Medieval Academy of America

More about the London Vitruvius

Author(s): Leslie Webber Jones
Source: Speculum, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1937), pp. 257-263
Published by: Medieval Academy of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2849580
Accessed: 22/02/2010 08:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

MORE ABOUT THE LONDON VITRUVIUS

BY LESLIE WEBBER JONES

IN 1930 in an article entitled 'The Harleian MS of Vitruvius (H) and the Codex
Amiatinus' (Jour. Theol. Stud., xxxII, 74-77) Mr Frank Granger first brought
forth his unusual view that the oldest extant manuscript of Vitruvius (London,
B.M., Harleianus 2767=H) was written in the ninth century at Jarrow in the
same scriptorium as the Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate. In the following year
in the introduction to the first volume of the Loeb Vitruvius (Vitruvius On
Architectureeditedfrom the Harleian manuscript 2767 and translated into English
by Frank Granger [London: Wm. Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnams' Sons,
1931]) he repeated this view with certain changes and amplifications. H, according to this second interpretation, was written at Jarrow (or Wearmouth) probably in the eighth century.
Now this conjecture seemed in any form so improbable to me that I took
occasion to criticize it in an article ('The Provenience of the London Vitruvius,'
SPECULUM, VII [1932], 64-70) in which, after disposing of the possibility of
Jarrow (or Wearmouth) and after comparing H with two manuscripts written
at Cologne circa 850-863 (Cologne, Dombibliothek75 and 184), I concluded that
H was written at Cologne at the same time as these two manuscripts. Later in
the same year I published still more complete descriptions of all three manuscripts, as well as of two others (Cologne, Dombibiothek39 and 117, fols 93-97)
written at Cologne in the same period (The Script of Colognefrom Hildebald to
Hermann, Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932). My
conclusions met with immediate acceptance. Messrs C. H. Beeson,' E. A. Lowe,
E. K. Rand, and A. Souter, were among the first to approve them as stated in
both my article and my book. None of the reviewers of my book called them into
question. No other person indeed, to my knowledge, ever doubted them.
But Mr Granger was not to be daunted. In 1935 in a reply to Beeson's review
of Vol. I of his Vitruvius ('The Emendation of Vitruvius' in Cl. Phil., xxx [1935],
337-342) he again stated (pp. 341-342): 'I infer that H was written before the
revision of Alcuin. The insular readings of H, though sometimes confused, as
we have seen, with the genuine tradition, are consistent with its Northumbrian
origin. I have not been able to find a manuscript later than A.D. 800 which, on
the whole, presents characteristics similar to those of H.' In this same article
Mr Granger defended as well his universally discredited belief that G is merely
a copy of H with certain more or less obvious grammatical corrections. Beeson,2
1 Beeson in his review of the Loeb Vitruvius, Vol. I, in Cl. Phil., xxix (1934), 377, and in his review
of my Script of Colognein Cl. Phil. xxix, 75-77, and, later, in 'The Manuscript Problem of Vitruvius,'
in Cl. Phil. xx (1935), 342-347. Souter in a personal letter to me (cf. his review of my Script of Cologne,
Cl. Rev., XLVI[1932], 272-273).-Lowe and Rand wrote me personally.
2 I had previously treated this subject briefly in my article in Speculum (vii [1932], p. 65). See also
the following: Fr. Krohn's review of the Loeb Vitruvius, I, in Phil. Woch., LII, (1932), 1520-1532;
D. S. Robertson's review in Cl. Rev., XLVI(1932), 29-31. (On p. 30 Robertson says: 'Granger has convinced himself that H .. is the sole source of all the rest, including G, which all modern editors regard as its cousin.'); Charles Knapp's review in The Cl. Weekly, xxvi (1933), 125-127; see also Beeson
257

