As the codex replaced the roll as the main vehicle for the transmission of literature in antiquity, the terminology of the Roman book also shifted. One of the most common Latin designations for a papyrus roll was volumen. By the time of Jerome, this term could also be used to refer to papyrus codices, as nicely illustrated in this passage from one of his letters to Lucinus of Baetica (an area in southern Spain) written near the end of the fourth century (Letter 71 in modern editions).
The situation is as follows: Lucinus had sent a literary production team (notarii and librarii) from Spain to Bethlehem to make copies of Jerome’s compositions. The section of the letter that discusses the work of the copyists is interesting both for its book-ish vocabulary and its somewhat harsh view of the skills and work habits of the copyists. Jerome writes:
“I have passed along my little works (opuscula mea)—which, not from their own merit but simply from your own kindness, you said you wanted to have—to your people to be copied (ad describendum). I saw the copies in papyrus codices (in chartaceis codicibus) and frequently ordered them to collate and correct the text diligently. For I myself could not re-read so many volumes (tanta volumina) amidst the constant stream of visitors and crowds of travelers; furthermore—as those present can attest—I was afflicted by a long illness and barely began to recover during the days of Lent, just when they were setting out. Thus, if you find any errors of transcription or omissions that hinder the reader’s understanding, you should not blame me, but rather your own people and the ignorance of the stenographers and carelessness of the copyists (sed tuis et inperitiae notariorum librariorumque incuriae). They write down not what they find but what they take the text to mean (scribunt non quod inveniunt sed quod intellegunt); and while trying to correct the errors of others, they make their own errors evident.”1
There are a couple points that jumped out at me. First, copying is said to be taking place specifically in papyrus codices (in chartaceis codicibus), which are then called volumina. Second, the people who are doing the copying (notarii and librarii) draw the ire of Jerome, who accuses them of ineptitude. Jerome’s words echo Origin’s famous complaint in his Commentary on Matthew (15.14): “It is clear that the differences between the copies have become numerous, either from the shoddy work of copyists, or from the wicked recklessness of some, either in neglecting to correct what is written or even in adding or removing things based on their own opinions when they do correct.”2 It’s hard to know how much such complaints are just rhetorical commonplaces and how much they reflect the actual practices of copyists.
Regardless of the competence of the individuals involved, it is interesting to see the mechanics of the copying process: A patron sends his own literary workers across the empire to copy manuscripts (in papyrus codices) to then be brought back across the empire. One wonders if there was a final step of copying the text again on to parchment codices, or if the papyrus codices served as the “permanent” copies.
- I. Hilberg, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae, 2 vols. (CSEL 54-55; Vienna and Leipzig 1910-1912), 2.5-6: “Opuscula mea, quae non sui merito, sed bonitate tua desiderare te dicis, ad describendum hominibus tuis dedi et descripta vidi in chartaceis codicibus ac frequenter admonui, ut conferrent diligentius et emendarent, ego enim tanta volumina prae frequentia so commeantium et peregrinorum turbis relegere non potui et, ut ipsi probauere praesentes, longo tentus incommodo vix diebus quadragesimae, quibus ipsi proficiscebantur, respirare coepi, unde, si paragrammata reppereris vel minus aliqua descripta sunt, quae sensum legentis inpediant, non mihi debes inputare, sed tuis et inperitiae notariorum librariorumque incuriae, qui scribunt non quod inveniunt sed quod intellegunt, et, dum alienos errores emendare nituntur, ostendunt suos.” ↩︎
- Translation of Ronald E. Heine, The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew, Volume I (Oxford University Press, 2018), 204. ↩︎
