{Transcriber's Note:Except for footnote references, all brackets are in the original text. Material added by the transcriber is in {braces}. Typographical errors are listed at the end of the text. }

 A SIXTH-CENTURY FRAGMENT

 of the

 LETTERS OF PLINY THE YOUNGER

 A Study of Six Leaves of an Uncial Manuscript Preserved in the Pierpont Morgan Library New York

 by

 E. A. LOWE

Associate of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Sandars Reader at Cambridge University (1914) Lecturer in Palaeography at Oxford University

 and

 E. K. RAND

 Professor of Latin in Harvard University

 [Illustration: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON 1902]

 Published by the CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON Washington, 1922

 CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

 Publication No. 304

 The University Press CAMBRIDGE, MASS. U. S. A. 

 PREFATORY NOTE. 

The Pierpont Morgan Library, itself a work of art, contains masterpiecesof painting and sculpture, rare books, and illuminated manuscripts. Scholars generally are perhaps not aware that it also possesses theoldest Latin manuscripts in America, including several that even thegreatest European libraries would be proud to own. The collection isalso admirably representative of the development of script throughoutthe Middle Ages. It comprises specimens of the uncial hand, thehalf-uncial, the Merovingian minuscule of the Luxeuil type, the scriptof the famous school of Tours, the St. Gall type, the Irish andVisigothic hands, and the Beneventan and Anglo-Saxon scripts. 

Among the oldest manuscripts of the library, in fact the oldest, is a hitherto unnoticed fragment of great significance not only topalaeographers, but to all students of the classics. It consists of sixleaves of an early sixth-century manuscript of the _Letters_ of theyounger Pliny. This new witness to the text, older by three centuriesthan the oldest codex heretofore used by any modern editor, hasreappeared in this unexpected quarter, after centuries of wandering andhiding. The fragment was bought by the late J. Pierpont Morgan in Rome, in December 1910, from the art dealer Imbert; he had obtained it from DeMarinis, of Florence, who had it from the heirs of the Marquis Taccone, of Naples. Nothing is known of the rest of the manuscript. 

The present writers had the good fortune to visit the Pierpont MorganLibrary in 1915. One of the first manuscripts put into their hands wasthis early sixth-century fragment of Pliny’s _Letters_, which forms thesubject of the following pages. Having received permission to studythe manuscript and publish results, they lost no time in acquaintingclassical scholars with this important find. In December of thesame year, at the joint meeting of the American Archaeological andPhilological Associations, held at Princeton University, two paperswere read, one concerning the palaeographical, the other the textual, importance of the fragment. The two studies which follow, Part I byDoctor Lowe, Part II by Professor Rand, are an elaboration of the viewspresented at the meeting. Some months after the present volume was inthe form of page-proof, Professor E. T. Merrill’s long-expected editionof Pliny’s _Letters_ appeared (Teubner, Leipsic, 1922). We regret thatwe could not avail ourselves of it in time to introduce certain changes. The reader will still find Pliny cited by the pages of Keil, and ingeneral he should regard the date of our production as 1921 ratherthan 1922. 

The writers wish to express their gratitude for the privilege ofvisiting the Pierpont Morgan Library and making full use of itsfacilities. For permission to publish the manuscript they are indebtedto the generous interest of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. They also desire tomake cordial acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness ofthe Librarian, Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and her assistant, Miss AdaThurston. Lastly, the writers wish to thank the Carnegie Institution ofWashington for accepting their joint study for publication and for theirliberality in permitting them to give all the facsimiles necessary toillustrate the discussion. 

 E. K. RAND. E. A. LOWE. 

 CONTENTS. 

Part I. THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT. By E. A. Lowe. 

Description of the Fragment Contents, size, vellum, binding Ruling Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the manuscript Original size of the manuscript Disposition Ornamentation Corrections Syllabification Orthography Abbreviations Authenticity of the six leaves Archetype

The Date and Later History of the Manuscript On the dating of uncial manuscripts Dated uncial manuscripts Oldest group of uncial manuscripts Characteristics of the oldest uncial manuscripts Date of the Morgan manuscript Later history of the Morgan manuscript Conclusion

Transcription

Part II. THE TEXT OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT. By E. K. Rand. 

The Morgan Fragment and Aldus’s Ancient Codex Parisinus The Codex Parisinus The Bodleian volume The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost Parisinus The script Provenience and contents The text closely related to that of Aldus Editorial methods of Aldus

Relation of the Morgan Fragment to the Other Manuscripts of the Letters Classes of the manuscripts The early editions _Π_ a member of Class I _Π_ the direct ancestor of _BF_ with probably a copy intervening The probable stemma Further consideration of the external history of _P_, _Π_, and _B_ Evidence from the portions of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_

Editorial Methods of Aldus Aldus’s methods; his basic text The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume Aldus and Budaeus compared The latest criticism of Aldus Aldus’s methods in the newly discovered parts of Books VIII, IX, and X The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus Conclusion

Description of Plates

 PART I. 

 THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT

 by

 E. A. LOWE

 THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT. 

 DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENT. 

[Sidenote: _Contents size vellum binding_]

The Morgan fragment of Pliny the Younger contains the end of Book IIand the beginning of Book III of the _Letters_ (II, xx. 13-III, v. 4). The fragment consists of six vellum leaves, or twelve pages, whichapparently formed part of a gathering or quire of the original volume. 

The leaves measure 11-3/8 by 7 inches (286 x 180 millimeters); thewritten space measures 7-1/4 by 4-3/8 inches (175 x 114 millimeters);outer margin, 1-7/8 inches (50 millimeters); inner, 3/4 inch (18millimeters); upper margin, 1-3/4 inches (45 millimeters); lower, 2-1/4 inches (60 millimeters). 

The vellum is well prepared and of medium thickness. The leaves arebound in a modern pliable vellum binding with three blank vellumfly-leaves in front and seven in back, all modern. On the inside of thefront cover is the book-plate of John Pierpont Morgan, showing theMorgan arms with the device: _Onward and Upward_. Under the book-plateis the press-mark M. 462. 

[Sidenote: _Ruling_]

There are twenty-seven horizontal lines to a page and two verticalbounding lines. The lines were ruled with a hard point on the fleshside, each opened sheet being ruled separately: 48v and 53r, 49r and52v, 50v and 51r. The horizontal lines were guided by knife-slits madein the outside margins quite close to the text space; the two verticallines were guided by two slits in the upper margin and two in the lower. The horizontal lines were drawn across the open sheets and extendedoccasionally beyond the slits, more often just beyond the perpendicularbounding lines. The written space was kept inside the vertical boundinglines except for the initial letter of each epistle; the first letter ofthe address and the first letter of the epistle proper projected intothe left margin. Here and there the scribe transgressed beyond thebounding line. On the whole, however, he observed the limits and seemedto prefer to leave a blank before the bounding line rather than to crowdthe syllable into the space or go beyond the vertical line. 

[Sidenote: _Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the manuscript_]

One might suppose that the six leaves once formed a complete gatheringof the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios 48rand 53v have a darker appearance, as though they had been the outsideleaves of a gathering that had been affected by exposure. But thisdarker appearance is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that bothpages are on the hair side of the parchment, and the hair side is alwaysdarker than the flesh side. Quires of six leaves or trinions are notunknown. Examples of them may be found in our oldest manuscripts. Butthey are the exception. [1] The customary quire is a gathering of eightleaves, forming a quaternion proper. It would be natural, therefore, tosuppose that our fragment did not constitute a complete gathering initself but formed part of a quaternion. The supposition is confirmed bythe following considerations:

 [Footnote 1: For example, in the fifth-century manuscript of Livy in Paris (MS. Lat. 5730) the forty-third and forty-fifth quires are composed of six leaves, while the rest are all quires of eight. ]

In the first place, if our six leaves were once a part of a quaternion, the two leaves needed to complete them must have formed the outsidesheet, since our fragment furnishes a continuous text without any lacunawhatever. Now, in the formation of quires, sheets were so arranged thathair side faced hair side, and flesh side flesh side. This arrangementis dictated by a sense of uniformity. As the hair side is usually muchdarker than the flesh side the juxtaposition of hair and flesh sideswould offend the eye. So, in the case of our six leaves, folios 48v and53r, presenting the flesh side, face folios 49r and 52v likewise on theflesh side; and folios 49v and 52r presenting the hair side, face folios50r and 51v likewise on the hair side. The inside pages 50v and 51rwhich face each other, are both flesh side, and the outside pages 48rand 53v are both hair side, as may be seen from the accompanyingdiagram. 

(47) 48 49 50 51 52 53 (54) : | | | : | | | : : | | | Flesh : Flesh | | | : : | | +-------:-------+ | | : : | | Hair : Hair | | : : | | : | | : : | | Hair : Hair | | : : | +------------:------------+ | : : | Flesh : Flesh | : : | : | : : | Flesh : Flesh | : : +-----------------:-----------------+ : : Hair : Hair : : : : : Hair : Hair : : - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - : Flesh Flesh

From this arrangement it is evident that if our fragment once formedpart of a quaternion the missing sheet was so folded that its hair sidefaced the present outside sheet and its flesh side was on the outside ofthe whole gathering. Now, it was by far the more usual practice in ouroldest uncial manuscripts to have the flesh side on the outside of thequire. [2] And as our fragment belongs to the oldest class of uncialmanuscripts, the manner of arranging the sheets of quires seems to favorthe supposition that two outside leaves are missing. The hypothesis is, moreover, strengthened by another consideration. According to thefoliation supplied by the fifteenth-century Arabic numerals, the leafwhich must have followed our fragment bore the number 54, the leafpreceding it having the number 47. If we assume that our fragment wasa complete gathering, we are obliged to explain why the next gatheringbegan on a leaf bearing an even number (54), which is abnormal. We donot have to contend with this difficulty if we assume that folios 47 and54 formed the outside sheet of our fragment, for six quires of eightleaves and one of six would give precisely 54 leaves. It seems, therefore, reasonable to assume that our fragment is not a completeunit, but formed part of a quaternion, the outside sheet of which ismissing. 

 [Footnote 2: In an examination of all the uncial manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, it was found that out of twenty manuscripts that may be ascribed to the fifth and sixth centuries only two had the hair side on the outside of the quires. Out of thirty written approximately between A. D. 600 and 800, about half showed the same practice, the other half having the hair side outside. Thus the practice of our oldest Latin scribes agrees with that of the Greek: see C. R. Gregory, “Les cahiers des manuscrits grecs” in _Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_ (1885), p. 261. I am informed by Professor Hyvernat, of the Catholic University of Washington, that the same custom is observed by Coptic scribes. ]

[Sidenote: _Original size of the manuscript_]

In the fifteenth century, as the previous demonstration has made clear, our fragment was preceded by 47 leaves that are missing to-day. Withthis clue in our possession it can be demonstrated that the manuscriptbegan with the first book of the _Letters_. We start with the fact thatnot all the 47 folios (or 94 pages) which preceded our six leaves weredevoted to the text of the _Letters_. For, from the contents of our sixleaves we know that each book must have been preceded by an index ofaddresses and first lines. The indices for Books I and II, if arrangedin general like that of Book III, must have occupied four pages. [3] Wealso learn from our fragment that space must be allowed for a colophonat the end of each book. One page for the colophons of Books I and II isa reasonable allowance. Accordingly it follows that out of the 94 pagespreceding our fragment 5 were not devoted to text, or in other wordsthat only 89 pages were thus devoted. 

 [Footnote 3: The confused arrangement of the indices for Books I and II in the Codex Bellovacensis may well have been found in the manuscript of which the Morgan fragment is a part. The space required for the indices, however, would not have greatly differed from that taken by the index of Book III in both the Morgan fragment and the Codex Bellovacensis. ]

Now, if we compare pages in our manuscript with pages of a printed textwe find that the average page in our manuscript corresponds to about 19lines of the Teubner edition of 1912. If we multiply 89 by 19 we get1691. This number of lines of the size of the Teubner edition should, ifour calculation be correct, contain the text of the _Letters_ precedingour fragment. The average page of the Teubner edition of 1912 of thepart which interests us contains a little over 29 lines. If we divide1691 by 29 we get 58. 3. Just 58 pages of Teubner text are occupied bythe 47 leaves which preceded our fragment. So close a conformity issufficient to prove our point. We have possibly allowed too much spacefor indices and colophons, especially if the former covered less groundfor Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviationof _que_ and _bus_, and particularly of official titles, we can notexpect a closer agreement. 

It is not worth while to attempt a more elaborate calculation. With theedges matching so nearly, it is obvious that the original manuscript asknown and used in the fifteenth century could not have contained someother work, however brief, before Book I of Pliny’s _Letters_. If themanuscript contained the entire ten books it consisted of about 260leaves. This sum is obtained by counting the number of lines in theTeubner edition of 1912, dividing this sum by 19, and adding theretopages for colophons and indices. It would be too bold to supposethat this calculation necessarily gives us the original size of themanuscript, since the manuscript may have had less than ten books, or itmay, on the other hand, have had other works. But if it contained onlythe ten books of the _Letters_, then 260 folios is an approximatelycorrect estimate of its size. 

It is hard to believe that only six leaves of the original manuscripthave escaped destruction. The fact that the outside sheet (foll. 48r and53v) is not much worn nor badly soiled suggests that the gathering ofsix leaves must have been torn from the manuscript not so very long agoand that the remaining portions may some day be found. 

[Sidenote: _Disposition_]

The pages in our manuscript are written in long lines, [4] in _scripturacontinua_, with hardly any punctuation. 

 [Footnote 4: Many of our oldest Latin manuscripts have two and even three columns on a page, a practice evidently taken over from the roll. But very ancient manuscripts are not wanting which are written in long lines, _e. G. _, the Codex Vindobonensis of Livy, the Codex Bobiensis of the Gospels, or the manuscript of Pliny’s _Natural History_ preserved at St. Paul in Carinthia. ]

Each page begins with a large letter, even though that letter occur inthe body of a word (cf. Foll. 48r, 51v, 52r). [5]

 [Footnote 5: This is an ear-mark of great antiquity. It is found, for example, in the Berlin and Vatican Schedae Vergilianae in square capitals (Berlin lat. 2º 416 and Rome Vatic. Lat. 3256 reproduced in Zangemeister and Wattenbach’s _Exempla Codicum Latinorum_, etc. , pl. 14, and in Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie_², pl. 12b), in the Vienna, Paris, and Lateran manuscripts of Livy, in the Codex Corbeiensis of the Gospels, and here and there in the palimpsest manuscript of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_ and in other manuscripts. ]

Each epistle begins with a large letter. The line containing the addresswhich precedes each epistle also begins with a large letter. In bothcases the large letter projects into the left margin. 

The running title at the top of each page is in small rusticcapitals. [6] On the verso of each folio stands the word EPISTVLARVM;on the recto of the following folio stands the number of the book, _e. G. _, LIB. II, LIB. III. 

 [Footnote 6: In many of our oldest manuscripts uncials are employed. The Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia agrees with our manuscript in using rustic capitals. For facsimiles see J. Sillig, _C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae_, Libri XXXVI, Vol. VI, Gotha 1855, and Chatelain, _Paléographie des Classiques Latins_, pl. CXXXVI. ]

To judge by our fragment, each book was preceded by an index ofaddresses and initial lines written in alternating lines of black andred uncials. Alternating lines of black and red rustic capitals of alarge size were used in the colophon. [7]

 [Footnote 7: In this respect, too, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia agrees with our fragment. Most of the oldest manuscripts, however, have the colophon in the same type of writing as the text. ]

[Sidenote: _Ornamentation_]

As in all our oldest Latin manuscripts, the ornamentation is ofthe simplest kind. Such as it is, it is mostly found at the end andbeginning of books. In our case, the colophon is enclosed between twoscrolls of vine-tendrils terminating in an ivy-leaf at both ends. Thelettering in the colophon and in the running title is set off by meansof ticking above and below the line. 

Red is used for decorative purposes in the middle line of the colophon, in the scroll of vine-tendrils, in the ticking, and in the border atthe end of the Index on fol. 49. Red was also used, to judge by ourfragment, in the first three lines of a new book, [8] in the addressesin the Index, and in the addresses preceding each letter. 

 [Footnote 8: This is also the case in the Paris manuscript of Livy of the fifth century, in the Codex Bezae of the Gospels (published in facsimile by the University of Cambridge in 1899), in the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia, and in many other manuscripts of the oldest type. ]

[Sidenote: _Corrections_]

The original scribe made a number of corrections. The omitted line ofthe Index on fol. 49 was added between the lines, probably by the scribehimself, using a finer pen; likewise the omitted line on fol. 52v, lines7-8. A number of slight corrections come either from the scribe or froma contemporary reader; the others are by a somewhat later hand, which isprobably not more recent than the seventh century. [9] The method ofcorrecting varies. As a rule, the correct letter is added above the lineover the wrong letter; occasionally it is written over an erasure. Anomitted letter is also added above the line over the space where itshould be inserted. Deletion of single letters is indicated by a dotplaced over the letter and a horizontal or an oblique line drawn throughit. This double use of expunction and cancellation is not uncommon inour oldest manuscripts. For details on the subject of corrections, seethe notes on pp. 23-34. 

 [Footnote 9: The strokes over the two consecutive _i_’s on fol. 53v, l. 23, were made by a hand that can hardly be older than the thirteenth century. ]

There is a ninth-century addition on fol. 53 and one of the fifteenthcentury on fol. 51. On fol. 49, in the upper margin, a fifteenth-centuryhand using a stilus or hard point scribbled a few words, now difficultto decipher. [10] Presumably the same hand drew a bearded head with ahalo. Another relatively recent hand, using lead, wrote in the leftmargin of fol. 53v the monogram QR[11] and the roman numerals i, ii, iiiunder one another. These numerals, as Professor Rand correctly saw, refer to the works of Pliny the Elder enumerated in the text. Furtheractivity by this hand, the date of which it is impossible to determine, may be seen, for example, on fol. 49v, ll. 8, 10, 15; fol. 52, ll. 4, 10, 13, 21, 22; fol. 53, ll. 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27; fol. 53v, ll. 5, 10, 15. 

 [Footnote 10: I venture to read _dominus meus . .. In te deus_. 