258

More about the London Vitruvius

however, in a reply ('the Manuscript Problem of Vitruvius,' Cl. Phil., xxx

[1935], 342-347) disposed once and for all of this erroneous account of the relationship of G and H. In this same reply, moreover, Beeson agreed wholeheartedly
with my placing and dating of H, citing the Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the
Brit. Museum, ii, Plate LV (where the date is 'late 90'), my article (SPECULUM,

vII [1932], 64), and my book (The Script of Cologne, 65-66 and Plate LxxxIx),
and going on to say:
He would be a bold paleographerwho would assign it (=H) to the eighth century, and
bolderstill who wouldcall the scriptItalian ... The MS. cannotpossiblyhave anything
to do with the Amiatinus,which was copied ca 700 and was taken to Rome by English
pilgrimsfrom Jarrowca 718. The traditionof Vitruviusin German.The best MSS are
German;the only mention of Vitruviusin medieval cataloguesin the ninth century is
from Reichenauand Murbach.Fulda also must have had a copy since this author was
knownto Einhard.Any of these centersmighthavehad the Insulararchetypefromwhich
the survivingMSS have descended.The originalmay have been broughtto the Rhine
countryfromEngland,but there is no evidencefor such an assumption.'
In the face of Beeson's incontrovertible evidence Mr Granger thereupon published an article, 'The Provenience of the London Vitruvius' (SPECULUM,
XI
is
a
to
written
in
article
1932.
which
essentially
reply
my
[1936], 261-264),
Mr Granger's views may be outlined as follows.
1. He begins by conceding that the Amiatinus did not go to Tours to receive
correction by Alcuin, but now insists that 'it is possible, if not certain, that the
standard text of the Vulgate which Alcuin presented to Charlemagne in 801
was based upon the third of Ceolfrid's Pandects' (a brother of the Amiatinus
and of one other Pandect, all three of which came from a single Roman copy).
2. He then cites the evidence of grammatical usage and spelling to prove that
H in its vernacular coloring resembles the Amiatinus and could not have passed
the censorship of any scriptorium (such as Cologne) after the reforms introduced
by Alcuin. The evidence follows: (a) grammatical usage: participles used as
nouns of agency: negotiantes, spectantes, and habitantes (all hapax legomena);
audientes and aedificantes (each occurring twice); (b) spelling: expectare instead
of exspectare;scribsi, etc., instead of scripsi; oportune,etc., instead of opportune;
cludereinstead of claudere;inm- instead of imm-; volgoinstead of vulgo.
3. He states, moreover, that H's model was uncial in script rather than AngloSaxon because (a) of the interchange of C and G, (b) of the confusion of P and F
(as possible in uncial as in Anglo-Saxon, according to Mr Granger), and (c) of
the failure to abbreviate autem often until the last books, since autem 'was more
emphatic in the vernacular.'
4. He proceeds now to give palaeographical reasons for assigning H to Northumbria: (4) (a) The abbreviations e (est) and ee (esse), according to Mr Granger,
in Cl. Phil. xxix (1934), 347: 'Rose, the first critical editor of Vitruvius (1867), asserted that the
MS. was German, written "Caroli aevo"; in his second edition (1899) he revised his opinion as to the
VII [1932],
date, assigning it to the second half of the ninth century. Leslie Webber Jones (SPECULUM
64-70) presented plausible arguments that the MS. is a product of the Scriptorium of Cologne. He
suggested as a date ca 850-863. Certainly the MS. can scarcely have been written before the middle
of the century (=ix).'

More about the London Vitruvius

259

do not occur in H, but do occur in Plate ii of my article of 1932 (CologneMS. 75).

(b) There is a comparative lack of abbreviations in H as compared with the
manuscript represented in Plate ii of my article of 1932 (Cologne, MS. 75).
(c) H's uncials are closer to the Amiatinus than they are to the Cologne uncials.
'In the uncials of the Cologne manuscript (= 75, my Plate II,-L.W.J.), P does
not come below the line; in two cases out of three, the second vertical line of N
has a flourish below the line; the Q closely resembles the modern capital. In the
uncials of the Harleian and the Amiatinus P goes below the line; N does not;
Q (sometimes in H) is like the minuscule q in shape, as if P were turned round'
(p. 264). (d) The uncials of H are not 'weak,' but splendid. (e) H occasionally
has a semiuncial character. (In his previous article in Cl. Phil., xxx [1935], 342,
Mr Granger states: 'Mr. Jones ... overlooks the semiuncial N in the London
Vitruvius.') (f) The script of H is vertical, not sloping as in the script of Cologne.
Mr Granger concludes, finally, that the various features described above 'differentiate' H from the Cologne manuscript (= 75? I cited 184 as well).
Let us analyze these views item by item.
1. In his earlier article (Jour. Theol. Stud.) Mr Granger's reasoning,on this
matter ran as follows. Since the corrections of the Amiatinus often coincide with
the recension of Alcuin, the Amiatinus probably followed him to Tours. 'Now
we know that MSS of Vitruvius were multiplied in order to help the revival of
architecture at the court of Charlemagne' (p. 75). It is probable, then, that H
(from which these manuscripts of Vitruvius were derived) also went to Tours
and was corrected there.
Just how the substitution in the present article of Ceolfrid's third Pandect for
the Amiatinus helps matters is beyond my comprehension. Are we to assume
that the third Pandect was corrected by Alcuin at Tours and that H was on that
account probably corrected there as well? But, as I have already set forth
(SPECULUM,

