 |
| Cassiodorus (Gesta Theodorici: Leiden, University Library, Ms. vul. 46, fol. 2r) |
Cassiodorus is famous for the foundation of his monastery at Vivarium in southern Italy and the copying of books and manuscripts. These activities, however, occurred later in his life. He spent a large part of his earlier career as a Roman statesman serving the administration of Theodoric the Great. Many of his letters are preserved from this time, and in Book 12, letter 21 we find him writing to a certain Deusdedit, a Scribe of Ravenna, about the duties of a scribe. In one place Cassiodorus declares that;
"Banish, therefore, all thoughts of venality from your mind. The worst moth that gets into papers and destroys them is the gold of the dishonest litigant, who bribes the Scribes to make away with evidence which he knows to be hostile. Thus, then, be ready always to produce to suitors genuine old documents; and, on the other hand, transcribe only, do not compose ancient proceedings. Let the copy correspond to the original as the wax to the signet-ring, that as the face is the index of the emotions so your handwriting may not err from the authentic original in anything." (Ep. 12.21)The context appears to be that of a courtroom, where the scribe is admitting evidence of some kind (contracts, wills, deeds, and the like) and transcribing the minutes of the court proceedings. I find it particularly telling that Cassiodorus declares that the scribes task is to "transcribe only" and not to "compose." And in relation to the copying of texts, he states, "let the copy correspond to the original" and ensure that the "handwriting may not err from the authentic original in anything."
Though the topic of Cassiodorus's letter primarily concerns the scribes task in the courtroom (a primary task for an official city scribe), I cannot help but think that this gives a glimpse into his attitudes towards the copying of biblical texts later in his life.
_____________________
Hodgkin, Thomas, trans. The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde, 1886. (pg. 511-512)
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteHow can we email you? I have a "request" on a theological topic that may best be handle by private email. Don't know how much you write on theologically-related topics.
Hello Brett, you can message me here, if you like;
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/thetextualmechanic/
Just use the "Message" option.
Brett, I also added a "Contact Me" gadget on the top right side of the screen (in desktop mode)
DeleteTimothy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post. I believe the evidence speaks loudly, as many scholars now admit, that not in courtrooms but in general and particularly where religious texts are involved, scribes intentions were to do as proscribed above. As humans, sometimes external factors like fatigue and internal factors like familiarity with a particular gospel account led to inaccurate copying, nevertheless the goal seems to have been faithful transcription.
Tim
Thank you for the encouragement Tim. I agree, there are many good reasons to see that the New Testament writings were transmitted faithfully over the centuries.
DeleteHow important is the context here? On what grounds can we assume that Cassiodorus would view the chirographic reproduction of biblical texts with the same rigidity as he does a courtroom document? I don't *really* doubt the plausibility of your claim here but, given the diversity of attitudes toward scribal freedom/fidelity in Christian antiquity, I wonder if there's anything in Cassiodorus's other writings to support the supposition?
ReplyDeleteDanny, thank you for your comment; great questions. I think that there are good reasons to carry Cassiodorus's comments into his attitudes towards the copying of texts, particularly biblical texts. He definitely saw it as his mission later in life to preserve these ancient texts, and was central in organizing the monastic movement into taking on this task. I do not have any specific quotations from Cassiodorus's writings, but it is something I will be on the lookout for.
DeleteThanks again for your though provoking questions.
Though it is often claimed that there is a wide diversity of scribal attitudes toward textual fidelity, I have yet to see any firm evidence of that particular kind of variety. All scribes of which we have record intended fidelity. No one, again of whom I am aware, thought of themselves as "free." The diversity is in scribal training, ability, and habit, not intention.
ReplyDeleteThank you Peter. I agree with you that it seems the task of the scribe has always been clear to the scribe; faithfully reproduce the document before them.
Delete