 [Footnote 11: This doubtless stands for _Quaere_ (= “investigate”), a frequent marginal note in manuscripts of all ages. A number of instances of _Q_ for _quaere_ are given by A. C. Clark, _The Descent of Manuscripts_, Oxford 1918, p. 35. ]

[Sidenote: _Syllabification_]

Syllables are divided after a vowel or diphthong except where sucha division involves beginning the next syllable with a group ofconsonants. [12] In that case the consonants are distributed between thetwo syllables, one consonant going with one syllable and the other withthe following, except when the group contains more than two successiveconsonants, in which case the first consonant goes with the firstsyllable, the rest with the following syllable. That the scribe iscontrolled by this mechanical rule and not by considerations ofpronunciation is obvious from the division SAN|CTISSIMUM and otherexamples found below. The method followed by him is made amply clearby the examples which occur in our twelve pages:[13]

fo. 48r, line 1, con-suleret 2, sescen-ties 3, ex-ta 7, fal-si

fo. 49v, line 3, spu-rinnam 5, senesce-re 7, distin-ctius 12, se-nibus 13, con-ueniunt 15, spurin-na 18, circum-agit 20, mi-lia 24, prae-sentibus 25, grauan-tur

fo. 50r, line 1, singu-laris 4, an-tiquitatis 5, au-dias 9, ite-rum 11, scri-bit 12, ly-rica 15, scri-bentis 17, octa-ua 19, uehe-menter 20, exer-citationis 21, se-nectute 22, paulis-per 23, le-gentem

fo. 50v, line 2, de-lectatur 3, co-moedis 4, uolupta-tes 5, ali-quid 6, lon-gum 11, senec-tut 12, uo-to 13, ingres-surus 14, ae-tatis 15, in-terim 16, ho-rum 20, re-xit 21, me-ruit 22, eun-dem 25, epis-tulam

fo. 51r, line 2, mi-hi 4, afria-nus 6, facultati-bus 7, super-sunt 8, gra-uitate 9, consi-lio 10, ut-or 13, ar-dentius 23, con-feras 24, habe-bis 27, concu-piscat

fo. 51v, line 3, san-ctissimum 5, memo-riam 10, pater-nus 11, contige-rit 12, lau-de 14, hones-tis 15, refe-rat 17, contuber-nium 21, circumspi-ciendus 22, scho-lae 24, nos-tro 27, praecep-tor

fo. 52r, line 2, demon-strare 5, iudi-cio 6, gra-uis 8, quan-tum 9, cre-dere 12, mag-nasque 13, ge-nitore 16, nes[cis]-se 19, nomi-na 20, fauen-tibus 23, dis-citur

fo. 52v, line 1, uidean-tur 3, con-silium 5, concu-pisco 6, pecu-nia 7, excucuris-sem 10, se-natu 12, ne-cessitatibus 19, postulaue-runt 21, bae-bium 23, clari-sima 25, in-quam 26, excusa-tionis

fo. 53r, line 1, com (_or_ con)-pulit 5, ueni-ebat 7, iniu-rias 8, ex-secutos 10, prae-terea 12, aduoca-tione 13, con-seruandum 15, com-paratum 16, sub-uertas 17, cumu-les 18, obliga-ti 23, tris-tissimum

fo. 53v, line 2, facili-orem 3, si-quis 5, offi-ciorum 7, praepara-tur 8, super-est 10, sim-plicitas 11, compro-bantis 14, diligen-ter 20, cog-nitio 22, milita-ret 26, exsol-uit

 [Footnote 12: Such a division as _ut_|_or_ on fol. 7, l. 10, is due entirely to thoughtless copying. The scribe probably took _ut_ for a word. ]

 [Footnote 13: For further details on syllabification in our oldest Latin manuscripts, see Th. Mommsen, “Livii Codex Veronensis, ” in _Abhandlungen der k. Akad. D. Wiss. Zu Berlin, phil. Hist. Cl. _ (1868), p. 163, n. 2, and pp. 165-6; Mommsen-Studemund, _Analecta Liviana_ (Leipsic 1873), p. 3; Brandt, “Der St. Galler Palimpsest, ” in _Sitzungsberichte der phil. Hist. Cl. Der k. Akad. Der Wiss. In Wien_, CVIII (1885), pp. 245-6; L. Traube, “Palaeographische Forschungen IV, ” in _Abhandlungen d. H. T. Cl. D. K. Bayer. Akad. D. Wiss. _ XXIV. 1 (1906), p. 27; A. W. Van Buren, “The Palimpsest of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_, ” in _Archaeological Institute of America, Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome_, ii (1908), pp. 89 sqq. ; C. Wessely, in his preface to the facsimile edition of the Vienna Livy (MS. Lat. 15), published in the Leyden series, _Codices graeci et latini_, etc. , T. XI. See also W. G. Hale, “Syllabification in Roman speech, ” in _Harvard Studies of Classical Philology_, VII (1896), pp. 249-71, and W. Dennison, “Syllabification in Latin Inscriptions, ” in _Classical Philology_, I (1906), pp. 47-68. ]

[Sidenote: _Orthography_]

The spelling found in our six leaves is remarkably correct. It comparesfavorably with the best spelling encountered in our oldest Latinmanuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. The diphthong _ae_ isregularly distinguished from _e_. The interchange of _b_ and _u_, _d_and _t_, _o_ and _u_, so common in later manuscripts, is rare here: theconfusion between _b_ and _u_ occurs once (_comprouasse_, fo. 52v, l. 1); the omission of _h_ occurs once (_pulcritudo_, fo. 51v, l. 26); theuse of _k_ for _c_ occurs twice (_karet_, fo. 51r, l. 14, and _karitas_, fo. 52r, l. 5). The scribe uses the correct forms in _adolescet_ (fo. 51v, l. 14) and _adulescenti_ (fo. 51v, l. 24); he writes _auonculi_(fo. 53v, l. 15), _exsistat_ (fo. 51v, l. 9), and _exsecutos_ (fo. 53r, l. 8). In the case of composite words he has the assimilated form insome, and in others the unassimilated form, as the following examplesgo to show:

fo. 48r, line 3, inpleturus fo. 48r, line 7, improbissimum 49r, 13a, adnotasse 48v, 23, composuisse 19, adsumo 50r, 1, ascendit 50r, 1, adsumit 6, imbuare 27, adponitur 22, accubat 50v, 3, adficitur 51r, 2, optulissem 51r, 19, adstruere 3, suppeteret 21, adstruere 16, ascendere 26, adpetat 51v, 16, accipiat 51v, 9, exsistat 52v, 1, comprouasse 12, inlustri 11, collegae 14, inbutus 17, impetrassent 52r, 18, admonebitur 53r, 8, accusationibus 52v, } 20, inplorantes 15, comparatum 22, adlegantes 53v, 1, computabam 24, adsensio 5, accusare 27, adtulisse 11, comprobantis 53r, 8, exsecutos 23, composuit

[Sidenote: _Abbreviations_]

Very few abbreviated words occur in our twelve pages. Those that arefound are subject to strict rules. What is true of the twelve pages wasdoubtless true of the entire manuscript, inasmuch as the sparing useof abbreviations in conformity with certain definite rules is acharacteristic of all our oldest manuscripts. [14] The abbreviationsfound in our fragment may conveniently be grouped as follows:

 [Footnote 14: That is, manuscripts written before the eighth century. The number of abbreviations increases considerably during the eighth century. Previously the only symbols found in calligraphic majuscule manuscripts are the “Nomina Sacra” (_deus_, _dominus_, _Iesus_, _Christus_, _spiritus_, _sanctus_), which constantly occur in Christian literature, and such suspensions as are met with in our fragment. A familiar exception is the manuscript of Gaius, preserved in the Chapter library of Verona, MS. Xv (13). This is full of abbreviations not found in contemporary manuscripts containing purely literary or religious texts. Cf. W. Studemund, _Gaii Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor_, etc. , Leipsic 1874; and F. Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_, pl. 18 (pl. 8 of the Supplement). The Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Cicero’s speeches is non-calligraphic and therefore not subject to the rule governing calligraphic products. The same is true of marginal notes to calligraphic texts. See W. M. Lindsay, _Notae Latinae_, Cambridge 1915, pp. 1-2. ]

1. Suspensions which might occur in any ancient manuscript orinscription, _e. G. _:

 B· = BUS Q· = QUE[15]·C̅· = GAIUS[16] P· C· = PATRES CONSCRIPTI

 [Footnote 15: Found only at the end of words in our fragment. Its use in the body of a word is, however, very ancient. ]

 [Footnote 16: The _C_ invariably has the two dots as well as the superior horizontal stroke. ]

2. Technical or recurrent terms which occur in the colophons at the endof each book and at the end of letters, as:

·EXP· = EXPLICIT·INC· = INCIPIT LIB· = LIBER VAL· = VALE[17]

 [Footnote 17: The abbreviation is indicated by a stroke above the letters as well as by a dot after them. ]

3. Purely arbitrary suspensions which occur only in the index ofaddresses preceding each book, suspensions which would never occur inthe body of the text, as: SUETON TRANQUE, [18] UESTRIC SPURINN·

 [Footnote 18: An ancestor of our manuscript must have had TRANQ·, which was wrongly expanded to TRANQUE. ]

4. Omitted _M_ at the end of a line, omitted _N_ at the end of a line, the omission being indicated by means of a horizontal stroke, thickenedat either end, which is placed over the space immediately following thefinal vowel. [19] This omission may occur in the middle of a word butonly at the end of a line. 

 [Footnote 19: This is a sign of antiquity. After the sixth century the _M_ or _N_stroke is usually placed above the vowel. The practice of confining the omission of _M_ or _N_ to the end of a line is a characteristic of our very oldest manuscripts. Later manuscripts omit _M_ or _N_ in the middle of a line and in the middle of a word. No distinction is made in our manuscript between omitted _M_ and omitted _N_. Some ancient manuscripts make a distinction. Cf. Traube, _Nomina Sacra_, pp. 179, 181, 183, 185, final column of each page; and W. M. Lindsay, _Notae Latinae_, pp. 342 and 345. ]

[Sidenote: _Authenticity of the six leaves_]

The sudden appearance in America of a portion of a very ancientclassical manuscript unknown to modern editors may easily arousesuspicion in the minds of some scholars. Our experience with the“Anonymus Cortesianus” has taught us to be wary, [20] and it is naturalto demand proof establishing the genuineness of the new fragment. [21] Asto the six leaves of the Morgan Pliny, it may be said unhesitatinglythat no one with experience of ancient Latin manuscripts could entertainany doubt as to their genuineness. The look and feel of the parchment, the ink, the script, the titles, colophons, ornamentation, corrections, and later additions, all bear the indisputable marks of genuineantiquity. 

 [Footnote 20: The fraudulent character of the alleged discovery was exposed in masterly fashion by Ludwig Traube in his “Palaeographische Forschungen IV, ” published in the _Abhandlungen der K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_, III Klasse, XXIV Band, 1 Abteilung, Munich 1904. ]

 [Footnote 21: Cf. E. T. Merrill, “On the use by Aldus of his manuscripts of Pliny’s _Letters_, ” in _Classical Philology_, XIV (1919), p. 34. ]

But it may be objected that a clever forger possessing a knowledge ofpalaeography would be able to reproduce all these features of ancientmanuscripts. This objection can hardly be sustained. It is difficultto believe that any modern could reproduce faithfully all thecharacteristics of sixth-century uncials and fifteenth-century notarialwriting without unconsciously falling into some error and betrayinghis modernity. Besides, there is one consideration which to my mindestablishes the genuineness of our fragment beyond a peradventure. Wehave seen above that the leaves of our manuscript are so arranged thathair side faces hair side and flesh side faces flesh side. The visibleeffect of this arrangement is that two pages of clear writing alternatewith two pages of faded writing, the faded appearance being caused bythe ink scaling off from the less porous surface of the flesh side ofthe vellum. [22] As a matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellumshowed faded writing long before modern time. To judge by the retouchedcharacters on fol. 53r it would seem that the original writing hadbecome illegible by the eighth or ninth century. [23] Still, aconsiderable period of time would, so far as we know, be necessary forthis process. It is highly improbable that a forger could devise thismethod of giving his forgery the appearance of antiquity, and even if heattempted it, it is safe to say that the present effect would not beproduced in the time that elapsed before the book was sold to Mr. Morgan. 

 [Footnote 22: That the hair side of the vellum retained the ink better than the flesh side may be seen from an examination of facsimiles in the Leyden series _Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti_. ]

 [Footnote 23: That the ink could scale off the flesh side of the vellum in less than three centuries is proved by the condition of the famous Tacitus manuscript in Beneventan script in the Laurentian Library. It was written in the eleventh century and shows retouched characters of the thirteenth. See foll. 102, 103 in the facsimile edition in the Leyden series mentioned in the previous note. ]

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Morgan fragment isa modern forgery. We are then constrained to credit the forger not onlywith a knowledge of palaeography which is simply faultless, but, as willbe shown in the second part, with a minute acquaintance with thecriticism and the history of the text. And this forger did not try toattain fame or academic standing by his nefarious doings, as was thecase with the Roman author of the forged “Anonymus Cortesianus, ” fornothing was heard of this Morgan fragment till it had reached thelibrary of the American collector. If his motive was monetary gain hechose a long and arduous path to attain it. It is hardly conceivablethat he should take the trouble to make all the errors and omissionsfound in our twelve pages and all the additions and correctionsrepresenting different ages, different styles, when less than halfthe number would have served to give the forged document an air ofverisimilitude. The assumption that the Morgan fragment is a forgerythus becomes highly unreasonable. When you add to this the fact thatthere is nothing in the twelve pages that in any way arouses suspicion, the conclusion is inevitable that the Morgan fragment is a genuine relicof antiquity. 

[Sidenote: _Archetype_]

As to the original from which our manuscript was copied, very little canbe said. The six leaves before us furnish scanty material on which tobuild any theory. The errors which occur are not sufficient to warrantany conclusion as to the script of the archetype. One item ofinformation, however, we do get: an omission on fol. 52v goes to showthat the manuscript from which our scribe copied was written in linesof 25 letters or thereabout. [24] The scribe first wrote EXCUCURIS|SEMCOMMEATU. Discovering his error of omission, he erased SEM at thebeginning of line 8 and added it at the end of line 7 (intruding uponmargin-space in order to do so), and then supplied, in somewhat smallerletters, the omitted words ACCEPTO UT PRAEFECTUS AERARI. As there are no_homoioteleuta_ to account for the omission, it is almost certain thatit was caused by the inadvertent skipping of a line. [25] The omittedletters number 25. 

 [Footnote 24: On the subject of omissions and the clues they often furnish, see the exhaustive treatise by A. C. Clark entitled _The Descent of Manuscripts_, Oxford 1918. ]

 [Footnote 25: Our scribe’s method is as patient as it is unreflecting. Apparently he does not commit to memory small intelligible units of text, but is copying word for word, or in some places even letter for letter. ]

A glance at the abbreviations used in the index of addresses on foll. 48v-49r teaches that the original from which our manuscript was copiedmust have had its names abbreviated in exactly the same form. There isno other way of explaining why the scribe first wrote AD IULIUMSERUIANUM (fol. 49, l. 12), and then erased the final UM and put apoint after SERUIAN. 

 THE DATE AND LATER HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. 

Our manuscript was written in Italy at the end of the fifth or moreprobably at the beginning of the sixth century. 

The manuscripts with which we can compare it come, with scarcely anexception, from Italy; for it is only of more recent uncial manuscripts(those of the seventh and eighth centuries) that we can say withcertainty that they originate in other than Italian centres. The onlyexception which occurs to one is the Codex Bobiensis (k) of the Gospelsof the fifth century, which may actually have been written in Africa, though this is far from certain. As for our fragment, the details of itsscript, as well as the ornamentation, disposition of the page, the ink, the parchment, all find their parallels in authenticated Italianproducts; and this similarity in details is borne out by the generalimpression of the whole. 

The manuscript may be dated at about the year A. D. 500, for the reasonthat the script is not quite so old as that of our oldest fifth-centuryuncial manuscripts, and yet decidedly older than that of the CodexFuldensis of the Gospels (F) written in or before A. D. 546. 

[Sidenote: _On the dating of uncial manuscripts_]

In dating uncial manuscripts we must proceed warily, since the dataon which our judgments are based are meagre in the extreme and ratherdifficult to formulate. 

The history of uncial writing still remains to be written. The chiefvalue of excellent works like Chatelain’s _Uncialis Scriptura_ orZangemeister and Wattenbach’s _Exempla Codicum Latinorum LitterisMaiusculis Scriptorum_ lies in the mass of material they offer to thestudent. This could not well be otherwise, since clear-cut, objectivecriteria for dating uncial manuscripts have not yet been formulated;and that is due to the fact that of our four hundred or more uncialmanuscripts, ranging from the fourth to the eighth century, very few, indeed, can be dated with precision, and of these virtually none is inthe oldest class. Yet a few guide-posts there are. By means of those itought to be possible not only to throw light on the development of thisscript, but also to determine the features peculiar to the differentperiods of its history. This task, of course, can not be attempted here;it may, however, not be out of place to call attention to certainsalient facts. 

The student of manuscripts knows that a law of evolution is observablein writing as in other aspects of human endeavor. The process ofevolution is from the less to the more complex, from the less to themore differentiated, from the simple to the more ornate form. Guided bythese general considerations, he would find that his uncial manuscriptsnaturally fall into two groups. One group is manifestly the older: inorthography, punctuation, and abbreviation it bears close resemblanceto inscriptions of the classical or Roman period. The other group is asmanifestly composed of the more recent manuscripts: this may be inferredfrom the corrupt or barbarous spelling, from the use of abbreviationsunfamiliar in the classical period but very common in the Middle Ages, or from the presence of punctuation, which the oldest manuscriptsinvariably lack. The manuscripts of the first group show letters thatare simple and unadorned and words unseparated from each other. Thoseof the second group show a type of ornate writing, the letters havingserifs or hair-lines and flourishes, and the words being well separated. There can be no reasonable doubt that this rough classification iscorrect as far as it goes; but it must remain rough and permit largeplay for subjective judgement. 

A scientific classification, however, can rest only on objectivecriteria--criteria which, once recognized, are acceptable to all. Suchcriteria are made possible by the presence of dated manuscripts. Now, ifby a dated manuscript we mean a manuscript of which we know, through asubscription or some other entry, that it was written in a certain year, there is not a single dated manuscript in uncial writing which is olderthan the seventh century--the oldest manuscript with a _precise_ dateknown to me being the manuscript of St. Augustine written in the Abbeyof Luxeuil in A. D. 669. [26] But there are a few manuscripts of which wecan say with certainty that they were written either before or aftersome given date. And these manuscripts which furnish us with a _terminusante quem_ or _post quem_, as the case may be, are extremely importantto us as being the only relatively safe landmarks for followingdevelopment in a field that is both remote and shadowy. 