VII

[1932], 66 and note 4), since most of the corrections in H are

written in the same hand and in the same ink as the text, that H was corrected
at Tours is highly improbable, to say the least, unless we can also prove that H
was written at Tours. I am still more bewildered as I read (on p. 261): 'It was
not necessary for me to assume that the Amiatinus itself went to Tours, and I
am grateful for Mr Jones' correction. It is enough for my purpose that Alcuin
could use the third Pandect. Alcuin's recension is represented, of course, by the
Codex Vallicellanus at Rome. The remarkable agreement of this with the Harleianus 1775 (Gospels), suggests that a text like the latter was used by Alcuin
along with the Amiatinus in constituting his text.' (The italics are mine.) Did
Alcuin use the Amiatinus or did he not use it? Mr Granger seems not to have
made up his mind. May I say, moreover, that despite Mr Granger's assumption,
investigation of the problem of the nature of the Alcuinian text is still in its
infancy? (See my 'The Text of the Bible and the Script and Art of Tours,' The
Harvard TheologicalReview, xxvIII [1935], 135-179, especially 173-175.)
2. (a) The evidence of hapax legomenais, I agree with Krohn, Robertson, and
Beeson, among others, hardly trustworthy. There remain, then, two occurrences
of audientes and two of aedificantes. It would have been useful to know just

260

More about the London Vitruvius

where these words occurred so that they could have been considered in their
context. But let us assume that there can be no doubt of their validity as examples of this construction. Would anyone hold that these four occurrences
(even plus the three hapax legomena) are enough to prove the provenience of any
manuscript, especially since Mr Granger himself admits that this usage is found
occasionally in Classical Latin and since we may take for granted similar occasional instances of this usage in many centers? I have made no attempt to study
its appearance at Cologne or elsewhere. Does the usage appear at the same
places in the text or elsewhere in S., Vat. Reg. 2079, Vat. Reg. 1328, or any of
the other manuscripts of Vitruvius? If it could be demonstrated that participles
for nouns of agency were peculiar only to Northumbria,' and that H contained
them in relative abundance the argument might possibly have some force, but
there is little likelihood of such a demonstration. Even if there were, there would
still exist the possibility that H had copied them at Cologne from a model, for
the reforms of Alcuin, at least so far as they concern spelling and perhaps grammatical usage, were (contrary to the statement of Mr Granger) slow in being
adopted at Cologne: see below under the next item (3).
In the items which follow Mr Granger could have saved himself much trouble
had he inspected my Script of Cologne. His remarks apply without exception to
my article of 1932 and even at that only to MS. 75 (and Plate II). Just why he
ignores my description of MS. 184 (and Plate III) in the article, as well as my
full account of H, 75, 184, 39, and 117 in my book, is a mystery to me.
(b) Spelling. The assumption that reformed spelling was always the rule in
Cologne manuscripts of circa 850-863 is unfounded. A cursory inspection of the
plates in my book discloses the following regular spellings: MS. 39: oracio,
tercio, temtatio (Plate LXXXI,1); -cio for -tio regularly throughout this part of
the manuscript at least (LXXXI,2); ispania (corr.m. 1 [?] supra lineam: hispania;
LXXXI, 2, line 12); habundacia (littera h erasa est; LXXXI,2, line 12); habundantia
(littera h expuncta; LXXXI,2); condempnas (littera p expuncta, LXXX,1, line 8);
adlatio (v corr. m. 2? LXXX,1, line 25).- MS. 75: homano (v corr. m. 2?
LXXXII,line 27); dampnabilib: (p corr. m. I? LXXXIII,line 19); contempnere
(littera p expuncta, LXXXVI,line 8); -cio for -tio regularly (LXXXVI).- MS. 184:
line 19). - MS. 117: -cio for -tio regularly
disperatio (i in e vertitm. 2, LXXXVIII,
also
Cf.
the
cited
(xc).
spellings
immediately below. I should like to stress the
that
I
have
made
no
point
particular study of the spelling of Cologne manuscripts
but have merely selected the following items from my plates.
On the particular points brought forward by Mr Granger I have the following
to say.
expectare:Thereare threeexamplesin the plates, all fromMS. 39: expectantur,
expectatio,
expectans (LXXXI,1, lines 15, 15, 16).

