NOTAE
NOTAE (
σημεῖα) in a technical
sense means those signs and abbreviations which were used (1) for secret
writing,
cipher; (2) for rapid writing, i.e.
shorthand or
stenography.
1. We have frequent mention of the use of cipher, for despatches or letters
of an important or compromising nature, at the end of the Republican period.
Thus of Caesar's correspondence with Oppius and Balbus we are told by Gallus
that there were “litterae singulariae sine coagmentis syllabarum: erat
autem conventum inter eos (the writer and his correspondents)
clandestinum de commutando situ litterarum.” The cipher used by
Caesar was, according to
[p. 2.244]Suetonius (
Suet. Jul. 56), a simple one, and consisted in
making D stand for A, E for B, and so on through the alphabet, “si qua
occultius perferenda essent.” The cipher used by Augustus was on
the same principle. (
Suet. Aug. 88;
Becker-Göll,
Gallus, 1.62.) Whether
the words
διὰ σημείων in
Cic. Att. 13.3. 2 mean, in cipher, or simply
with abbreviations of words (
sigla), or in
shorthand, is uncertain. The letter to which he refers (13.30) does not seem
to be one which particularly requires secrecy, but it is quite possible that
he may have sent it in cipher: on the other hand, he may, though less
probably, have sent Atticus the copy taken down in shorthand from his
dictation. However that may be, we may feel tolerably certain that in
Cicero's correspondence cipher was used at least as frequently as in
Caesar's.
2. The whole system of signs for numeration [see
LOGISTICA] is no doubt essentially stenography; but
it existed quite apart from, and probably was much anterior to, the art of
shorthand writing which is usually expressed by that word: the same may be
said of signs or letters for money value, weights, coins, &c.,
which, like the signs for numeration, arose from consideration of economy in
space, rather than from any necessity for
rapid
writing. Such a necessity was the origin of the
Notae
Tironianae (called also
Notae Tironis et
Senecae), which we may take as the representative of ancient
shorthand writing.
As to the history of this art, it is impossible to say with certainty whether
the Romans originated their own shorthand and communicated it to the Greeks,
or whether the Greeks had it first. The idea of its earlier use in Greece is
started by a passage of Diogenes Laertius (
2.48), which states that Xenophon took down lectures
ὑποσημειωσάμενος τὰ λεγόμενα. It is quite
possible that this may, as some think, mean that he wrote in shorthand; but,
in the absence of other mention of the art at that time, we should prefer to
understand it merely of ordinary note-taking. We have not in fact any direct
mention of its use among Greeks or Romans before the time of Cicero. (For a
much earlier use in Asia, some adduce the “ready writer” in
Psalm xlv., in which sense the LXX. translator possibly took it, when he
rendered it
ὀξυγράφος.) The use of
shorthand at Rome may have been developed from cipher-writing, or more
probably from the frequent use of abbreviations, such as
S.
C., &c. Of its use by Cicero we have abundant record.
Plutarch (
Cato Min. 23) tells us that the
speech on the punishment of the Catilinarians was the only speech of Cato
that was preserved, and that this was owing to Cicero, “who had
previously instructed those clerks who surpassed the rest in quick
writing, how to use certain signs (
σημεῖα) which in small and brief characters (
τύποις) comprehended the force of many
letters, and had placed them in many parts of the senate-house. For the
Romans at that time were not used to employ, nor did they possess, what
are called shorthand writers (
σημειογράφοι), but it was on this occasion, as they say,
that they first conceived the idea.” Dio Cassius (55.7) ascribes
the invention to Maecenas, which probably means merely that he, or his
secretaries, made considerable additions and improvements, and this is
exactly the account which Isidore gives in the 7th century, derived, as it
seems, from Suetonius. He ascribes the invention of the shorthand in general
use (
vulgares notae) to Ennius, who used 1100
signs: for taking down public speeches or the proceedings in law-courts,
there was also a division of labour among several
librarii (= notarii), who took different portions. He says
that Tiro had first used
notae at Rome,
“sed tantum praepositionum:” if that is correct, we must
suppose that the actual shorthand of Tiro consisted of abbreviations
(
sigla), with arbitrary signs only for
particles of frequent occurrence: he goes on to say that additional signs
were added in succession by Vipsanius, Philargyrus and Aquila, the freedman
of Maecenas, till at length Seneca reduced the whole to a regular system and
increased the number of signs to 5,000. As regards the Ennius here
mentioned, whom many writers have taken to be the
poet (whence they make Isidore assert a much earlier date to Roman
stenography), there can be little doubt that he was the
grammarian Ennius of the Augustan period (see Suet.
de
Grammat. 1; Teuffel,
Hist. of Rom. Lit.
§ 178, 4). Indeed the context shows clearly enough that Isidore
speaks of Ennius as improving on something which existed in a smaller shape
in Cicero's time. From Cicero's account of Tiro (
ad Farm.
16.4, &c.; cf.