 [Footnote 26: See below, p. 16. ]

The Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels, mentioned above, is our firstlandmark of importance. [27] It was read by Bishop Victor of Capua inthe years A. D. 546 and 547, as is testified by two entries, probablyautograph. From this it follows that the manuscript was written beforeA. D. 546. We may surmise--and I think correctly--that it was shortlybefore 546, if not in that very year. In any case the Codex Fuldensisfurnishes a precise _terminus ante quem_. 

 [Footnote 27: See below, p. 16. ]

The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragmentcontaining a computation for finding the correct date for EasterSunday. [28] Internal evidence makes it clear that this _ComputusPaschalis_ first saw light shortly after A. D. 447. The presumption isthat the Berlin leaves represent a very early copy, if not the original, of this composition. In no case can these leaves be regarded as a muchlater copy of the original, as the following purely palaeographicalconsiderations, that is, considerations of style and form of letters, will go to show. 

 [Footnote 28: See below, p. 16. ]

Let us assume, as we do in geometry, for the sake of argument, that theFulda manuscript and the Berlin fragment were both written about theyear 500--a date representing, roughly speaking, the middle point in theperiod of about one hundred years which separates the extreme limits ofthe dates possible for either of these two manuscripts, as the followingdiagram illustrates:

Berlin Paschal Computus Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels A D 447 || ca A D 546 A. D. 500

If our hypothesis be correct, then the script of these two manuscripts, as well as other palaeographical features, would offer strikingsimilarities if not close resemblance. As a matter of fact, a carefulcomparison of the two manuscripts discloses differences so marked as torender our assumption absurd. The Berlin fragment is obviously mucholder than the Fulda manuscript. It would be rash to specify the exactinterval of time that separates these two manuscripts, yet if weremember the slow development of types of writing the conclusion seemsjustified that at least several generations of evolution lie between thetwo manuscripts. If this be correct, we are forced to push the date ofeach as far back as the ascertained limit will permit, namely, theFulda manuscript to the year 546 and the Berlin fragment to the year447. Thus, apparently, considerations of form and style (purelypalaeographical considerations) confirm the dates derived fromexamination of the internal evidence, and the Berlin and Fuldamanuscripts may, in effect, be considered two dated manuscripts, two definite guide-posts. 

If the preceding conclusion accords with fact, then we may accept thetraditional date (circa A. D. 371) of the Codex Vercellensis of theGospels. The famous Vatican palimpsest of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_ seemsmore properly placed in the fourth than in the fifth century; and theolder portion of the Bodleian manuscript of Jerome’s translation of the_Chronicle_ of Eusebius, dated after the year A. D. 442, becomes anotherguide-post in the history of uncial writing, since a comparison withthe Berlin fragment of about A. D. 447 convinces one that the Bodleianmanuscript can not have been written much after the date of itsarchetype, which is A. D. 442. 

[Sidenote: _Dated uncial manuscripts_]

Asked to enumerate the landmarks which may serve as helpful guides inuncial writing prior to the year 800, we should hardly go far wrong ifwe tabulate them in the following order:[29]

 [Footnote 29: For the pertinent literature on the manuscripts in the following list the student is referred to Traube’s _Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen_, Vol. I, pp. 171-261, Munich 1909, and the index in Vol. III, Munich 1920. The chief works of facsimiles referred to below are: Zangemeister and Wattenbach, _Exempla codicum latinorum litteris maiusculis scriptorum_, Heidelberg 1876 & 1879; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, Paris 1884-1900, and _Uncialis scriptura codicum latinorum novis exemplis illustrata_, Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_, Treves 1907. (Second edition in French appeared in 1910. )]

1. Codex Vercellensis of the Gospels (a). Ca. A. 371

 Traube, l. C. , No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX. 

2. Bodleian Manuscript (Auct. T. 2. 26) of Jerome’s translation of theChronicle of Eusebius (older portion). Post a. 442

 Traube, l. C. , No. 164; J. K. Fotheringham, _The Bodleian manuscript of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius reproduced in collotype_, Oxford 1905, pp. 25-6; Steffens², pl. 17; also Schwartz in _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, XXVI (1906), c. 746. 

3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. Lat. 4º. 298). Ca. A. 447

 Traube, l. C. , No. 13; Th. Mommsen, “Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre 447” in _Abhandl. Der Berliner Akad. Aus dem Jahre 1862_, Berlin 1863, pp. 539 sqq. ; “Liber Paschalis Codicis Cicensis A. CCCCXLVII” in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi_, IX, 1, pp. 502 sqq. ; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXIII. 

4. Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F), Fulda MS. Bonifat. 1, read byBishop Victor of Capua. Ante a. 546

 Traube, l. C. , No. 47; E. Ranke, _Codex Fuldensis, Novum Testamentum Latine interprete Hieronymo ex manuscripto Victoris Capuani_, Marburg and Leipsic 1868; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXIV; Steffens², pl. 21a. 

5. Codex Theodosianus (Turin, MS. A. II. 2). A. 438-ca. 550

Manuscripts containing the Theodosian Code can not be earlier thanA. D. 438, when this body of law was promulgated, nor much later thanthe middle of sixth century, when the Justinian Code supplanted theTheodosian and made it useless to copy it. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 311; idem, “Enarratio tabularum” in _Theodosiani libri_ XVI edited by Th. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, Berlin 1905; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pls. XXV-XXVIII; C. Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pls. VII, VIII. See also _Oxyrh. Papyri_ XV (1922), No. 1813, pl. 1. 

6. The Toulouse Manuscript (No. 364) and Paris MS. Lat. 8901, containingCanons, written at Albi. A. 600-666

 Traube, l. C. , No. 304; F. Schulte, “Iter Gallicum” in _Sitzungsberichte der K. Akad. Der Wiss. Phil. -hist. Kl. _ LIX (1868), p. 422, facs. 5; C. H. Turner, “Chapters in the history of Latin manuscripts: II. A group of manuscripts of Canons at Toulouse, Albi and Paris” in _Journal of Theological Studies_, II (1901), pp. 266 sqq. ; and Traube’s descriptions in A. E. Burn, _Facsimiles of the Creeds from Early Manuscripts_ (= vol. XXXVI of the publications of the Henry Bradshaw Society). 

7. The Morgan Manuscript of St. Augustine’s Homilies, written in theAbbey of Luxeuil. Later at Beauvais and Chateau de Troussures. A. 669

 Traube, l. C. , No 307; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit de l’abbaye de Luxeuil copié en 625” in _Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque nationale_, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149 sqq. ; J. Havet, “Questions mérovingiennes: III. La date d’un manuscrit de Luxeuil” in _Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes_, XLVI (1885), pp. 429 sqq. 

8. The Berne Manuscript (No. 219B) of Jerome’s translation of theChronicle of Eusebius, written in France, possibly at Fleury. A. 699

 Traube, l. C. , No. 16; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LIX; J. R. Sinner, _Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bernensis_ (Berne 1760), pp. 64-7; A. Schone, _Eusebii chronicorum libri duo_, vol. II (Berlin 1866), p. XXVII; J. K. Fotheringham, _The Bodleian manuscript of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius_ (Oxford 1905), p. 4. 

9. Brussels Fragment of a Psalter and Varia Patristica (MS. 1221= 9850-52) written for St. Medardus in Soissons in the time ofChildebert III. A. 695-711

 Traube, l. C. , No. 27; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit mérovingien de Saint-Médard de Soissons” in _Revue archéologique_, Nouv. Sér. XLI (1881), pp. 257 sqq. And pl. IX; idem, “Notice sur un manuscrit mérovingien de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique Nr. 9850-52” in _Notices et extraits des manuscrits_, etc. , XXXI. 1 (1884), pp. 33-47, pls. 1, 2, 4; J. Van den Ghejn, _Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique_, II (1902), pp. 224-6. 

10. Codex Amiatinus of the Bible (Florence Laur. Am. 1) written inEngland. Ante a. 716

 Traube, l. C. , No. 44: Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXV; Steffens², pl. 21b; E. H. Zimmermann, _Vorkarolingische Miniaturen_ (Berlin 1916), pl. 222; but particularly G. B. De Rossi, _La biblia offerta da Ceolfrido abbate al sepolcro di S. Pietro, codice antichissimo tra i superstiti delle biblioteche della sede apostolica_--Al Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII, omaggio giubilare della biblioteca Vaticana, Rome 1888, No. V. 

11. The Treves Prosper (MS. 36, olim S. Matthaei). A. 719

 Traube, l. C. , No. 306; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XLIX; M. Keuffer, _Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu Trier_, I (1888), pp. 38 sqq. 

12. The Milan Manuscript (Ambros. B. 159 sup. ) of Gregory’s Moralia, written at Bobbio in the abbacy of Anastasius. Ca. A. 750

 Traube, l. C. , No. 102; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 121; E. H. Zimmermann, _Vorkarolingische Miniaturen_ (Berlin 1916), pl. 14-16, Text, pp. 10, 41, 152; A. Reifferscheid, _Bibliotheca patrum latinorum italica_, II, 38 sq. 

13. The Bodleian Acts of the Apostles (MS. Selden supra 30) written inthe Isle of Thanet. Ante a. 752

 Traube, l. C. , No. 165; Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, IV (New York 1876) 3458 b; S. Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate_ (Paris 1893), p. 44; Wordsworth and White, _Novum Testamentum_, II (1905), p. Vii. 

14. The Autun Manuscript (No. 3) of the Gospels, written at Vosevium. A. 754

 Traube, l. C. , No. 3; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LXI; Steffens², pl. 37. 

15. Codex Beneventanus of the Gospels (London Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 5463)written at Benevento. A. 739-760

 Traube, l. C. , No. 88; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 236; _Catalogue of the Ancient Manuscripts in the British Museum_, II, pl. 7. 

16. The Lucca Manuscript (No. 490) of the Liber Pontificalis. Post a. 787

 Traube, l. C. , No. 92; J. D. Mansi, “De insigni codice Caroli Magni aetate scripto” in _Raccolta di opuscoli scientifici e filologici_, T. XLV (Venice 1751), ed. A. Calogiera, pp. 78-80; Th. Mommsen, _Gesta pontificum romanorum_, I (1899) in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_; Steffens², pl. 48. 

Guided by the above manuscripts, we may proceed to determine the placewhich the Morgan Pliny occupies in the series of uncial manuscripts. Thestudent of manuscripts recognizes at a glance that the Morgan fragmentis, as has been said, distinctly older than the Codex Fuldensis of aboutthe year 546. But how much older? Is it to be compared in antiquity withsuch venerable monuments as the palimpsest of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_, with products like the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ or the Bodleian_Chronicle_ of Eusebius? If we examine carefully the characteristics ofour oldest group of fourth- and fifth-century manuscripts and comparethem with those of the Morgan manuscript we shall see that the latter, though sharing some of the features found in manuscripts of the oldestgroup, lacks others and in turn shows features peculiar to manuscriptsof a later group. 

[Sidenote: _Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_]

Our oldest group would naturally be composed of those uncial manuscriptswhich bear the closest resemblance to the above-mentioned manuscripts ofthe fourth and fifth centuries, and I should include in that group suchmanuscripts as these:

A. Of Classical Authors. 

1. Rome, Vatic. Lat. 5757. --Cicero, De Re Publica, palimpsest. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 269-70; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVII; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. XXXIX, 2; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 160; Steffens², pl. 15. For a complete facsimile edition of the manuscript see _Codices e Vaticanis selecti phototypice expressi_, Vol. II, Milan 1907; Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_ (Bonn 1912), pl. 4. 

2. Rome, Vatic. Lat. 5750 + Milan, Ambros. E. 147 sup. --ScholiaBobiensia in Ciceronem, palimpsest. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 265-68; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXI; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 112; complete facsimile edition in _Codices e Vaticanis selecti_, etc. , Vol. VII, Milan 1906; Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5a. 

3. Vienna, 15. --Livy, fifth decade (five books). 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 359; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVIII; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXX; complete facsimile edition in _Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti_, Tom. IX, Leyden 1907. 

4. Paris, lat. 5730. --Livy, third decade. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 183; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XIX; _Paleographical Society_, pls. 31 and 32; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXVI; _Réproductions des manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliothèque Nationale_, ed. H. Omont, Vol. I, Paris 1907. 

5. Verona, XL (38). --Livy, first decade, 6 palimpsest leaves. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 349-50. Th. Mommsen, _Analecta Liviana_, Leipsic 1873; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CVI. 

6. Rome, Vatic. Lat. 10696. --Livy, fourth decade, Lateran fragments. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 277; M. Vattasso, “Frammenti d’un Livio del V. Secolo recentemente scoperti, Codice Vaticano Latino 10696” in _Studi e Testi_, Vol. XVIII, Rome 1906; Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5b. 

7. Bamberg, Class. 35_a_. --Livy, fourth decade, fragments. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 7; idem, “Palaeographische Forschungen IV, Bamberger Fragmente der vierten Dekade des Livius” in _Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_, III Klasse, XXIV Band, I Abteilung, Munich 1904. 

8. Vienna, lat. 1_a_. --Pliny, Historia Naturalis, fragments. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 357; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXXXVII, 1. 

9. St. Paul in Carinthia, XXV a 3. --Pliny, Historia Naturalis, palimpsest. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 231; E. Chatelain, ibid. Pl. CXXXVI. Chatelain cites the manuscript under the press-mark XXV 2/67. 

10. Turin, A. II. 2. --Theodosian Codex, fragments, palimpsest. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 311; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXV; Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pl. VII. 

B. Of Christian Authors. 

1. Vercelli, Cathedral Library. --Gospels (_a_) ascribed to BishopEusebius (†371). 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX. 

2. Paris, lat. 17225. --Corbie Gospels (ff²). 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 214; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 87; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. II; Reusens, _Éléments de paléographie_, pl. III, Louvain 1899. 

3. Constance-Weingarten Biblical fragments. --Prophets, fragmentsscattered in the libraries of Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Fulda, and St. Paulin Carinthia. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 302; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXI; complete facsimile reproduction of the fragments in _Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti_, Supplementum IX, Leyden 1912, with introduction by P. Lehmann. 

4. Berlin, lat. 4º. 298. --Computus Paschalis of ca. A. 447. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 13; see above, p. 16, no. 3. 

5. Turin, G. VII. 15. --Bobbio Gospels (k). 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 324; _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, vol. II, Oxford 1886; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, C. Frati, _Monumenta Palaeographica sacra_, pl. V, 2; R. Beer, “Über den Ältesten Handschriftenbestand des Klosters Bobbio” in _Anzeiger der Kais. Akad. Der Wiss. In Wien_, 1911, No. XI, pp. 91 sqq. ; C. Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pls. XIV-XV; complete facsimile reproduction of the manuscript, with preface by C. Cipolla: _Il codice Evangelico _k_ della Biblioteca Universitaria Nazionale di Torino_, Turin 1913. 

6. Turin, F. IV. 27 + Milan, D. 519. Inf. + Rome, Vatic. Lat. 10959. --Cyprian, Epistolae, fragments. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 320; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. IV, 2; C. Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pl. XIII; Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5d. 

7. Turin, G. V. 37. --Cyprian, de opere et eleemosynis. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 323; Carta, Cipolla e Frati, _Monumenta palaeographica sacra_, pl. V, 1; Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pl. XII. 

8. Oxford, Bodleian Auct. T. 2. 26. --Eusebius-Hieronymus, Chronicle, post a. 442. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 164; see above, p. 16, no. 2. 

9. Petrograd Q. V. I. 3 (Corbie). --Varia of St. Augustine. 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 140; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. III; A. Staerk, _Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe siècle conservés à la bibliothèque impériale de Saint Petersburg_ (St. Petersburg 1910), Vol. II. Pl. 2. 

10. St. Gall, 1394. --Gospels (n). 

 Traube, l. C. , No. 60; _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, Vol. II, Oxford 1886; _Palaeographical Society_, II. Pl. 50; Steffens¹, pl. 15; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. I, 1; A. Chroust, _Monumenta Palaeographica_, XVII, pl. 3. 

[Sidenote: _Characteristics of the oldest uncial manuscripts_]

The main characteristics of the manuscripts included in the above list, which is by no means complete, may briefly be described thus:

 1. General effect of compactness. This is the result of _scriptura continua_, which knows no separation of words and no punctuation. See the facsimiles cited above. 

 2. Precision in the mode of shading. The alternation of stressed and unstressed strokes is very regular. The two arcs of {O} are shaded not in the middle, as in Greek uncials, but in the lower left and upper right parts of the letter, so that the space enclosed by the two arcs resembles an ellipse leaning to the left at an angle of about 45°, thus {O}. What is true of the {O} is true of other curved strokes. The strokes are often very short, mere touches of pen to parchment, like brush work. Often they are unconnected, thus giving a mere suggestion of the form. The attack or fore-stroke as well as the finishing stroke is a very fine, oblique hair-line. [30]

 [Footnote 30: In later uncials the fore-stroke is often a horizontal hair-line. ]

 3. Absence of long ascending or descending strokes. The letters lie virtually between two lines (instead of between four as in later uncials), the upper and lower shafts of letters like {H L P Q} projecting but slightly beyond the head and base lines. 

 4. The broadness of the letters {M N U}

 5. The relative narrowness of the letters {F L P S T}

 6. The manner of forming {B E L M N P S T}

 _B_ with the lower bow considerably larger than the upper, which often has the form of a mere comma. 

 _E_ with the tongue or horizontal stroke placed not in the middle, as in later uncial manuscripts, but high above it, and extending beyond the upper curve. The loop is often left open. 

 _L_ with very small base. 

 _M_ with the initial stroke tending to be a straight line instead of the well-rounded bow of later uncials. 

 _N_ with the oblique connecting stroke shaded. 

 _P_ with the loop very small and often open. 

 _S_ with a rather longish form and shallow curves, as compared with the broad form and ample curves of later uncials. 

 _T_ with a very small, sinuous horizontal top stroke (except at the beginning of a line when it often has an exaggerated extension to the left). 

 7. Extreme fineness of parchment, at least in parts of the manuscript. 

 8. Perforation of parchment along furrows made by the pen. 

 9. Quires signed by means of roman numerals often preceded by the letter _Q·_ (= Quaternio) in the lower right corner of the last page of each gathering. 