scribsi:I have noted no examplesin the plates, but this vulgar erroris ubiquitous.One
might as well arguefor Spain,whereb for p is especiallycurrent,as for Northumbria!
1 For the Amiatinus Mr
Granger cites two occurrences of credentesand the following (p. 263):
'Discentes for discipuli is probably concealed by the Amiatinus in the descendentiumof Luke xix,
37, and the discumbentiumof John xxI, 12 (discentium).' The last two examples are questionable;
the first not enough to prove anything at all.

More about the London Vitruvius

261

oportune:I have noted no examplesof op- for opp-. But comparethe similar colaudent
(m. 1,

LXXXI,

2, line 2, MS. 39) for coll-.

cludere:I have noted no examplesin the plates.

inm-: MS. 39: inmunis (Lxxx, 1, line 26); inmutabilis,inmoremur(Lxxx, 2, lines 3 and
28); so regularly inm- instead of imm-. Cf. also inpune, inbecilla (LXXX,1, lines 11 and
20), inpulsus (LXXX,2, line 11), adficiendi (LXXXI, 1, line 12). Cf. also MS. 75: inritantur
(LXXXIII, line 8), conlatio (Lxxxv, line 13), conparanda (LxxxvI, line 22); etc. In all the

casescited above a second (later)hand has assimilatedthe prefix.

volgo: This is probably a mere vulgar spelling like that of adolatio (v corr. m. 2 ?, Lxxx, 1,
line 25) and homano (v corr. m. 2 ?, LXXXII,line 27).

The examples above surely dispose completely of the argument that H because
of its one peculiar grammatical usage and its spelling could not have been written
at Cologne.
3. (a) On the validity of confusion of C and G as indication of an uncial
model see my 'Spanish Symptoms

at Tours,' Classical Philology, xxII (1927),

284, 289, and note 1. This confusion in itself may prove little if anything. The
appearance of such a word as degalocusfor decalogus, for example, may be mere
metathesis; negando for necando or vagari for vacare may possibly arise from a
misunderstanding of the sense of the word. In any case, even were there meritorious instances of confusion (and no specific instances are cited), they would have
to be considered in the light of other types of evidence, which certainly do not
point to an uncial model.

(b) The upper horizontal stroke of Anglo-Saxon minusculef is regularly curled

down at the right and often meets, or nearly meets, either the letter at its right
(which is regularly very close in this compact script) or its own lower horizontal
stroke, or both; a confusion with p is bound to occur frequently. The case is,
however, quite different in uncial script. There no compression exists: the letters
stand apart as individual units. Again, the upper horizontal stroke of F is usually
straight (often with finials) and even when curved does not curl down at the
right. Consequently a confusion with P is difficult to imagine.
(c) If abbreviations in general are relatively rare in H, one should not be surprised if abbreviations for autem are relatively rare. A scribe frequently shuns
abbreviations, especially in a good edition or a de luxe edition or any Bible, until
he gets into a tight place. So in Cologne MS. 184 (see my Script of Cologne, p. 64),

written at Cologne in the same period as H, there are practically no abbreviations

except in one place (at the bottom of a quire near the end of the manuscript)
where crowding occurs. The failure of a scribe to use compendia regularly or at
all is significant of nothing. That the instances of the compendium for autem
(and for other words as well, I may add) increase toward the end of H is quite
a normal phenomenon. The scribe is tired of being good and now writes, not
for the sake of appearances, but to save time and trouble. If Mr Granger is right,
why is not autem as 'emphatic' at the end of the manuscript as at the beginning?
His is indeed a curious explanation. We may safely conclude that the evidence
for an uncial model is wholly untrustworthy.
4. (a) H, despite Mr Granger's inability to recall a single example of ee for
esse, contains not merely this compendium, but also e for est and numerous

