS 及其他照相档案。