 10. Running titles, in abbreviated form, usually in smaller uncials than the text. 

 11. Colophons, in which red and black ink alternate, usually in large-sized uncials. 

 12. Use of a capital, _i. E. _, a larger-sized letter at the beginning of each page or of each column in the page, even if the beginning falls in the middle of a word. 

 13. Lack of all but the simplest ornamentation, _e. G. _, scroll or ivy-leaf. 

 14. The restricted use of abbreviations. Besides B· and Q· and such suspensions as occur in classical inscriptions only the contracted forms of the _Nomina Sacra_ are found. 

 15. Omission of _M_ and _N_ allowed only at the end of a line, the omission being marked by means of a simple horizontal line (somewhat hooked at each end) placed above the line after the final vowel and not directly over it as in later uncial manuscripts. 

 16. Absence of nearly all punctuation. 

 17. The use of {Symbol: infra?} in the text where an omission has occurred, and {Symbol: supra?} _after_ the supplied omission in the lower margin, or the same symbols reversed if the supplement is entered in the upper margin. 

If we now turn to the Morgan Pliny we observe that it lacks a number ofthe characteristics enumerated above as belonging to the oldest type ofuncial manuscripts. The parchment is not of the very thin sort. Therehas been no corrosion along the furrows made by the pen. The runningtitle and colophons are in rustic capitals, not in uncials. The mannerof forming such letters as {B E M R S T} differs from that employed inthe oldest group. 

 _B_ with the lower bow not so markedly larger than the upper. 

 _E_ with the horizontal stroke placed nearer the middle. 

 _M_ with the left bow tending to become a distinct curve. 

 _R S T_ have gained in breadth and proportionately lost in height. 

[Sidenote: _Date of the Morgan manuscript_]

Inasmuch as these palaeographical differences mark a tendency whichreaches fuller development in later uncial manuscripts, it is clear thattheir presence in our manuscript is a sign of its more recent characteras compared with manuscripts of the oldest type. Just as our manuscriptis clearly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about the year 546, so itis clearly more recent than the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ of about theyear 447. Its proper place is at the end of the oldest series of uncialmanuscripts, which begins with the Cicero palimpsest. Its closestneighbors are, I believe, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthiaand the _Codex Theodosianus_ of Turin. If we conclude by saying that theMorgan manuscript was written about the year 500 we shall probably notbe far from the truth. 

[Sidenote: _Later history of the Morgan manuscript_]

The vicissitudes of a manuscript often throw light upon the history ofthe text contained in the manuscript. And the palaeographer knows thatany scratch or scribbling, any _probatio pennae_ or casual entry, maybecome important in tracing the wanderings of a manuscript. 

In the six leaves that have been saved of our Morgan manuscript we havetwo entries. One is of a neutral character and does not take us further, but the other is very clear and tells an unequivocal story. 

The unimportant entry occurs in the lower margin of folio 53r. The words“_uir erat in terra_, ” which are apparently the beginning of the bookof Job, are written in Carolingian characters of the ninth century. Asthese characters were used during the ninth century in northern Italy aswell as in France, it is impossible to say where this entry was made. Ifin France, then the manuscript of Pliny must have left its Italian homebefore the ninth century. [31]

 [Footnote 31: This supposition will be strengthened by Professor Rand; see p. 53. ]

That it had crossed the Alps by the beginning of the fifteenth centurywe know from the second entry. Nay, we learn more precise details. Welearn that our manuscript had found a home in France, in the town ofMeaux or its vicinity. The entry is found in the upper margin of fol. 51r and doubtless represents a _probatio pennae_ on the part of anotary. It runs thus:

 “A tous ceulz qui ces p_rese_ntes l_ett_res verront et orront Jeh_an_ de Sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de Meaulx & Francois Beloy clerc Jure de p_ar_ le Roy nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que p_ar_. ”

The above note is made in the regular French notarial hand of thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries. [32] The formula of greeting withwhich the document opens is in the precise form in which it occurs innumberless charters of the period. All efforts to identify Jehan deSannemeres, keeper of the seal of the _provosté_ of Meaux, and FrançoisBeloy, sworn clerk in behalf of the King, have so far provedfruitless. [33]

 [Footnote 32: Compare, for example, the facsimile of a French deed of sale at Roye, November 24, 1433, reproduced in _Recueil de Fac-similés à l’usage de l’école des chartes_. Premier fascicule (Paris 1880), No. 1. ]

 [Footnote 33: No mention of either of these is to be found in Dom Toussaints du Plessis’ _Histoire de l’église de Meaux_. For documents with similar opening formulas, see ibid. Vol. Ii (Paris 1731), pp. 191, 258, 269, 273. ]

[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]

Our manuscript, then, was written in Italy about the year 500. It isquite possible that it had crossed the Alps by the ninth century or evenbefore. It is certain that by the fifteenth century it had found asylumin France. When and under what circumstances it got back to Italy willbe shown by Professor Rand in the pages that follow. 

So it is France that has saved this, the oldest extant witness ofPliny’s _Letters_, for modern times. To mediaeval France we are, infact, indebted for the preservation of more than one ancient classicalmanuscript. The oldest manuscript of the third decade of Livy was atCorbie in Charlemagne’s time, when it was loaned to Tours and a copy ofit made there. Both copy and original have come down to us. Sallust’s_Histories_ were saved (though not in complete form) for our generationby the Abbey of Fleury. The famous Schedae Vergilianae, in squarecapitals, as well as the Codex Romanus of Virgil, in rustic capitals, belonged to the monastery of St. Denis. Lyons preserved the _CodexTheodosianus_. It was again some French centre that rescued PomponiusMela from destruction. The oldest fragments of Ovid’s _Pontica_, theoldest fragments of the first decade of Livy, the oldest manuscript ofPliny’s _Natural History_--all palimpsests--were in some French centrein the Middle Ages, as may be seen from the indisputably eighth-centuryFrench writing which covers the ancient texts. The student of Latinliterature knows that the manuscript tradition of Lucretius, Suetonius, Cæsar, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius--to mention only the greatestnames--shows that we are indebted primarily to Gallia Christiana for thepreservation of these authors. 

{Transcriber's Note:Superscript letters are shown as in mathematical notation: ^{L}The twelve-page transcription retains the page and line breaks of theoriginal text, representing the manuscript itself. In a few places the authors used V in place of U. This appears to bean error, but has not been changed. }

 [TRANSCRIPTION] [A]

 {fol. 48r}

 LIBER·II·

CESSIT UT IPSE MIHI DIXERIT CUM CO_N_SULERET QUAM CITO SESTERTIUM SESCE_N_TIES INPLETURUS ESSET INUENISSE SE EXTA DUPLICATA QUIB_US_ PORTENDI MI^{L}LIES[1] ETDUCENTIES HABITURUM ET HABEBIT SIMODO UT COEPIT ALIENA TESTAMENTAQUOD EST IMPROBISSIMUM GENUS FALSI IPSIS QUORUM SUNT ILLA DICTAUERITUALE

[2]·C·PLINI·SECUNDI

EPISTULARUM·EXP_LICIT_·LIBER·II. 

·INC_IPIT_·LIB_ER_·III·FELICITER[2]

 [Footnote A: The original manuscript is in _scriptura continua_. For the reader’s convenience, words have been separated and punctuation added in the transcription. ]

 [Footnote 1: _L_ added by a hand which seems contemporary, if not the scribe’s own. If the scribe’s, he used a finer pen for corrections. ]

 [Footnote 2-2: The colophon is written in rustic capitals, the middle line being in red. ]

 {fol. 48v}

AD CALUISIUM RUFUM[1] NESCIO AN ULLUM 5AD UIBIUM·MAXIMUM QUOD·IPSE AMICIS TUISAD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE[2] CUM PATREM TUUMAD CAE^{CI}LIUM[3] MACRINUM 10 QUAMUIS ET AMICIAD BAEBIUM MACRUM PERGRATUM EST MIHI[4]AD ANNIUM[4] SEUERUM [4]EX HEREDITATE[4] QUAE 15AD CANINIUM RUFUM MODO NUNTIATUS ESTAD SUETON[5] TRANQUE FACIS AD PRO CETERAAD CORNELIUM[6] MINICIANUM 20 POSSUM IAM PERSCRIBAD UESTRIC SPURINN· COMPOSUISSE ME QUAED

 [Footnote 1: On this and the following page lines in red alternate with lines in black. The first line is in red. ]

 [Footnote 2: The _h_ seems written over an erasure. ]

 [Footnote 3: _ci_ above the line by first hand. ]

 [Footnote 4-4: Over an erasure apparently. ]

 [Footnote 5: _t_ over an erasure. ]

 [Footnote 6: _c_ over an erasure. ]

 {fol. 49r}

AD IULIUM GENITOR· EST OMNINO ARTEMIDORI 5AD CATILINUM SEUER· UENIAM AD CENAMAD UOCONIUM ROMANUM LIBRUM QUO NUPERAD PATILIUM 10 REM ATROCEMAD SILIUM PROCUL· PETIS UT LIBELLOS TUOSad nepotem adnotasse uideor fata dictaque·[1]AD IULIUM SERUIAN·[2] RECTE OMNIA 15AD UIRIUM SEUERUM OFFICIU CONSULATUSAD CALUISIUM RUFUM· ADSUMO TE IN CONSILIUMAD MAESIUM MAXIMUM 20 MEMINISTINE TEAD CORNELIUM PRISCUM AUDIO UALERIUM MARTIAL·

 [Footnote 1: Added interlineally, in black, by first hand using a finer pen. ]

 [Footnote 2: This is followed by an erasure of the letters _um_ in red. ]

 {fol. 49v}

·EPISTULARUM·

·C·PLINIUS·CALUISIO SUO SALUTEMNESCIO AN ULLUM IUCUNDIUS TEMPUSEXEGERIM QUAM QUO NUPER APUD SPURINNAM FUI ADEO QUIDEM UT NEMINEMMAGIS IN SENECTUTE SI MODO SENESCE 5RE DATUM EST AEMULARI UELIM NIHILEST ENIM ILLO UITAE GENERE DISTINCTIUS ME AUTEM UT CERTUS SIDERUMCURSUS ITA UITA HOMINUM DISPOSITADELECTAT SENUM PRAESERTIM NAM 10IUUENES ADHUC CONFUSA QUAEDAMET QUASI TURBATA NON INDECENT SENIB_US_ PLACIDA OMNIA ET OR^{DI}NATA[1] CONUENIUNT QUIB_US_ INDUSTRIA SER^{U}A[1] TURPISAMBITIO EST HANC REGULAM SPURIN 15NA CONSTANTISSIME SERUAT·QUIN ETIA_M_PARUA HAEC PARUA·SI NON COTIDIE FIANTORDINE QUODAM ET UELUT ORBE CIRCU_M_AGIT MANE LECTULO[2] CONTINETUR HORASECUNDA CALCEOS POSCIT AMBULAT MI 20LIA PASSUUM TRIA NEC MINUS ANIMUMQUAM CORPUS EXERCET SI ADSUNT AMICIHONESTISSIMI SERMONES EXPLICANTURSI NON LIBER LEGITUR INTERDUM ETIAM PRAESENTIB_US_ AMICIS SI TAMEN ILLI NON GRAUA_N_ 25TUR DEINDE CONSIDIT[3] ET LIBER RURSUSAUT SERMO LIBRO POTIOR·MOX UEHICULU_M_

 [Footnote 1: Letters above the line were added by first or contemporary hand. ]

 [Footnote 2: _u_ corrected to _e_. ]

 [Footnote 3: Second _i_ corrected to _e_ (not the regular uncial form) apparently by the first or contemporary hand. ]

 {fol. 50r}

·LIBER·III·

ASCENDIT ADSUMIT UXOREM SINGULARIS EXEMPLI UEL ALIQUEM AMICORUMUT ME PROXIME QUAM PULCHRUM ILLUDQUAM DULCE SECRETUM QUANTUM IBI A_N_TIQUITATIS QUAE FACTA QUOS UIROS AU 5DIAS QUIB_US_ PRAECEPTIS IMBUARE QUAMUISILLE HOC TEMPERAMENTUM MODESTIAESUAE INDIXERIT NE PRAECIPE REUIDEATURPERACTIS SEPTEM MILIB_US_ PASSUUM ITERUM AMBULAT MILLE ITERUM RESIDIT 10UEL SE CUBICULO AC STILO REDDIT SCRIBIT ENIM ET QUIDEM UTRAQ_UE_ LINGUA LYRICA DOCTISSIMA MIRA ILLIS DULCEDOMIRA SUAUITAS MIRA HILARITA[. T][. I]S[1] CUIUSGRATIAM CUMULAT SANCTITA[. T][. I]S[2] SCRI 15BENTIS UBI HORA BALNEI NUNTIATA ESTEST AUTEM HIEME NONA·AESTATE OCTAUA IN SOLE SI CARET UENTO AMBULATNUDUS DEINDE MOUETUR PILA UEHEMENTER ET DIU NAM HOC QUOQ_UE_ EXER 20CITATIONIS GENERE PUGNAT CUM SENECTUTE LOTUS ACCUBAT ET PAULISPER CIBUM DIFFERT INTERIM AUDIT LEGENTEM REMISSIUS ALIQUID ET DULCIUSPER HOC OMNE TEMPUS LIBERUM EST 25AMICIS UEL EADEM FACERE UEL ALIASI MALINT ADPON^{I}TUR[3] CENA NON MINUS

 [Footnote 1: The scribe first wrote _hilaritatis_. To correct the error he or a contemporary hand placed dots above the _t_ and _i_ and drew a horizontal line through them to indicate that they should be omitted. This is the usual method in very old manuscripts. ]

 [Footnote 2: _sanctitatis_ is corrected to _sanctitas_ in the manner described in the preceding note. ]

 [Footnote 3: _i_ added above the line, apparently by first hand. ]

 {fol. 50v}

·EPISTULARUM·

NITIDA QUAM FRUGI IN ARGENTO PURO ETANTIQUO SUNT IN USU ET C^{H}ORINTHIA[1] QUIB_US_ DELECTATUR ET ADFICITUR FREQUENTER COMOEDIS CENA DISTINGUITUR UT UOLUPTATES QUOQ_UE_ STUDIIS CONDIANTUR SUMIT ALI 5QUID DE NOCTE ET AESTATE NEMI^{NI}[1] HOC LO_N_GUM EST TANTA COMITATE CONUIUIUMTRAHITUR INDE ILLI POST SEPTIMUM ETSEPTUAGENSIMUM ANNUM AURIUMOCULORUM UIGOR INTEGER INDE AGILE 10ET UIUIDUM CORPUS SOLAQ_UE_ EX SENECTUTE PRUDENTIA HANC EGO UITAM UOTO ET COGITATIONE PRAESUMO INGRESSURUS AUIDISSIME UT PRIMUM RATIO AETATIS RECEPTUI CANERE PERMISERIT[2] IN 15TERIM MILLE LABORIB_US_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM MIHI ET SOLACIUM ET EXEMPLUMEST IDEM SPURINNA NAM ILLE QUOQ_UE_QUOAD HONESTUM FUIT OB^{I}IT[1] OFFICIAGESSIT MAGISTRATUS PROVINCIAS RE 20XIT MULTOQ^{_UE_} LABORE HOC OTIUM MERUIT IGITUR EUNDEM MIHI CURSUM EU_N_DEM TERMINUM STATUO IDQ_UE_ IAM NUNCAPUD TE SUBSIGNO UT SI ME LONGIUS SEEUEHI[3] UIDERIS IN IUS UOCES AD HANC EPIS 25TULAM MEAM ET QUIESCERE IUBEAS CUMINERTIAE CRIMEN EFFUGERO UAL_E_·[4]

 [Footnote 1: The letters above the line are additions by the first, or by another contemporary, hand. ]

 [Footnote 2: _permiserit_: _t_ stands over an erasure, and original _it_ seems to be corrected to _et_, with _e_ having the rustic form. ]

 [Footnote 3: The scribe first wrote _longius se uehi_. The _e_ which precedes _uehi_ was added by him when he later corrected the page and deleted _se_. ]

 [Footnote 4: _uale_: The abbreviation is marked by a stroke above as well as by a dot after the word. ]

 {fol. 51r}

·LIBER·III·

 _A tout ceulz qui ces presentes lettres verront et orront Jehan de sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de Meaulx & francois Beloy clerc Jure de par le Roy nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que par. _[1]

·C̅·PLINIUS·MAXIMO SUO SALUT_EM_QUOD IPSE AMICIS TUIS OPTULISSEM·SI MIHI EADEM MATERIA SUPPETERET ID NUNCIURE UIDEOR A TE MEIS PETITURUS ARRIANUS MATURUS ALTINATIUM EST PRINCEPS 5CUM DICO PRINCEPS NON DE FACULTATIBUS LOQUOR QUAE ILLI LARGE SUPERSUNT SED DE CASTITATE IUSTITIA GRAUITATE PRUDENTIA HUIOS EGO CONSILIO IN NEGOTIIS IUDICIO IN STUDIIS UT 10OR NAM PLURIMUM FIDE PLURIMUMVERITATE PLURIMUM INTELLEGENTIAPRAESTAT AMAT ME NIHIL POSSUM ARDENTIUS DICERE UT TU KARET AMBITUI[2]IDEO SE IN EQUESTRI GRADU TENUIT CUM 15FACILE POSSIT[3] ASCENDERE ALTISSIMU_M_MIHI TAMEN ORNANDUS EXCOLENDUSQUE EST ITAQ_UE_ MAGNI AESTIMO DIGNITATIEIUS ALIQUID ADSTRUERE INOPINANTISNESCIENTIS IMMO ETIAM FORTASSE 20NOLENTIS ADSTRUERE AUTEM QUOD SITSPLENDIDUM NEC MOLESTUM CUIUSGENERIS QUAE PRIMA OCCASIO TIBI CO_N_FERAS IN EUM ROGO HABEBIS ME HABEBIS IPSUM GRATISSIMUM DEBITOREM 25QUAMUIS ENIM ISTA NON ADPETAT TAMGRATE TAMEN EXCIPIT QUAM SI CONCU

 [Footnote 1: A fifteenth-century addition, see above, p. 21. ]

 [Footnote 2: The scribe originally divided _i-deo_ between two lines. On correcting the page he (or a contemporary corrector) cancelled the _i_ at the end of the line and added it before the next. ]