Gel. 6.3,
8) it is extremely probable that the real labour of
the work was his, not Cicero's, and that the title “notae
Tironianae” is just: but the addition “et Senecae” seems
to be rejected by Seneca himself, who says, “quid loquar verborum
notas, quibus quamvis citata excipitur oratio et celeritatem linguae
manus sequitur? vilissimorum mancipiorum ista commenta sunt.” The
arrangement and additions were, however, probably effected by him through
his
notarii.
From this time its use spread. It served not only for taking down public
speeches (as in Plutarch,
l.c.), but also for the
use of students in the lecture-room (Quint.
Inst. proem. 7),
and for any writing from dictation, e. g. for the rough draft of wills:
“Silius notario testamentum
scribendum
notis dictavit, et priusquam litteris perscriberetur (the full
text for signature) defunctus est” (
Dig.
29,
1,
40). The same
distinction between
notae and
perscriptio may be seen in the fragment of Valerius
Probus about cipher-writing, “est etiam circa perscribendas vel
paucioribus litteris notandas voces studium necessarium.” It was
taught in schools: see Prudent.
Περὶ
Στεφάνων, 9.
Praefuerat studiis puerilibus et grege multo
Saeptus magister litterarum sederat,
Verba notis brevibus comprendere cuncta peritus, Raptimque punctis
dicta praepetibus sequi.
So Fulgentius (
Mythol. 3.10) divides the writing lesson into
the
abecedaria or regular alphabet, and the
notaria. Many Romans kept slaves trained
for the purpose [
NOTARII], and
Suetonius tells us that Titus, who prided himself on his skill in writing,
and said that he was a “forger spoilt,” used to race his
secretaries in shorthand writing (
Suet. Tit.
3). The use was still further developed among the Christians for
taking down sermons, episcopal addresses, &c.; and, if it was not as
old as Xenophon in Greece,
[p. 2.245]it was at any rate
widely employed in early Christian times. The extant examples of Greek
shorthand writing are considered to date only from the 10th century (see the
article Palaeography in
Encyclop. Brit.), but we can have no
doubt that if the art was originated at Rome it was not much later in
reaching Greece. As to its general use in Christian synods, St. Augustine
(
Ep. 141) says that eight
notarii in relays of two at a time followed the speeches of
bishops assembled at Carthage: and we are told by Trithemius (abbot of
Wurtzburg in 1506 A.D.) that St. Cyprian added to the original Tironian
notes. The words are worth quoting, since the learning and research of the
writer make it likely that his account of the development of the notae is
correct: “M. Tullius Cicero librum scripsit notarum quem Sanctus
Cyprianus multis et notis et dictionibus ampliavit, adjiciens vocabula
Christianorum usibus necessaria ut opus ipsum fieret non solum utile
paganis sed multo magis etiam fidelibus.” The notae fell
apparently into disuse for a considerable time, but were revived under the
Carlovingian dynasty and used in Capitularies, &c. The MSS. written
in the “Tironian” character long remained incomprehensible,
till Charpentier deciphered them and published an account of them in 1747.
As to the ancient system itself, we have some contemporary description from
the passage of Plutarch cited above (
Cat. Min. 23), who tells
us clearly that arbitrary signs, not merely abbreviations or
sigla, were used. Compare Manilius 4.197:
Hic et scriptor erit velox, cui littera verbum est,
Quique notis linguam superat, cursimque loquentis Excipiat longas
nova per compendia voces.
Auson.
Epigr. 146:
Cui multa fandi copia
Punctis peracta singulis Ut una vox absolvitur.
From the passage of Seneca quoted above, and from
Mart. 14.208, we can merely gather that the writer could keep
pace with the speaker. It is impossible to say how far what we possess under
the name of
notae Tironianae reproduces the system used in
the Augustan age. Common sense would suggest what Trithemius states to be
the fact, that great additions were made at various times; and the view
which he gives may fairly be accepted, that the system of Tiro was much the
same in its general outlines as that which is still extant under his name,
though far less full and elaborate. The system consists mainly (1) in using
an alphabet more or less based on the Roman letters which can be so modified
as to facilitate the junction of letters.
(2) In representing terminations by arbitrary signs, such as B. for
bam, .B for
bant (or,
instead of the regular letters, new characters similarly multiplied by the
variation of the point). To this the “punctis” in the passages
of Ausonius and Prudentius refer.
(3) In employing all sorts of abbreviations (
sigla) independently of the character used. (Cf. “cui
littera verbum est” above.)
(4) In adopting arbitrary signs, such as Trithemius describes, for words in
common use. With this correspond the
τύποι πολλῶν
γραμμάτων ἔχοντα δύναμιν of Plutarch and the “nova
compendia” of Manilius.
For further information on the subject, see Kopp,
Palaeographica
Critica, vol. i.; Ruess,
Tachygraphie; and
especially Jules Tardiff,
Mém. sur Not. Tiron., Acad. des
Inscriptions, sér. 2, vol. 3.1852, who all give
tables of the alphabet and examples of the writing as it has come down to
us.
[
W.S] [
G.E.M]