262

More about the London Vitruvius

others, all of which are reported in my Script of Cologne,p. 65. Mr Granger refers
to 'my parallel plate' (=Plate II of my article) here, but entirely neglects both
Plate iii (MS. 184), in which there are no abbreviations whatever for est or esse,
and my book, p. 64, where I remark that MS. 184 has, in general, almost no
abbreviations except for nomina sacra, though even these are often written in
full; on the bottom of fol. 89v, however, at the bottom of a quire (as I have
remarked above) the crowding forced the scribe to abbreviate. Mr Granger's
remarks, then, are wholly misleading.
(b) See above on 3c and 4a. Mr Granger's inference here, as I have demonstrated, is incorrect.
(c) Here again, the facts, based as they are merely on Plate iiI of my article,
give an absolutely false picture. If Mr Granger will be good enough to consult
Plate LXXXVof my book, he will find a state of affairs which will show him his
error. There the P (lines 5 and 6) does come below the line; there out of eight
instances of N not a single one comes below the line; there Q does not resemble
the modern capital but is like the minuscule q in shape, as if P were turned
around.
(d) In my article I did not refer to any 'weakness' in the uncials of H but to
a mixture (p. 67): 'The uncials of H, though even and well made, are often mixed
with rustic capitals. If one may judge from the single facsimile in Steffens,l this
is not true of the beautiful uncials in the Amiatinus. But it is certainly true of
the remarkably similar uncials in Cologne,Dombibliothek,184.'2 I go on to point
out that the well-formed but impure uncials of H are apparently not the result
of a successful borrowing from an ancient source, but rather the imperfect imitation of such a successful borrowing previously made at some other center such
as Tours. Surely Mr Granger knows the difference between pure uncials and
uncials mixed with rustic capitals.
(e) A reference to my book, p. 65, will show that I did not overlook the occasional semiuncial character of H: I noted both the sporadic use of semiuncial N
as a minuscule and the single appearance of semiuncial m in the amen of the
uncial explicit on fol. 161v. Mr Granger, however, is apparently unaware not
merely of this fact but also of the further fact that similar occasional semiuncial
touches appear in three of the other manuscripts written at Cologne at the same
time as H: MS. 39 ('semiuncial d for minuscule occasionally'; see my book,
p. 61); MS. 75 ('semiuncial N [often in its Irish form with the left side extending
well below the line] for a minuscule frequently'; see my book, p. 62); MS. 184
('semiuncial N' used rarely as a minuscule; see my book, p. 63). This criterion,
far from differentiating H from books of Cologne, proves its kinship with them.
(f) The contention applies to the plates in my article only. If one should think
that vertical script does not appear at Cologne circa 850-863, let him inspect
Plate LXXXVof my book (MS. 75) and let him also note the fact (p. 67) that
Hand C of MS. 117 is described as large, round, and 'decidedly vertical.' As
any palaeographer knows, individual hands often vary considerably, even in a
1 F. Steffens, PalMographieLatine (Treves and Paris, 1910), Plate l1b.
2 See those on fol. 6r,
e.g.

More about the London Vitruvius

263

single manuscript; cf. the remarkable stylistic divergences in MS. 106 (my book,
pp. 40-43, and Plates xxxI-xLv).
This ends my analysis of the numerous contentions. All have proved to be
erroneous. Under the circumstances I see no reason whatsoever to change the
opinion which I presented in my article of 1932 and later amplified in my book
with additional positive evidence which I need not repeat here. The London
Vitruvius was written neither at Jarrow nor at Wearmouth at 800 or earlier,
but rather at Cologne, probably circa 850-863.
THE COLLEGE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.