 [Footnote 3: _i_ changed to _e_ (not the uncial form) possibly by the original hand in correcting. ]

 {fol. 51v}

·EPISTULARUM·

PISCAT·UALE·C̅·PLINIUS·CORELLIAE·SALUTEM·CUM PATREM TUUM GRAUISSIMUM ET SANCTISSIMUM UIRUM SUSPEXERIM MAGISAN AMAUERIM DUBITEM TEQ_UE_ IN MEMO 5RIAM EIUS ET IN HONOREM TUUM I^{U}NU^{I}ICE[1]DILIGAM CUPIAM NECESSE EST ATQ_UE_ ETIA_M_QUANTUM IN ME FUERIT ENITAR UT FILIUSTUUS AUO SIMILIS EXSISTAT EQUIDEMMALO MATERNO QUAMQ^{U}AM[2] ILLI PATER 10NUS ETIAM CLARUS SPECTATUS^{Q_UE_}[3] CONTIGERIT PATER QUOQ_UE_ ET PATRUUS INLUSTRI LAUDE CONSPICUI QUIB_US_ OMNIB_US_ ITA DEMUMSIMILIS ADOLESCET SIBI INBUTUS HONESTIS ARTIBUS FUERIT QUAS PLURIMUM REFER[4] 15ṘȦT[5] A QUO POTISSIMUM ACCIPIAT ADHUCILLUM PUERITIAE RATIO INTRA CONTUBERNIUM TUUM TENUIT PRAECEPTORES DOMIHABUIT UBI EST ERRORIB_US_ MODICA ^{U}E^{L}ST[6] ETIA_M_NULLA MATERIA IAM STUDIA EIUS EXTRA 20LIMEN CONFERANDA SUNT IAM CIRCUMSPICIENDUS RHETOR LATINUS CUIUS SCHOLAE SEUERITAS PUDOR INPRIMIS CASTITASCONSTET ADEST ENIM ADULESCENTI NOSTRO CUM CETERIS NATURAE FORTUNAEQ_UE_ 25DOTIB_US_ EXIMIA CORPORIS PULC^{H}RITUDO[7]CUI IN HOC LUBRICO AETATIS NON PRAECEP

 [Footnote 1: _inuice_: corrected to _unice_ by cancelling _i_ and _ui_ (the cancellation stroke is barely visible) and writing _u_ and _i_ above the line. The correction is by a somewhat later hand. ]

 [Footnote 2: _u_ above the line is by the first hand. ]

 [Footnote 3: _q·_ above the line is added by a somewhat later hand. ]

 [Footnote 4: Final _r_ is added by a somewhat later hand. ]

 [Footnote 5: The dots above _ra_ indicate deletion. The cancellation stroke is oblique. ]

 [Footnote 6: A somewhat later corrector, possibly contemporary, changed _est_ to _uel_ by adding _u_ before _e_ and _l_ above _s_ and cancelling both _s_ and _t_. ]

 [Footnote 7: _h_ added above the line by a hand which may be contemporary. ]

 {fol. 52r}

·LIBER·III·

TOR MODO SED CUSTOS ETIAM RECTORQ_UE_QUAERENDUS EST UIDEOR ERGO DEMONSTRARE TIBI POSSE IULIUM GEN^{I}TIOREM[1]AM^{N}ATUR[2] A ME I^{U}DICIO[3] TAMEN MEO NONOBSTAT KARITAS HOMINIS QUAE ^{EX}[4]IUDI 5CIO NATA EST UIR EST EMENDATUS ET GRAUIS PAULO ETIAM HORRIDIOR ET DURIORUT IN HAC LICENTIA TEMPORUM QUANTUM ELOQUENTIA UALEAT PLURIB_US_ CREDERE POTES NAM DICENDI FACULTAS 10APERTA ET EXPOSITA·STATIM CERNITURUITA HOMINUM ALTOS RECESSUS MAGNASQ_UE_ LATEBRAS HABET CUIUS PRO GENITORE ME SPONSOREM ACCIPE NIHILEX HOC UIRO FILIUS TUUS AUDIET NISI 15PROFUTURUM NIHIL DISCET QUOD NESCIS[5]SE RECTIUS FUERIT NE^{C}[6] MINUS SAEPE ABILLO QUAM A TE MEQUE ADMONEBITURQUIB_US_ IMAGINIB_US_ ONERETUR QUAE NOMINA ET QUANTA SUSTINEAT PROINDE FAUE_N_ 20TIBUS DIIS TRADE eUM[7] PRAECEPTORI AQUO MORES PRIMUM MOX ELOQUENTIA_M_DISCAT QUAE MALE SINE MORIBUS DISCITUR UALE

·C· PLINIUS MACRINO SALUTEM 25

QUAMUIS ET AMICI QUOS PRAESENTESHABEBAM ET SERMONES HOMINUM

 [Footnote 1: The scribe wrote _gentiorem_: a somewhat later corrector changed it to _genitorem_ by adding an _i_ above the line between _n_ and _t_ and cancelled the _i_ after _t_. ]

 [Footnote 2: Above the _m_ a somewhat later hand wrote _n_. It was cancelled by a crude modern hand using lead. ]

 [Footnote 3: _u_ added above the line by the later hand. ]

 [Footnote 4: _ex_ added above the line by the later corrector. ]

 [Footnote 5: _cis_ is added in the margin by the later hand. The original scribe wrote _nes_ | _se_. ]

 [Footnote 6: _c_ is added above the line by the later hand. ]

 [Footnote 7: _e_ added above the line. ]

 {fol. 52v}

·EPISTULARUM·

FACTUM MEUM COMPROUASSE UIDEANTUR MAGNI TAMEN AESTIMO SCIRE QUIDSENTIAS TU NAM CUIUS INTEGRA RE CONSILIUM EXQUIRERE O^{P}TASSEM[1] HUIUS ETIA_M_PERACTA IUDICIȦUM[2] NOSSE MIRE CONCU 5PISCO CUM PUBLICUM OPUS MEA PECUNIA INCHOATURUS IN TUSCOS EXCUCURIS{SE_M_ AC}{CEPTO UT PR} COMMEATU[3] LEGATI PROVINCIAE {above COMMEATU: AEFECTUS AERARI}BAETICAE QUESTURI DE PROCONSULATUṠ[4]CAECILII CLASSICI ADVOCATUM ME A SE 10NATU PETIERUNT COLLEGAE OPTIMI MEIQ_UE_AMANTISSIMI DE COMMUNIS OFFICII NECESSITATIB_US_ PRAELOCUTI EXCUSAREME ET EXIMERE TEMPTARUNT FACTUMṪU̇Ṁ[5] EST SENATUS CONSULTUM PERQUAM 15HONORIFICUM UT DARE^{R}[6] PROVINCIALIB_US_PATRONUS SI AB IPSO ME IMPETRASSENTLEGATI RURSUS INDUCTI ITERUM ME IA_M_PRAESENTEM ADUOCATUM POST^{U}LAUE[7]RUNT INPLORANTES FIDEM MEAM 20QUAM ESSENT CONTRA MASSAM BAEBIUM EXPERTI ADLEGANTES PATRO^{C}INII[8]FOEDUS SECUTA EST SENATUS CLARISSIMA ADSENSIO QUAE SOLET DECRETAPRAECURRERE TUM EGO DESINO IN 25QUAM P. C. PUTARE ME IUSTAS EXCUSATIONIS CAUSAS ADTULISSE PLACUIT ET

 [Footnote 1: _p_ added above the line by the scribe. ]

 [Footnote 2: The superfluous _a_ is cancelled by means of a dot above the letter. ]

 [Footnote 3: The scribe originally wrote _excucuris | sem commeatu_, omitting _accepto ut praefectus aerari_. Noticing his error, he erased _sem_ and wrote it at the end of the preceding line, and added the omitted words over the erasure and the word _commeatu_. ]

 [Footnote 4: The dot over _s_ indicates deletion. ]

 [Footnote 5: _tum_: error due to diplography. The correction is made by means of dots and crossing out. ]

 [Footnote 6: _r_ added by the scribe. ]

 [Footnote 7: _u_ added apparently by a contemporary hand. ]

 [Footnote 8: _c_ added above the line, apparently by a contemporary hand. ]

 {fol. 53r}

·LIBER·III·

MODESTIA SERMONIS ET RATIO CO_M_PULIT AUTEM ME AD HOC CONSILIUM NO_N_SOLUM CONSENSUS SENATUS QUAMQUA_M_HIC MAXIME UERUM ET ALII QUIDEMMINORIS SED TAMEN NUMERI UENI 5EBAT IN MENTEM PRIORES NOSTROSETIAM SINGULORUM HOSPİTIUM[1] INIURIAS ACCUSATIONIB_US_ UOLUNTARIIS EXSECUTOS QUO DEFORMIUS ARBITRABARPUBLICI ^{H}OSPITII ^{I}URA[2] NEGLEGERE PRAE 10TEREA CUM RECORDARER QUANTAPRO IISDEM BAETICIS PRIORE ADUOCATIONE ETIAM PERICULA SUBISSEM CO_N_SERVANDUM UETERIS OFFICII MERITU_M_NOVO VIDEBATUR EST ENIM ITA COM 15PARATUM UT ANTIQUIORA BENEFICIA SUBUERTAS NISI ILLA POSTERIORIB_US_ CUMULES NAM QUAMLIBET SAEPE OBLIGA(N)[3]TI SIQUID[4] UNUM NEGES HOC SOLUMMEMINERUNT QUOD NEGATUM EST 20DUCEBAR ETIAM QUOD DECESSERATCLASSICUS AMOTUMQ_UE_ ERAT QUODI[5]N EIUSMODI CAUSIS SOLET ESSE TRISṪİTISSIMUM[6] PERICULUM SENATORISUIDEBAM ERGO ADUOCATIONI MEAE 25NON MINOREM GRATIAM QUAM SIUIUERET ILLE PROPOSITAM INUIDIAM

 _Uir erat in terra_[7]

 [Footnote 1: Deletion of _i_ before _u_ is marked by a dot above the letter and a slanting stroke through it. ]

 [Footnote 2: _h_ and _i_ above the line are apparently by the first hand. ]

 [Footnote 3: _n_ (in brackets) is a later addition. ]

 [Footnote 4: The letters _uid_ are plainly retraced by a later hand. The same hand retouched _neges h_ in the same line. ]

 [Footnote 5: _i_ before _n_ added by a later corrector who erased the _i_ which the scribe wrote after _quod_, in the line above. ]

 [Footnote 6: Superfluous _ti_ cancelled by means of dots and oblique stroke. ]

 [Footnote 7: Added by a Caroline hand of the ninth century. ]

 {fol. 53v}

·EPISTULARUM·

NULLAM IN SUMMA COMPUTABAMSI MUNERE HOC TERTIO FUNGERE^{R}[1] FACILIOREM MIHI EXCUSATIONEM FORE SIQUIS INCIDISSET QUEM NON DEBEREMACCUSARE NAM CUM EST OMNIUM OFFI 5CIORUM FINIS ALIQUIS TUM OPTIMELIBERTATI UENIA OBSEQUIO PRAEPARATUR AUDISTI CONSILII MEI MOTUS SUPEREST ALTERUTRA EX PARTE IUDICIUM TUUMIN QUO MIHI AEQ_UE_ IUCU^{I}NDA[2] ERIT SIM 10PLICITAS DISSI^{N}TIENTIS[3] QUAM COMPROBANTIS AUCTORITAS UALE

·C̅·PLINIUS MACRO·SUO·SALUTEM

PERGRATUM EST MIHI QUOD TAM DILIGE_N_TER LIBROS AUONCULI MEI LECTITAS UT 15HABERE OMNES UELIS QUAERASQ_UE_ QUISINT OMNES ḊĖFUNGAR[4] INDICIS PARTIBUSATQUE ETIAM QUO SINT ORDINE SCRIPTINOTUM TIBI FACIAM EST ENIM HAECQUOQ_UE_ STUDIOSIS NON INIUCUNDA COG 20NITIO DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI UNUS·HUNC CUM PRAEFECTUS ALAE MILITARET· PARI[5] INGENIO CURAQ_UE_ COMPOSUIT·DE UITA POMPONI SECUNDI DUO A QUOSINGULARITER AMATUS HOC MEMORIAE 25AMICI QUASI DEBITUM MUNUS EXSOLUIT·BELLORUM GERMANIAE UIGINTI QUIB_US_

 [Footnote 1: _r_ added above the line by the scribe or by a contemporary hand. ]

 [Footnote 2: _i_ added above the second _u_ by the scribe or by a contemporary hand. ]

 [Footnote 3: The scribe wrote _dissitientis_. A contemporary hand changed the second _i_ to _e_ and wrote an _n_ above the _t_. ]

 [Footnote 4: _de_ is cancelled by means of dots above the _d_ and _e_ and oblique strokes drawn through them. ]

 [Footnote 5: The strokes over the _i_ at the end of this word and at the beginning of the next were added by a corrector who can not be much older than the thirteenth century. ]

 PART II. 

 THE TEXT OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT

 by

 E. K. RAND

 THE MORGAN FRAGMENT AND ALDUS’S ANCIENT CODEX PARISINUS. [1]

[Sidenote: _The Codex Parisinus_]

Aldus Manutius, in the preface to his edition of Pliny’s _Letters_, printed at Venice in 1508, expresses his gratitude to Aloisio Mocenigo, Venetian ambassador in Paris, for bringing to Italy an exceptionallyfine manuscript of the _Letters_; the book had been found not longbefore at or near Paris by the architect Fra Giocondo of Verona. The_editio princeps_, 1471, was based on a family of manuscripts thatomitted Book VIII, called Book IX Book VIII, and did not contain Book X, the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Subsequent editions hadonly in part made good these deficiencies. More than a half of Book X, containing the letters numbered 41-121 in editions of our day, waspublished by Avantius in 1502 from a copy of the Paris manuscript madeby Petrus Leander. [2] Aldus himself, two years before printing hisedition, had received from Fra Giocondo a copy of the entire manuscript, with six other volumes, some of them printed editions which Giocondo hadcollated with manuscripts. Aldus, addressing Mocenigo, thus describeshis acquisition:

 “Deinde Iucundo Veronensi Viro singulari ingenio, ac bonarum literarum studiosissimo, quod et easdem Secundi epistolas ab eo ipso exemplari a se descriptas in Gallia diligenter ut facit omnia, et sex alia uolumina epistolarum partim manu scripta, partim impressa quidem, sed cum antiquis collata exemplaribus, ad me ipse sua sponte, quae ipsius est ergo studiosos omneis beneuolentia, adportauerit, idque biennio ante, quam tu ipsum mihi exemplar publicandum tradidisses. ”

 [Footnote 1: I would acknowledge most gratefully the help given me in the preparation of this part of our discussion by Professor E. T. Merrill, of the University of Chicago. Professor Merrill, whose edition of the _Letters_ of Pliny has long been in the hands of Teubner, placed at my disposal his proof-sheets for the part covered in the Morgan fragment, his preliminary _apparatus criticus_ for the entire text of the _Letters_, and a card-catalogue of the readings of _B_ and _F_. He patiently answered numerous questions and subjected the first draft of my argument to a searching criticism which saved me from errors in fact and in expression. But Professor Merrill should not be held responsible for errors that remain or for my estimate of the Morgan fragment. ]

 [Footnote 2: On Petrus Leander, see Merrill in _Classical Philology_ V (1910), pp. 451 f. ]

So now the ancient manuscript itself had come. Aldus emphasizes itsvalue in supplying the defects of previous editions. The _Letters_ willnow include, he declares:

 “multae non ante impressae. Tum Graeca correcta, et suis locis restituta, atque retectis adulterinis, uera reposita. Item fragmentatae epistolae, integrae factae. In medio etiam epistolae libri octaui de Clitumno fonte non solum uertici calx additus, et calci uertex, sed decem quoque epistolae interpositae, ac ex Nono libro Octauus factus, et ex Octauo Nonus, Idque beneficio exemplaris correctissimi, & mirae, ac uenerandae Vetustatis. ”

The presence of such a manuscript, “most correct, and of a marvellousand venerable antiquity, ” stimulates the imagination: Aldus thinks thatnow even the lost Decades of Livy may appear again:

 “Solebam superioribus Annis Aloisi Vir Clariss. Cum aut T. Liuii Decades, quae non extare creduntur, aut Sallustii, aut Trogi historiae, aut quemuis alium ex antiquis autoribus inuentum esse audiebam, nugas dicere, ac fabulas. Sed ex quo tu ex Gallia has Plinii epistolas in Italia reportasti, in membrana scriptas, atque adeo diuersis a nostris characteribus, ut nisi quis diu assuerit, non queat legere, coepi sperare mirum in modum, fore aetate nostra, ut plurimi ex bonis autoribus, quos non extare credimus, inueniantur. ”

There was something unusual in the character of the script that made ithard to read; its ancient appearance even suggested to Aldus a date asearly as that of Pliny himself. 

 “Est enim uolumen ipsum non solum correctissimum, sed etiam ita antiquum, ut putem scriptum Plinii temporibus. ”

This is enthusiastic language. In the days of Italian humanism, a scholar might call almost any book a _codex pervetustus_ if itsupplied new readings for his edition and its script seemed unusual. As Professor Merrill remarks:[3]

 “The extreme age that Aldus was disposed to attribute to the manuscript will, of course, occasion no wonder in the minds of those who are familiar with the vague notions on such matters that prevailed among scholars before the study of palaeography had been developed into somewhat of a science. The manuscript may have been written in one of the so-called ‘national’ hands, Lombardic, Visigothic, or Merovingian. But if it were in a ‘Gothic’ hand of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, it might have appeared sufficiently grotesque and illegible to a reader accustomed for the most part to the exceedingly clear Italian book hands of the fifteenth century. ”

 [Footnote 3: _C. P. _ II (1907), pp. 134 f. ]

In a later article Professor Merrill well adds that even the uncialscript would have seemed difficult and alien to one accustomed to thecurrent fifteenth-century style. [4] A contemporary and rival editor, Catanaeus, disputed Aldus’s claims. In his second edition of the_Letters_ (1518), he professed to have used a very ancient book thatcame down from Germany and declared that the Paris manuscript had noright to the antiquity which Aldus had imputed to it. But Catanaeus hasbeen proved a liar. [5] He had no ancient manuscript from Germany, andabused Aldus mainly to conceal his cribbings from that scholar’sedition; we may discount his opinion of the age of the Parisinus. UntilAldus, an eminent scholar and honest publisher, [6] is proved guilty, weshould assume him innocent of mendacity or naïve ignorance. He speaks inearnest; his words ring true. We must be prepared for the possibilitythat his ancient manuscript was really ancient. 

