The Time of
Documents

person as a reporter of impressions. There is no obligation on the part of the investigator to attach personal labels to his materials, any more than it is his duty to vindicate the characters of the names he may meet. Yet it happens in the nature of things that the possession of a name furnishes one of the most valuable keys to the other items wanted. Because the name is a convenient means of showing the writer's relation to other things, his position in the world, his nearness to the event, and other essential qualifications, the investigator attempts to find out who this person was. An anonymous communication would be exactly as good if the personal relations of the writer to the facts could be ascertained without the name.

Logically speaking, the time when a document was produced is as essential as the personality of the author, because it is important to know how soon after the event the account of it was produced. This is true even when the author is known, but in the anonymous case, the time having been ascertained, the task of finding the responsible writer is decidedly reduced. The general period to which a document belongs is not usually the difficult part of the problem. There are characteristics sufficiently distinct between the great divisions of history to make the larger classification comparatively simple. Obviously, a manuscript recovered from the ruins of Herculaneum could not have been written after the destruction of that city in 79 A. D., but the problem is usually more minute. We are usually looking for evidence that will mark the period more definitely than an occa

sional cataclysm of the elements which might affect the preservation of the document. In a large way, one may say that printed material is not to be expected before the middle of the fifteenth century, but the determination of the exact year of the article, or book, is the task which presents the difficulties.

In the case of manuscripts the auxiliary science of Evidence of palæography is the first to be called upon. The Words. methods of this branch of learning having been treated more fully in another place, it is only necessary to recall at this point that the writing of the various periods has been so carefully classified that experts can, with considerable certainty, determine at least the century and in many cases the place and the narrower epoch. At the same time this evidence ought to be controlled by the state of the language and the literary style. Certain general notions can be obtained at once, and by close examination a nearer approach will often be revealed. Literary expressions have had their history. Philology has in many instances fixed the limits within which words have had their day and died. Of this evidence of words an example was to be seen in the criticism of the history of Croyland already cited.' Yet the usages of terms do not bring the matter into close proximity with a date. This is not evidence with which to determine months or years, but rather a period or a generation. One might say that the word "boycott" did not come into use before the birth or manhood of the Irish landlord who bore that name, but there is no telling just when the noun became an active verb, 1 Page 26, above.

nomena.

nor how long it will remain a part of the English vocabulary. One should be grateful, however, for indications which show the point before which an expression was out of the question.

Natural Phe- The incidental facts mentioned in a narrative may likewise give a clue to the date of its composition. When earthquakes, floods, or other natural phenomena are cited, the dates may be learned perhaps from more exact authors. Eclipses may be calculated by astronomy. Battles and other incidents are sometimes mentioned as remote or recent events. Persons are referred to as living or dead. Monuments or buildings may be mentioned and the known date of their erection will indicate the period of the document. The absence of all reference to an important matter where one would naturally expect to find it may at times be used as an argument in fixing a date, but the positive reference is far safer evidence. One cannot always be certain that the omission is due to lack of knowledge.

Series.

Documents in An undated document may show by its contents that it belongs to a series, or connects with one or more whose dates are known. The British Calendars of State Papers contain many undated letters and papers, some of which were signed by the writers and some were not. They are often without indications of the place of origin, but the contents so correspond to other known letters, or the sequence is so natural and necessary, that the editors have been able to fix dates or authors with great probability.1

1

See also Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England, p. 321 and note.

The best mode of procedure is to determine, first, one of the limits before which, or after which, the document could not have been written. The other extreme should then be sought, and when the time after which it could not have appeared has been found it will be easier to approach the probable intermediate date. A case in point is a determination of

the date of Cicero's De Legibus, gathered from inter- Cicero's De nal evidence. In that work the demagogue Clodius Legibus. is mentioned in two passages as if not living. (De Leg., II, 42.; III, 21.) Consequently Cicero must have written after his death, which according to Mommsen occurred on January 13, 702, A. U. C.2

With this point as a terminus post quem it is found further that Cicero in the course of the same work advocates the introduction of a new law to restrict the existing unlimited freedom of debate in courts of law. (De. Leg., III., 40.) Such a law was introduced by Pompey with reference to the trial of Milo, and is mentioned by Tacitus in his Dialogues. (Ch. 38.) Pompey was placed in position to bring forward such a law by his election as sole consul on the twenty-fifth of February, 702 A. U. C. Milo's trial began April 4, 702.

Cicero clearly wrote his essay before the promulgation of the law. Being a public man and constantly in the courts, he was in position to know of such an important change. Moreover, if he had known that Pompey had brought forward the project, he would

1 Alfred Gudemann, Philologische Wochenschrift, July, 1892. 2 Mommsen, Hist. Rome, Bk. V, ch. 8. Grand Encyclopedie gives 20 Jan., 52 B. C.

have mentioned the fact, because he actually praises Pompey for other legislation in the same way. (De Leg., III, 22.) The terminus ante quem is therefore the trial of Milo, and the date of De Legibus may safely be placed between the death of Clodius and the prosecution of his rival; or between January 13 and April 4 of the year 702 A. U. C.