 [Footnote 4: _C. P. _ X (1915), pp. 18 f. ]

 [Footnote 5: By Merrill, _C. P. _ V (1910), pp. 455 ff. ]

 [Footnote 6: Sandys, _A History of Classical Studies_ II (1908), pp. 99 ff. ]

Since Aldus’s time the Parisinus has disappeared. To quote Merrillagain:[7]

 “This wonderful manuscript, like so many others, appears to have vanished from earth. Early editors saw no especial reason for preserving what was to them but copy for their own better printed texts. Possibly some leaves of it may be lying hid in old bindings; possibly they went to cover preserve-jars, or tennis-racquets; possibly into some final dust-heap. At any rate the manuscript is gone; the copy by Iucundus is gone; the copy of the correspondence with Trajan that Avantius owed to Petrus Leander is gone; if others had any other copies of Book X, in whole or in part, they are gone too. ”

 [Footnote 7: _C. P. _ II, p. 135. ]

[Sidenote: _The Bodleian volume_]

In 1708 Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, bought at auction a peculiarvolume of Pliny’s _Letters_. It consisted of Beroaldus’s edition of thenine books (1498), the portions of Book X published by Avantius in 1502, and, on inserted leaves, the missing letters of Books VIII and X. [8] Theprinted portions, moreover, were provided with over five hundred variantreadings and lemmata in a different hand from that which appeared on theinserted leaves; the hand that added the variants also wrote in themargin the sixteenth letter of Book IX, which is not in the edition ofBeroaldus. Hearne recognized the importance of this supplementarymatter, for he copied the variants into his own edition of the _Letters_(1703), intending, apparently, to use them in a larger edition which heis said to have published in 1709; he also lent the book to Jean Masson, who refers to it in his _Plinii Vita_. Upon Hearne’s death, thisvaluable volume was acquired by the Bodleian Library in Oxford, but layunnoticed until Mr. E. G. Hardy, in 1888, [9] examined it and, after acomparison of the readings, pronounced it the very copy from which Aldushad printed his edition in 1508. External proof of this highly excitingsurmise seemed to appear in a manuscript note on the last page of theedition of Avantius, written in the hand that had inserted the variantsand supplements throughout the volume:[10]

 “hae plinii iunioris epistolae ex uetustissimo exemplari parisiensi et restitutae et emendatae sunt opera et industria ioannis iucundi prestantissimi architecti hominis imprimis antiquarii. ”

 [Footnote 8: See plate XVII, which shows the insertion in Book VIII. ]

 [Footnote 9: _Journal of Philology_ XVII (1888), pp. 95 ff. , and in the introduction to his edition of the _Tenth Book_ (1889), pp. 75 ff. ]

 [Footnote 10: See Merrill _C. P. _ II, p. 136. ]

What more natural to conclude than that here is the very copy that Aldusprepared from the ancient manuscript and the collations and transcriptssent him by Fra Giocondo? One fact blocks this attractive conjecture:though there are many agreements between the readings of the emendedBodleian book and those of Aldus, there are also many disagreements. Mr. Hardy removed the obstacle by assuming that Aldus made changes inthe proof; but the changes are numerous; they are not too numerous for ascholar who can mark up his galleys free of cost, but they are decidedlytoo numerous if the scholar is also his own printer. 

Merrill, in a brilliant and searching article, [11] entirely demolishesHardy’s argument. Unlike most destructive critics, he replaces theexploded theory by still more interesting fact. For the rediscovery ofthe Bodleian book and a proper appreciation of its value, students ofPliny’s text must always be grateful to Hardy; we now know, however, that the volume was never owned by Aldus. The scholar who put its partstogether and added the variants with his own hand was the famousHellenist Guillaume Budé (Budaeus). The parts on the supplementaryleaves were done by some copyist who imitated the general effect of thetype used in the book itself; Budaeus added his notes on these insertedleaves in the same way as elsewhere. It had been shown before byKeil[12] that Budaeus must have used the readings of the Parisinus;indeed, it is from his own statement in _Annotationes in Pandectas_ thatwe learn of the discovery of the ancient manuscript by Giocondo:[13]

 “Verum haec epistola et aliae non paucae in codicibus impressis non leguntur: nos integrum ferme Plinium habemus: primum apud parrhisios repertum opera Iucundi sacerdotis: hominis antiquarii Architectique famigerati. ”

 [Footnote 11: _C. P. _ II, pp. 129 ff. ]

 [Footnote 12: In his edition, pp. Xxiii f. ]

 [Footnote 13: _C. P. _ II, p. 152. ]

The wording here is much like that in the note at the end of theBodleian book. After establishing his case convincingly from thereadings followed by Budaeus in his quotations from the _Letters_, Merrill eventually was able to compare the handwriting with theacknowledged script of Budaeus and to find that the two areidentical. [14] The Bodleian book, then, is not Aldus’s copy for theprinter. It is Budaeus’s own collation from the Parisinus. Whether heexamined the manuscript directly or used a copy made by Giocondo isdoubtful; the note at the end of the Bodleian volume seems to favorthe latter possibility. Budaeus does not by any means give a completecollation, but what he does give constitutes, in Merrill’s opinion, ourbest authority for any part of the lost Parisinus. [15]

 [Footnote 14: _C. P. _ V, p. 466. ]

 [Footnote 15: _C. P. _ II, p. 156. ]

[Sidenote: _The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost Parisinus_]

Perhaps we may now say the Bodleian volume _has been hitherto_ ourbest authority. For a fragment of the ancient book, if my conjecture isright, is now, after various journeys, reposing in the Pierpont MorganLibrary in New York City. 

[Sidenote: _The script_]

First of all, we are impressed with the script. It is an uncial of aboutthe year 500 A. D. --certainly _venerandae vetustatis_. If Aldus had thissame uncial codex at his disposal, we can understand his delight andpardon his slight exaggeration, for it is only slight. The essentialtruth of his statement remains: he had found a book of a differentclass from that of the ordinary manuscript--indeed _diversis a nostrischaracteribus_. Instead of thinking him arrant knave or fool enough tobring down “antiquity” to the thirteenth century, we might charitablypush back his definition of “_nostri characteres_” to include anythingin minuscules; script “not our own” would be the majuscule hands invogue before the Middle Ages. That is a position palaeographicallydefensible, seeing that the humanistic script is a lineal descendant ofthe Caroline variety. Furthermore, an uncial hand, though clear andregular as in our fragment, is harder to read than a glance at a page ofit promises. This is due to the writing of words continuously. It takespractice, as Aldus says, to decipher such a script quickly andaccurately. Moreover, the flesh sides of the leaves are faded. 

[Sidenote: _Provenience and contents_]

We next note that the fragment came to the Pierpont Morgan Library fromAldus’s country, where, as Dr. Lowe has amply shown, it was written; howit came into the possession of the Marquis Taccone would be interestingto know. But, like the Parisinus, the book to which our fragmentbelonged had not stayed in Italy always. It had made a trip toFrance--and was resting there in the fifteenth century, as is proved bythe French note of that period on fol. 51r. We may say “the book” andnot merely “the present six leaves, ” for the fragment begins with fol. 48, and the foliation is of the fifteenth century. The last page of ourfragment is bright and clear, showing no signs of wear, as it would ifno more had followed it;[16] I will postpone the question of whatprobably did follow. Moreover, if the _probatio pennae_ on fol. 53r isCarolingian, [17] it would appear that the book had been in France at thebeginning as well as at the end of the Middle Ages. Thus our manuscriptmay well have been one of those brought up from Italy by the emissariesof Charlemagne or their successors during the revival of learning in theeighth and ninth centuries. The outer history of our book, then, and thecharacter of its script, comport with what we know of Aldus’s Parisinus. 

 [Footnote 16: See Dr. Lowe’s remarks, pp. 3-6 above. ]

 [Footnote 17: See above, p. 21, and below, p. 53. ]

[Sidenote: _The text closely related to that of Aldus_]

But we must now subject our fragment to internal tests. If Aldus usedthe entire manuscript of which this is a part, his text must show ageneral conformity to that of the fragment. An examination of theappended collation will establish this fact beyond a doubt. Thereferences are to Keil’s critical edition of 1870, but the readings areverified from Merrill’s apparatus. I will designate the fragment as_Π_, using _P_ for Aldus’s Parisinus and _a_ for his edition. 

 {Transcriber’s Note: In the following paragraph, letters originally printed in roman (non-italic) type are capitalized for clarity. }

We may begin by excluding two probable misprints in Aldus, 64, 1_contuRbernium_ and 65, 17 _subEuertas_. Then there are variousspellings in which Aldus adheres to the fashion of his day, as_seXcenties_, _miLLies_, _miLLia_, _teNtarunt_, _cauSSas_, _auToritas_, _quaNquam_, _sYderum_, _hYeme_, _cOEna_, _oCium_, _hospiCii_, _negoCiis_, _solaTium_, _adUlescet_, _eXoluit_, _THuscos_; there areother spellings which modern editors might not disdain, _i. E. _, _aerarII_ and _iLLustri_, and some that they have accepted, namely_aPPonitur_, _eXistat_, _iMpleturus_, _iMplorantes_, _oBtulissem_, _balInei_, _Caret_ (not _Karet_), _Caritas_ (not _Karitas_). [18]

 [Footnote 18: The spellings _Karet_ and _Karitas_, whether Pliny’s or not, are a sign of antiquity. In the first century A. D. , as we see from Velius Longus (p. 53, 12 K) and Quintilian (I, 7, 10), certain old-timers clung to the use of _k_ for _c_ when the vowel _a_ followed. By the fourth century, theorists of the opposite tendency proposed the abandonment of _k_ and _q_ as superfluous letters, since their functions were performed by _c_. Donatus (p. 368, 7 K) and Diomedes, too, according to Keil (p. 423, 11), still believed in the rule of _ka_ for _ca_, but these rigid critics had passed away in the time of Servius, who, in his commentary on Donatus (p. 422, 35 K), remarks _k vero et q aliter nos utimur, aliter usi sunt maiores nostri. Namque illi, quotienscumque a sequebatur, k praeponebant in omni parte orationis, ut Kaput et similia; nos vero non usurpamus k litteram nisi in Kalendarum nomine scribendo. _ See also Cledonius (p. 28, 5K); W. Brambach, _Latein. Orthog. _ 1868, pp. 210 ff. ; W. M. Lindsay, _The Latin Language_, 1894, pp. 6 f. There would thus be no temptation for a scribe at the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth to adopt _ka_ for _ca_ as a habit. The writer of our fragment was copying faithfully from his original a spelling that he apparently would not have used himself. There are various other cases of _ca_ in our text (_e. G. _, _calceos_, III, i, 4; _canere_, 11), but there we find the usual spelling. On traces of _ka_ in the Bellovacensis, see below, p. 57. I should not be surprised if Pliny himself employed the spelling _ka_, which was gradually modified in the successive copies of his work; it may be, however, that our manuscript represents a text which had passed through the hand of some archaeologizing scholar of a later age, like Donatus. At any rate, this feature of our fragment is an indication of genuineness and of antiquity. ]

A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of correctionin _Π_ by either the scribe himself or a second and possibly a thirdancient hand. Here Aldus, if he read the pages of our fragment and readthem with care, might have seen warrant for following either theoriginal text or the emended form, as he preferred. The most importantcases are: 61, 14 sera] _Πa_ SERUA _Π²_ 61, 21 considit] _Π_CONSIDET _Π²a_ The original reading of _Π_ is clearly CONSIDIT. The second I has been altered to a capital E, which of course is not theproper form for uncial. 62, 5 residit] _Π_ residet _a_ Here _Π_ isnot corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case ofCONSIDET (_m. 2_) supported what he supposed the better form _residet_. 63, 11 posset] _a_ POSSIT (in _posset m. 1_?) _Π_ Again the correctedE is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation inadopting the reading of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] _a_MODICA EST ETIAM (_corr. M. 2_) _Π_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, utpraefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _Π_ omitted _accepto utpraefectus aerari_, --evidently a line of the manuscript that he wascopying, for there are no similar endings to account otherwise for theomission. 66, 2 dissentientis] _a_ _ex_ DISSITIENTIS _m. 1_ (?) _Π_. 

There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in _Π_, which Aldus himself might easily have corrected or have foundthe right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conterorquorum] _a_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM _Π B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _Π_ 64, 24conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _Π_. 

In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _Π_, most ofthem corrected but a few not, Aldus may have felt justified in abidingby one of the early editions in the following three cases, where _Π_might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64, 3) moderneditors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] Π auriumoculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA Π 65, 11et alii] Π etiam alii _a_. 

There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri]Π quaesturi _MVa_ Aldus’s reading, as I learn from Professor Merrill, is in the anonymous edition ascribed to Roscius (Venice, 1492?), but notin any of the editions cited by Keil. This may be a consciousemendation, but it is just as possibly an error of hearing made byeither Aldus or his compositor in repeating the word to himself as hewrote or set up the passage. Once in the text, _quaesturi_ gives nooffense, and is not corrected by Aldus in his edition of 1518. Anapparently more certain effort at emendation is reported by Keil on 62, 13, where Aldus is said to differ from all the manuscripts and theeditions in reading _agere_ for _facere_. So he does in his secondedition; but here he has _facere_ with everybody else. The changes inthe second edition are few and are largely confined to the correctionof obvious misprints. There is no point in substituting _agere_ for_facere_. I should attribute this innovation to a careless compositor, who tried to memorize too large a bit of text, rather than to anemending editor. At all events, it has no bearing on our immediateconcern. 

The striking similarity, therefore, between Aldus’s text and that ofour fragment confirms our surmise that the latter may be a part of thatancient manuscript which he professes to have used in his edition. Whatever his procedure may have been, he has produced a text thatdiffers from Π only in certain spellings, in the correction, with thehelp of existing editions, of three obvious errors of Π and of threeof its readings that to Aldus might well have seemed erroneous, in twomisprints, and in one reading which is possibly an emendation but whichmay just as well be another misprint. Thus the internal evidence of thetext offers no contradiction of what the script and the history of themanuscript have suggested. I can not claim to have established anirrefutable conclusion, but the signs all point in one direction. I seeenough evidence to warrant a working hypothesis, which we may usecircumspectly as a clue, submit to further tests, and abandon in casethese tests yield evidence with which it can not be reconciled. 

[Sidenote: _Editorial methods of Aldus_]

Further, if we are justified in our assumption that Aldus used themanuscript of which Π is a part, the fragment is instructive as tohis editorial methods. If he proceeded elsewhere as carefully as here, he certainly did not perform his task with the high-handedness of thetraditional humanistic editor; rather, he treated his ancient witnesswith respect, and abandoned it only when confronted with what seemed itsobvious mistakes. I will revert to this matter at a later stage of theargument. 

 RELATION OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT TO THE OTHER MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LETTERS. 

But, it will be asked, how do we know that Aldus used Π rather thansome other manuscript that had a very similar text and that happened tohave gone through the same travels? To answer this question we mustexamine the relation of Π to the other extant manuscripts in thelight of what is known of the transmission of Pliny’s _Letters_ in theMiddle Ages. A convenient summary is given by Merrill on the basis ofhis abundant researches. [19]

 [Footnote 19: _C. P. _ X (1915), pp. 8 ff. A classified list of the manuscripts of the _Letters_ is given by Miss Dora Johnson in _C. P. _ VII (1912), pp. 66 ff. ]

[Sidenote: _Classes of the manuscripts_]

Manuscripts of the _Letters_ may be divided into three classes, distinguished by the number of books that each contains. 

Class I, the ten-book family, consists of _B_ (Bellovacensis orRiccardianus), now Ashburnhamensis, R 98 in the Laurentian Library inFlorence, its former home, whence it had been diverted on an interestingpilgrimage by the noted book-thief Libri. This manuscript is attributedto the tenth century by Merrill, and by Chatelain in his description ofthe book. But Chatelain labels his facsimile page “_Saec. _ IX. ”[20] Thelatter seems the more probable date. The free use of a flat-topped _a_, along with the general appearance of the script, reminds me of the stylein vogue at Fleury and its environs about the middle of the ninthcentury. A good specimen is accessible in a codex of St. Hilary onthe Psalms (Vaticanus Reginensis 95), written at Micy between 846 and859, of which a page is reproduced by Ehrle and Liebaert. [21] _F_(Florentinus), the other important representative of this class, is alsoin the Laurentian Library (S. Marco 284). The date assigned to it seemsalso too late. It is apparently as early as the tenth century, and alsohas some of the characteristics of the script of Fleury; it is Frenchwork, at any rate. Keil’s suggestion[22] that it may be the bookmentioned as _liber epistolarum Gaii Plinii_ in a tenth-centurycatalogue of the manuscripts at Lorsch may be perfectly correct; thoughnot written at Lorsch, it might have been presented to the monastery bythat time. [23] These two manuscripts agree in containing, by the firsthand, only Books I-V, vi (_F_ having all and _B_ only a part of thesixth letter). However, as the initial title in _B_ is PLINI · SECUNDI ·EPISTULARUM · LIBRI · DECEM, we may infer that some ancestor, if not theimmediate ancestor, of _B_ and _F_ had all ten books. 

 [Footnote 20: _Pal. Des Class. Lat. _ pl. CXLIII. See our plates XIII and XIV. At least as early as the thirteenth century, the manuscript was at Beauvais. The ancient press-mark _S. Petri Beluacensis_, in writing perhaps of the twelfth century, may still be discerned on the recto of the first folio. See Merrill, _C. P. _ X, p. 16. If the book was written at Beauvais, as Chatelain thinks (_Journal des Savants_, 1900, p. 48), then something like what I call the mid-century style of Fleury was also cultivated, possibly a bit later, in the north. The Beauvais Horace, Leidensis lat. 28 _saec. _ IX (Chatelain, pl. LXXVIII), shows a certain similarity in the script to that of _B_. If both were done at Beauvais, the Horace would seem to be the later book. It belongs, we may observe, to a group of manuscripts of which a Floriacensis (Paris lat. 7971) is a conspicuous member. To settle the case of _B_, we need a study of all the books of Beauvais. For this, a valuable preliminary survey is given by Omont in _Mém. De l’Acad. Des Ins. Et Belles Lettres_ XL (1914), pp. 1 ff. ]

 [Footnote 21: _Specimina Cod. Lat. Vatic. _ 1912, pl. 30. See also H. M. Bannister, _Paleografia Musicale Vaticana_ 1913, p. 30, No. 109. ]

 [Footnote 22: See the preface to his edition, p. Xi. ]

 [Footnote 23: For the script of _F_, see plates XV and XVI. Bern. 136, _s. _ XIII (Merrill, _C. P. _ X, p. 18) is a copy of _F_. ]

In Class II the leading manuscript is another Laurentian codex (MediceusXLVII 36), which contains Books I-IX, xxvi, 8. It was written in theninth century, at Corvey, whence it was brought to Rome at the beginningof the sixteenth century. It is part of a volume that also oncecontained our only manuscript of the first part of the _Annals_ ofTacitus. [24] The other chief manuscript of this class is _V_ (VaticanusLatinus 3864), which has Books I-IV. The script has been variouslyestimated. I am inclined to the opinion that the book was writtensomewhere near Tours, perhaps Fleury, in the earlier part of the ninthcentury. [25] If Ullman is right in seeing a reference to Pliny’s_Letters_ in a notice in a mediaeval catalogue of Corbie, [26] it may bethat the codex is a Corbeiensis. But it is also possible that a volumeof the _Letters_ at Corbie was twice copied, once at Corvey (_M_) andonce in the neighborhood of Tours (_V_). At any rate, with the help of_V_, we may reach farther back than Corvey and Germany for the origin ofthis class. There are likewise two fragmentary texts, both of briefextent, Monacensis 14641 (olim Emmeramensis) _saec. _ IX, and LeidensisVossianus 98 _saec. _ IX, the latter partly in Tironian notes. Merrillregards these as bearing “testimony to the existence of the nine-booktext in the same geographical region, ” namely Germany. [27] There theyare to-day, in Germany and Holland, but where they were written isanother affair. The Munich fragment is part of a composite volume ofwhich it occupies only a page or two. The script is continental, andmay well be that of Regensburg, but it shows marked traces of insularinfluence, English rather than Irish in character. The work immediatelypreceding the fragment is in an insular hand, of the kind practised atvarious continental monasteries, such as Fulda; there are certain notesin the usual continental hand. Evidently the manuscript deservesconsideration in the history of the struggle between the insular and thecontinental hands in Germany. [28] The script of the Leyden fragment, onthe other hand, so far as I can judge from a photograph, looks very muchlike the mid-century Fleury variety with which I have associated theBellovacensis; there can hardly be doubt, at any rate, that De Vries iscorrect in assigning it to France, where Voss obtained so many of hismanuscripts. [29] Except, therefore, for _M_ and the Munich fragment, there is no evidence furnished by the chief manuscripts which connectsthe tradition of the _Letters_ with Germany. The insular clue affordedby the latter book deserves further attention, but I can not follow ithere. The question of the Parisinus aside, _B_ and _F_ of Class I and_V_ of Class II are sure signs that the propagation of the text startedfrom one or more centres--Fleury and Corbie seem the most probable--inFrance. 

 [Footnote 24: Cod. Med. LXVIII, 1. See Rostagno in the preface to his edition of this manuscript in the Leyden series, and for the Pliny, Chatelain, _Pal. Des Class. Lat. _, pl. CXLV. Keil (edition, p. Vi), followed by Kukula (edition, p. Iv), incorrectly assigns the manuscript to the tenth century. The latest treatment is by Paul Lehmann in his “Corveyer Studien, ” in _Abhandl. Der Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. Philos. -philol. U. Hist. Klasse_, XXX, 5 (1919), p. 38. He assigns it to the middle or the last half of the ninth century. ]

 [Footnote 25: Chatelain calls the page of Pliny that he reproduces (pl. CXLIV) tenth century, but attributes the Sallust portion of the manuscript, although this seems of a piece with the style of the Pliny, to the ninth; see pl. LIV. Hauler, who has given the most complete account of the manuscript, thinks it “_saec. _ IX/X” (_Wiener Studien_ XVII (1895), p. 124). He shows, as others had done before him, the close association of the book with Bernensis 357, and of that codex with Fleury. ]

 [Footnote 26: See Merrill _C. P. _ X, p. 23. The catalogue (G. Becker, _Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui_, p. 282) was prepared about 1200, and is of Corbie, not as Merrill has it, Corvey. Chatelain (on plate LIV) regards the book as “provenant du monastère de Corbie. ” At my request, Mr. H. J. Leon, Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University, recently examined the manuscript, and neither he nor Monsignore Mercati, the Prefect of the Vatican Library, could discover any note or library-mark to indicate that the book is a Corbeiensis. In a recent article, _Philol. Quart. _ I (1922), pp. 17 ff. ), Professor Ullman is inclined, after a careful analysis of the evidence, to assign the manuscript to Corbie, but allows for the possibility that it was written in Tours or the neighborhood and thence sent to Corbie. ]

 [Footnote 27: _C. P. _ X, p. 23. ]

 [Footnote 28: See Paul Lehmann, “Aufgaben und Anregungen der lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, ” in _Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. Philos. -philol. U. Hist. Klasse_, 1918, 8, pp. 14 ff. I am indebted to Professor Lehmann for the facts on the basis of which I have made the statement above. To quote his exact words, the contents of the manuscript are as follows: “Fol. 1-31v Briefe des Hierononymus u. Gregorius Magnus + fol. 46v-47v, Briefe des Plinius an Tacitus u. Albinus, in kontinentaler, wohl Regensburger Minuskel etwa der Mitte des 9ten Jahrhunderts, _unter starken insularen (angelsächsischen) Einfluss_ in Buchstabenformen, Abkürzungen, etc. Fol. 32r _saec. _ IX _ex_ _vel_ X _in. _ fol. 32v-46r in der Hauptsache _direkt insular_ mit historischen Notizen in festländischer Style. Fol. 48v-128 Ambrosius _saec. _ X _in_. ”]

 [Footnote 29: _Commentatiuncula de C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistularum fragmento Vossiano notis tironianis descripto_ (in _Exercitationes Palaeog. In Bibl. Univ. Lugduno-Bat. _, 1890). De Vries ascribes the fragment to the ninth century and is sure that the writing is French (p. 12). His reproduction, though not photographic, gives an essentially correct idea of the script. The text of the fragment is inferior to that of _MV_, with which manuscripts it is undoubtedly associated. In one error it agrees with _V_ against _M_. Chatelain (_Introduction à la Lecture des Notes Tironiennes_, 1900), though citing De Vries’s publication in his bibliography (p. Xv), does not discuss the character of the notes in this fragment. I must leave it for experts in tachygraphy to decide whether the style of the Tironian notes is that of the school of Orléans. ]

The third class comprises manuscripts containing eight books, the eighthbeing omitted and the ninth called the eighth. Representatives of thisclass are all codices of the fifteenth century, though the class has amore ancient basis than that, namely a lost manuscript of Verona. Thisis best attested by _D_, a Dresden codex, while almost all othermanuscripts of this class descend from a free recension made by Guarinoand conflated with _F_; _o_, _u_, and _x_ are the representatives ofthis recension (_G_) that are reported by Merrill. The relation of thisthird class to the second is exceedingly close; indeed, it may be merelya branch of it. [30]

 [Footnote 30: See Merrill’s discussion of the different possibilities, _C. P. _ X, p. 14. ]

[Sidenote: _The early editions_]

As is often the case, the leading manuscript authorities are onlyinadequately represented in the early editions. The Editio Princeps(_p_) of 1471 was based on a manuscript of the Guarino recension. ARoman editor in 1474 added part of Book VIII, putting it at the end andcalling it Book IX; he acquired this new material, along with variousreadings in the other books, from some manuscript of Class II that mayhave come down from the north. Three editors, called ς byKeil--Pomponius Laetus 1490, Beroaldus 1498, and Catanaeus 1506--took_r_ as a basis; but Laetus had another and a better representative ofthe same type of text as that from which _r_ had drawn, and he likewisemade use of _V_. With the help of these new sources the ς editorspolished away a large number of the gross blunders of _p_ and _r_, andadded a sometimes unnecessary brilliance of emendation. Avantius’sedition of part of Book X in 1502 was appropriated by Beroaldus in thesame year and by Catanaeus in 1506; these latter editors had no newsources at their disposal. No wonder that the Parisinus seemed a godsendto Aldus. The only known ancient manuscripts whose readings had beenutilized in the editions preceding his own were _F_ and _V_, bothincomplete representatives of Classes I and II. The manuscriptsdiscovered by the Roman editor and Laetus were of great help at thetime, but we have no certain evidence of their age. _B_ and _M_ were notaccessible. [31] Now, besides the transcript of Giocondo and his othersix volumes, whatever these may have been, Aldus had the ancient codexitself with all ten books complete. Everybody admits that the Parisinus, as shown by the readings of Aldus, is clearly associated with themanuscripts of Class I. Its contents corroborate the evidence of thetitle in _B_, which indicates descent from some codex containing tenbooks. 

 [Footnote 31: _C. P. _ X, p. 20. ]

[Sidenote: _Π a member of Class I_]

Now nothing is plainer than that _Π_ is a member of Class I, as itagrees with _BF_ in the following errors, or what are regarded by Keilas errors. I consider the text of the _Letters_ and not theirsuperscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] _MVD_ duplicata _ΠBFGa_; 61, 12confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _ΠBFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_doctissima _ΠBFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ etadficitur _ΠBFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _ΠBF_; 63, 22teque et] _MVDG_ teque _ΠBFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda_BFu_ CONFERANDA _Π_ (_MV_ lack an extensive passage here); 65, 11alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri] _DG_ alii quidam minores sed taminnumeri _MV_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_; 65, 12voluntariis accusationibus] _M_ (uoluntaris) _D_ voluntariis _om. V_accusationibus uoluntariis _ΠBFGa_; 65, 15 superiore] _MVD_ priore_ΠBFGa_; 65, 24 iam] _MVDG_ _om. _ _ΠBFa. _

Tastes differ, and not all these eleven readings of Class I may beerrors. Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (1912), acceptsthree of them (60, 15; 62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcomingedition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6; 65, 12; 65, 15). Personally Icould be reconciled to them all with the exception of the very two whichAldus could not admit--62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places he had the earlyeditions to fall back on. However, I should concur with Merrill andKukula in preferring the reading of the other classes in 62, 16 and 65, 24. In 65, 11 I would emend to _alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri_;if this is the right reading, _ΠBF_ agree in the easy error of_quidem_ for _quidam_, and _MVD_ in another easy error, _minores_ for_minoris_--the parent manuscript of _MV_ further changed _tamen numeri_to _tam innumeri_. Whatever the final judgment, here are five cases inwhich all recent editors would attribute error to Class I; in theremaining six cases the manuscripts of Class I either agree in error oravoid the error of Class II--surely, then, _Π_ is not of the latterclass. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the wholepassage, no one of which appears in _Π_: 61, 15 si non] sint _MV_;62, 6 mira illis] mirabilis _MV_; 62, 11 lotus] illic _MV_; cibum]cibos _MV_; 62, 25 fuit--64, 12 potes] _om. _ _MV_; 66, 12 amatus] estamatus _MV_. Once the first hand in _Π_ agrees with _V_ in an erroreasily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2__Π_ ornata _V_. 

_Π_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by differentroutes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _Π_ clearlyhas no close association. 

But the evidence for allying _Π_ with _B_ and _F_, the manuscripts ofClass I, is by no means exhausted. In 61, 14, _BFux_ have the erroneousemendation, which Budaeus includes among his variants, of _serua_ for_sera_. A glance at _Π_ shows its apparent origin. The first hand hasSERA correctly; the second hand writes U above the line. [32] If thesecond hand is solely responsible for the attempt at improvement here, and is not reproducing a variant in the parent manuscript of _Π_, then _BF_ must descend directly from _Π_. The following instancespoint in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _Π_ hasCONSIDIT by the first hand, the second hand changing the second I to acapital E. [33] In 65, 5, however, RESIDIT is not thus changed in _Π_, and perhaps for this very reason is retained by the careful scribe of_B_; _F_, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with _G_, _residet_. 63, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me _B_. Here theletters of the _scriptura continua_ in _Π_ are faded and blurred;the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscriptderived directly from _Π_. If one ask whether the page were as fadedin the ninth century as now, Dr. Lowe has already answered thisquestion; the flesh side of the parchment might well have lost a portionof its ink considerably before the Carolingian period. [34] In any case, the error of _praestatam ad me_ seems natural enough to one who readsthe line for the first time in _Π_. _B_ did not, as we shall see, copy directly from _Π_; a copy intervened, in which the error wasmade and then, I should infer, corrected above the line, whence _F_drew the right reading, _B_ taking the original but incorrect text. 

 [Footnote 32: I have not always followed Dr. Lowe in distinguishing first and second hands in the various alterations discussed here (pp. 48-50). ]

 [Footnote 33: See above, p. 42. ]

 [Footnote 34: See above, pp. 11 f. ]

There are cases in plenty elsewhere in the _Letters_ to show that _B_ isnot many removes from the _scriptura continua_ of some majuscule hand. In the section included in _Π_, apart from the general tightness ofthe writing, which led to the later insertion of strokes between many ofthe words, [35] we note these special indications of a parent manuscriptin majuscules. In 61, 10 me autem], _B_ started to write _mea_ and thencorrected it. 64, 19 praeceptori a quo] praeceptoria quo _B_, (_m. 1_)_F_. If _B_ or its parent manuscript copied _Π_ directly, the mistakewould be especially easy, for PRAECEPTORIA ends the line in _Π_. 64, 25 integra re]. After _integra_, a letter is erased in _B_; the copyist, it would seem, first mistook _integra re_ for one word. 

 [Footnote 35: See plates XIII-XIV. ]

Other instances showing a close connection between _B_ and _Π_ are asfollows: 62, 23 unice] _Π_ has by the first hand INUICE, the secondhand writing U above I, and a vertical stroke above U. In _BF_, _uince_, the reading of the first hand, is changed by the second to _unice_; thissecond hand, Professor Merrill informs me, seems to be that of a writerin the same scriptorium as the first. The error in _BF_ might, ofcourse, be due to copying an original in minuscules, but it might alsobe due to the curious state of affairs in _Π_. 65, 24 fungerer]. In_Π_ the final R is written, somewhat indistinctly, above the line. _B_ has _fungerer_ corrected by the second hand from _fungeret_ (?), which may be due to a misunderstanding of _Π_. 66, 2 avunculi]AUONCULI _Π_ (O _in ras. _) _B_. This form might perhaps be read;_F_ has emended it out, and no other manuscript has it. 65, 7 desino, inquam, patres conscripti, putare] Here the relation of _BF_ to _Π_seems particularly close. _Π_, like _MVDoxa_, has the abbreviationP. C. On a clearly written page, the error of _reputare_ (_BF_) for P. C. PUTARE is not a specially likely one to make. But in the blur at thebottom of fol. 52v, a page on the flesh side of the parchment, thecombination might readily be mistaken for REPUTARE. 

Another curious bit of testimony appears at the beginning of the thirdbook. The scribe of _B_[36] wrote the words NESCIO--APUD in rusticcapitals, occupying therewith the first line and about a third of thesecond. This is not effective calligraphy. It would appear that he isreproducing, as is his habit, exactly what he found in his original. That original might have had one full line, or two lines, of majuscules, perhaps, following pretty closely the lines in _Π_, which has thesame amount of text, plus the first three letters of SPURINNAM, in thefirst two lines. If _B_ had _Π_ before him, there is nothing toexplain his most unusual procedure. His original, therefore, is not_Π_ but an intervening copy, which he is transcribing with an utterindifference to aesthetic effect and with a laudable, if painful, desirefor accuracy. This trait, obvious in _B_’s work throughout, is perhapsnowhere more strikingly exhibited than here. 

 [Footnote 36: See plate XIV. ]

[Sidenote: _Π the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copyintervening_]

If _Π_ is the direct ancestor of _BF_, these manuscripts shouldcontain no good readings not found in _Π_, unless their writerscould arrive at such readings by easy emendation or unless there iscontamination with some other source. From what we know of the text of_BF_ in general, the latter supposition may at once be ruled out. Thereare but three cases to consider, two of which may be readily disposedof: 64, 3 proferenda] conferenda _BF_ CONFERANDA _Π_; 64, 4conprobasse] (comp. ) _BF_ COMPROUASSE _Π_. These are simple slips, which a scribe might almost unconsciously correct as he wrote. Theremaining error (63, 28 SIBI to _si_) is not difficult to emend whenone considers the entire sentence: _quibus omnibus ita demum similisadolescet_, si _imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas_, etc. It is lessprobable, however, that _B_ with _Π_ before him should correct it ashe wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copyintervened between _Π_ and _B_, in which the letters _bi_ weredeleted by some careful reviser. Two other passages tend to confirmthis assumption of an intermediate copy. In 65, 6 (_tum optime libertativenia obsequio praeparatur_), _B_ has _optimae_, a false alterationinduced perhaps by the following _libertati_. In _Π_, OPTIME standsat the end of the line. The scribe of _B_, had he not found _libertati_immediately adjacent, would not so readily be tempted to emend; still, we should not make too much of this instance, as _B_ has a ratherpronounced tendency to write _ae_ for _e_. A more certain case is 66, 7fungar indicis] fungarindicis _ex_ fungari dicis _B_; here the error iseasier to derive from an original in minuscules in which _in_ wasabbreviated with a stroke above the _i_. There is abundant evidenceelsewhere in the _Letters_ that the immediate ancestor of _BF_ waswritten in minuscules; I need not elaborate this point. Our presentconsideration is that apart from the three instances of simpleemendation just discussed, there is no good reading of _B_ or _F_ inthe portion of text contained in _Π_ that may not be found, byeither the first or the second hand, in _Π_. [37]

 [Footnote 37: There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly worth mention. The most important are 63, 10 caret _B_ KARET _Π_; caritas _B_ KARITAS _Π_. Yet see below, p. 57, where it is shown that the ancient spelling is found in _B_ elsewhere than in the portion of text included in _Π_. ]

We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to theclose connection existing between _BF_ and _Π_. _B_ alone of allmanuscripts hitherto known is provided with indices of the _Letters_, one for each book, which give the names of the correspondents and theopening words of each letter. Now _Π_, by good luck, preserves theend of Book II, the beginning of Book III, and between them the indexfor Book III. Dr. F. E. Robbins, in a careful article on _B_ and _F_, andone on the tables of contents in _B_, [38] concluded that _P_ did notcontain the indices which are preserved in _B_, and that these werecompiled in some ancestor of _B_, perhaps in the eighth century. Herethey are, in the Morgan fragment, which takes us back two centuriesfarther into the past. A comparison of the index in _Π_ showsindubitably a close kinship with _B_. A glance at plates XIII and XIVindicates, first of all, that the copy _B_, here as in the text of the_Letters_, is not many removes from _scriptura continua_. Moreover, thelists are drawn up on the same principle; the _nomen_ and _cognomen_ butnot the _praenomen_ of the correspondent being given, and exactly thesame amount of text quoted at the beginning of each letter. The incipitof III, xvi (AD NEPOTEM--ADNOTASSE UIDEOR FATADICTAQ·) is an addition in_Π_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original titlehad been omitted in the manuscript which _Π_ was copying and thecorrector of _Π_ had substituted a title of his own making. [39] Itreappears in _B_, with the easy emendation of _facta_ from _fata_. Theonly other case in the indices of a right reading in _B_ that is not in_Π_ is in the title of III, viii: AD SUETON TRANQUE _Π_ Adsu&ontranqui. _B_. In both these instances the scribe of _B_ needed noexternal help in correcting the simple error. Far more significant isthe coincidence of _B_ and _Π_ in very curious mistakes, as theaddress of III, iii (AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE for AD CORELLIAM HISPULLAM)and the lemma of III, viii (FACIS ADPROCETERA for FACIS PRO CETERA). _ΠBF_ agree in omitting SUAE (III, iii) and SUO (III, iv), but inretaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in_Π_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _Π_ and _B_, as ADSUETON TRANQUE (tranqui _B_); AD UESTRIC SPURINN·; AD SILIUM PROCUL. [40]In the first of these cases, the parent of _Π_ evidently had TRANQ·, which _Π_ falsely enlarges to TRANQUE; this form and not TRANQ· isthe basis of _B_’s correction--a semi-successful correction--TRANQUI. This, then, is another sign that _B_ depends directly on _Π_. Further, _B_ omits one symbol of abbreviation which _Π_ has (POSSUMIAM PERSCRIB̅), the lemma of the ninth letter), and in the lemma ofthe tenth neither manuscript preserves the symbol (COMPOSUISSE MEQUAED). In the first of these cases, it will be observed, _B_ has a verylong _i_ in _perscrib_. [41] This long _i_ is not a feature of the scriptof _B_, nor is there any provocation for it in the way in which the wordis written in _Π_. This detail, therefore, may be added to theindications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _Π_;the curious _i_, faithfully reproduced, as usual, by _B_, may haveoccurred in such a copy. 

 [Footnote 38: _C. P. _ V, pp. 467 ff. And 476 ff. , and for the supposed lack of indices in _P_, p. 485. ]

 [Footnote 39: I venture to disagree with Dr. Lowe’s view (above, p. 25) that the addition is by the first hand. ]

 [Footnote 40: See above, p. 11. ]

 [Footnote 41: See plate XIV. ]

These details prove an intimate relation between _Π_ and _BF_, andfit the supposition that _B_ and _F_ are direct descendants of _Π_. This may be strengthened by another consideration. If _Π_ and _B_independently copy the same source, they inevitably make independenterrors, however careful their work. _Π_ should contain, then, acertain number of errors not in _B_. As we have found only three suchcases in 12 pages, or 324 lines, and as in all these three the rightreading in _B_ could readily have been due to emendation on the part ofthe scribe of _B_ or of a copy between _Π_ and _B_, we have acquirednegative evidence of an impressive kind. It is distinctly harder tobelieve that the two texts derive independently from a common source. Show us the significant errors of _Π_ not in _B_, and we will acceptthe existence of that common source; otherwise the appropriatesupposition is that _B_ descends directly from its elder relative_Π_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readingsthat _Π_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settlethat matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that_Π_ and _B_ were of the same age, we could readily prove that theformer is not copied from the latter. For _B_ contains a significantcollection of errors which are not present in _Π_. Six slightmistakes were made by the first hand and corrected by it, three morewere corrected by the second hand, and twelve were left uncorrected. Some of these are trivial slips that a scribe copying _B_ might emendon his own initiative, or perhaps by a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26iudicium] indicium _B_; 64, 29 Caecili] caecilii _B_; 65, 13 neglegere]neglere _B_. But intelligent pondering must precede the emendation of_praeceptoria quo_ into _praeceptori a quo_ (64, 19), of _beaticis_ into_Baeticis_ (65, 15), and of _optimae_ into _optime_ (65, 26), whileit would take a Madvig to remedy the corruptions in 63, 9 (_praestatamad me_) and 65, 7 (_reputare_ into _patres conscripti putare_). Theseare the sort of errors which if found in _Π_ would furnishincontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them wasindependent of _Π_; but there is no such evidence of independencein the case of _B_. Our case is strengthened by the considerationthat various of the errors in _B_ may well be traced to idiosyncrasiesof _Π_, not merely to its _scriptura continua_, a source ofmisunderstanding that any majuscule would present, but to the fadingof the writing on the flesh side of the pages in _Π_, and to thepossibility that some of the corrections of the second hand may be theprivate inventions of that hand. [42] We are hampered, of course, by thecomparatively small amount of matter in _Π_, nor are we absolutelycertain that this is characteristic of the entire manuscript of whichit was once a part. But my reasoning is correct, I believe, for thematerial at our disposal. 

 [Footnote 42: See above, pp. 48 f. ]

[Sidenote: _The probable stemma_]

Our tentative stemma thus far, then, is No. 1 below, not No. 2 and notNo. 3. 

 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3

 _Π_ _Π_ _X_ | | / \ | | / \ _Π¹_ _Π¹_ / \ / \ | _X¹_ _Π_ / \ | / \ _B_ \ _B_ / \ _F_ | _B_ \ | _F_ _F_

Robbins put _P_ in the position of _Π_ in this last stemma, but onthe assumption that it did not contain the indices. That is not true of_Π_. 

[Sidenote: _Further consideration of the external history of P, Π, and B_]

Still further evidence is supplied by the external history of ourmanuscripts. _B_ was at Beauvais at the end of the twelfth or thebeginning of the thirteenth century, as we have seen. [43] Whatever theuncertainties as to its origin, any palaeographer would agree that itcould hardly have been written before the middle of the ninth centuryor after the middle of the tenth. It was undoubtedly produced in France, as was _F_, its sister manuscript. The presumption is that _Π_¹, thecopy intervening between _Π_ and _B_, was also French, and that_Π_ was in France when the copy was made from it. Merrill, for whatreason I fail to see, suggested that the original of _BF_ might be“Lombardic, ” written in North Italy. [44] An extraneous origin of thissort must be proved from the character of the errors, such as spellingsand the false resolution of abbreviations, made by _BF_. If no suchsigns can be adduced, it is natural to suppose that _Π_¹ was of thesame nationality and general tendencies as its copies _B_ and _F_. This consideration helps out the possible evidence furnished by thescribbling in a hand of the Carolingian variety on fol. 53v;[45] wemay now be more confident that it is French rather than Italian. Butwhatever the history of our book in the early Middle Ages, in thefifteenth century it was surely near Meaux, which is not far fromParis--about as far to the east as Beauvais is to the north. Now, granted for a moment that the last of our stemmata is correct, _X_, from which _Π_ and _B_ descend, being earlier than _Π_, must havebeen a manuscript in majuscules, written in Italy, since that isunquestionably the provenience of _Π_. There were, then, by thissupposition, _two_ ancient majuscule manuscripts of the _Letters_, mostclosely related in text--veritable twins, indeed--that travelled fromItaly to France. One (X¹) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and isthe parent of _B_ and _F_; the other (_Π_) was probably there in theearly Middle Ages, and surely was there in the fifteenth century. We cannot deny this possibility, but, on the principle _melius est per unumfieri quam per plura_, we must not adopt it unless driven to it. Thehistory of the transmission of Classical texts in the Carolingian periodis against such a supposition. [46] Not many books of the age and qualityof _Π_ were floating about in France in the ninth century. There isnothing in the evidence presented by _Π_ and _B_ that drives us toassume the presence of two such codices. There is nothing in thisevidence that does not fit the simpler supposition that _BF_ descenddirectly from _Π_. The burden of proof would appear to rest on thosewho assert the contrary. _Π_, therefore, if the ancestor of _B_, contained at least as much as we find today in _B_. Some ancestor of _B_had all ten books. Aldus, whose text is closely related to _BF_, got allten books from a very ancient manuscript that came down from Paris. Oursimpler stemma indicates the presence of one rather than more than onesuch manuscript in the vicinity of Paris in the ninth or the tenthcentury and again in the fifteenth. This line of argument, whichpresents not a mathematically absolute demonstration but at least ahighly probable concatenation of facts and deductions, warrants theassumption, to be used at any rate as a working hypothesis, that _Π_is a fragment of the lost Parisinus which contained all the books ofPliny’s _Letters_. 

 [Footnote 43: See above, p. 44, n. 2. ]

 [Footnote 44: “Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan, ” in _Wiener Studien_ XXXI (1909), p. 258. ]

 [Footnote 45: See above, pp. 21, 41. ]

 [Footnote 46: See above, p. 22. ]

Our stemma, then, becomes, _P_ (the whole manuscript), of which _Π_ is a part. | | _P¹_ / \ / \ _B_ \ _F_

[Sidenote: _Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of Π_]

We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portionsof _BF_ outside the text of _Π_. We note, above all, a number ofomissions in _BF_ that indicate the length of line in some manuscriptfrom which they descend. This length of line is precisely what we findin _Π_. Our fragment has lines containing from 23 to 33 letters, veryrarely 23, 24, or 33, and most frequently from 27 to 30, the averagebeing 28. 4. These figures tally closely with those given by ProfessorA. C. Clark[47] for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed indate from _Π_. Supposing that _Π_ is a typical section of _P_--andafter Professor Clark’s studies[48] we may more confidently assume thatit is--_P_ had the same length of line. The important cases of omissionare as follows:

 [Footnote 47: _The Descent of Manuscripts_, 1918, p. 16. Professor Clark counts on two pages chosen at random, 23-31 letters in the line. My count for _Π_ includes the nine and a third pages on which full lines occur. If I had taken only foll. 52r, 52v, 53r and 53v, I should have found no lines of 32 or 33 letters. On the other hand, the first page to which I turned in the Vindobonensis of Livy (133v) has a line of 32 letters, and so has 135v, while 136v has one of 33. The lines of _Π_ are a shade longer than those of the Vindobonensis, but only a shade. ]

 [Footnote 48: _Ibidem_, pp. Vi, 9-18. There is some danger of pushing Professor Clark’s method too far, particularly when it is applied to New Testament problems. For a well-considered criticism of the book, see Merrill’s review in the _Classical Journal_ XIV (1919), pp. 395 ff. ]

32, 19 atque etiam invisus virtutibus fuerat evasit, reliquit incolumenoptimum atque] etiam--atque _om. BF_. _P_ would have the abbreviationfor _bus_ in _virtutibus_ and for _que_ in _atque_. There would thus bein all 61 letters and dots, or two lines, arranged about as follows:

 ATQ· ETIAMINUISUSUIRTUTIB·FUERATEUA (30) SITRELIQUITINCOLUMEMOPTIMUMATQ· (31)

The scribe could easily catch at the second ATQ· after writing thefirst. It will be at once objected that the repeated ATQ· might haveoccasioned the mistake, whatever the length of the line. Thus in82, 2 (aegrotabat Caecina Paetus, maritus eius, aegrotabat] Caecina--aegrotabat _om. BF_), the omitted portion comprises 34 letters--a bittoo long, perhaps, for a line of _P_. The following instances, however, can not be thus disposed of. 

94, 10 alia quamquam dignitate propemodum paria] quamquam--paria (32letters) _om. BF_. _Cetera_ and _paria_, to be sure, offer a mild caseof _homoioteleuta_, but not powerful enough to occasion an omissionunless the words happened to stand at the ends of lines, as they mightwell have done in _P_. As the line occurs near the beginning of aletter, we may verify our conjecture by plotting the opening lines. The address, as in _Π_, would occupy a line. Then, allowing forcontractions in _rebus_ (18) and _quoque_ (19) and reading _cum_ (ClassI) for _quod_ (18), _cetera_ (Class I) for _alia_ (20), we can arrangethe 236 letters in 8 lines, with an average of 29. 5 letters in a line. 

123, 10 sentiebant. Interrogati a Nepote praetore quem docuissent, responderunt quem prius: interrogati an tunc gratis adfuisset, responderunt sex milibus] interrogati a Nepote--docuissent responderunt_om. BF_. Here are two good chances for omissions due to similarendings, as _interrogati_ and _responderunt_ are both repeated, butneither chance is taken by _BF_. Instead, a far less striking case(_sentiebant--responderunt_) leads to the omission. The arrangementin _P_ might be

 SENTIEBANT INTERROGATIANEPOTEPRAETORE (26) QUEMDOCUISSENTRESPONDERUNT (26) QUEMPRIUSINTERROGATIANTUNCGRA (29) TISADFUISSETRESPONDERUNTSEXMI (29)

Here the dangerous words INTERROGATI and RESPONDERUNT are in safeplaces. SENTIEBANT and RESPONDERUNT, ordinarily a safe enough pair, become dangerous by their position at the end of lines; indeed, in the_scriptura continua_ the danger of confusing _homoioteleuta_, unlessthese stand at the end of lines, is distinctly less than in a script inwhich the words are divided. Here again, as in 94, 10, we may reckon thelengths of the opening lines of the letter. After the line occupied withthe addresses, we have 296 letters, or ten lines with an average of 29. 6letters apiece. 

We may add two omissions of _F_ in passages now missing altogetherin _B_. 69, 28 quod minorem ex liberis duobus amisit sed maiorem]minorem--sed _om. _ _F_. Here again an omission is imminent from thesimilar endings _minorem--maiorem_; that made by _F_ (29 letters and onedot) seems to be that of a line of _P_ where the arrangement would be:

 QUOD MINOREMEXLIBERISDUOB·AMISITSED MAIOREM

There may have been a copy (_P²_) intervening between _P¹_ and _F_, but doubtless neither that nor _P¹_ itself had lines so short as thosein _P_; the error of _F_, therefore, may be most naturally ascribed to_P¹_, who omitted a line of _P_. 

130, 16 percolui. In summa (cur enim non aperiam tibi vel iudicium meumvel errorem?) primum ego] in summa--primum (59 letters) _om. F_. Asthere are no _homoioteleuta_ here at all, we surely are concerned withthe omission of a line or lines. Perhaps 59 letters would make up a linein _P¹_ or _P²_. Perhaps two lines of _P_ were dropped. 

Similarly we may note two omissions in _B_, though not in _F_, which maybe due originally to the error of _P¹_ in copying _P_. 

68, 5 electorumque commentarios centum sexaginta mihi reliquit, opisthographos] -torumque--opisthographos _om. B_. Allowing theabbreviation of QUE, we have 59 letters and one dot here. The omittedwords are written by the first hand of _B_ at the foot of the page. Ofcourse the omission may correspond to a line of _P¹_ dropped by _B_ incopying, but it is equally possible that _P¹_ committed the error andcorrected it by the marginal supplement, _F_ noting the correction intime to include the omitted words in his text, _B_ copying them in themargin as he found them in _P¹_. 

87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. Nam quoto cuique eademhonestatis] suffragiis--honestatis _om. M. 1, add. In mg. M. 2_ _B_ (54letters, with QUE abbreviated). This may be like the preceding, exceptthat the correction was done not by the original scribe of _B_, but by ascribe in the same monastery. The presence of _homoioteleuta_, we mustadmit, adds an element of uncertainty. 

So, of the passages here brought forward, 94, 20; 123, 10 and 69, 28 arebest explained by supposing that _B_ and _F_ descend from a manuscriptthat like _Π_ had from 24 to 32 letters in a line, while 32, 19 and130, 16 fit this supposition as well as they do any other. 

One orthographic peculiarity is perhaps worth noting: we saw that _B_did not agree with _Π_ in the spellings _karet_ and _karitas_. [49] Wedo, however, find _karitate_ elsewhere in _B_ (109, 8), and the curiousreading _Kl_ [. ’. ] _facere_, mg. _calfacere_, for _calfacere_ (56, 12). This is an additional bit of evidence for supposing that a copy (_P¹_)intervened between _P_ and _B_; _P_ had the spelling _Karitas_consistently, _P¹_ altered it to the usual form, and _B_ reproducedthe corrections in _P¹_, failing to take them all, unless, as may wellbe, _P¹_ had failed to correct all the cases. 

 [Footnote 49: See above, pp. 42, n. 1, and 50, n. 1. ]

Thus the evidence contained in the portion of _BF_ outside the text of_Π_ corroborates our working hypothesis deduced from the fragmentitself. We have found nothing yet to overthrow our surmise that a bitof the ancient Parisinus is veritably in the city of New York. 

 EDITORIAL METHODS OF ALDUS. 

[Sidenote: _Aldus’s methods; his basic text_]

We may now return to Aldus and imagine, if we can, his method ofcritical procedure. Finding his agreement with _Π_ so close, even inwhat editors before and after him have regarded as errors, I am disposedto think that he studied his Parisinus with care and followed itsauthority respectfully. Finding that his seemingly extravagantstatements about the antiquity of his book are essentially true, I amdisposed to put more confidence in Aldus than editors have granted himthus far. I should suppose that, working in the most convenient way, heturned over to his compositor, not a fresh copy of _P_, but the pages ofsome edition corrected from _P_--which Aldus surely tells us that heused--and from whatever other sources he consulted. It may be beyond ourpowers to discover the precise edition that he thus employed. It doesnot at first thought seem likely that he would select the Princeps, which does not include the eighth book at all, and contains errors thatlater were weeded out. In the portion of text included in _Π_, _P_has thirty-two readings which Aldus avoids. In most of these cases_p_ commits an error, sometimes a ridiculous error, like _offam_ for_officia_ (62, 25); the manuscript on which _p_ was based apparentlymade free use of abbreviations. Keil’s damning estimate of _r_[50] isamply borne out in this section of the text; Aldus differs from _r_ insixty-five cases, most of these being errors in _r_. He agrees with _ς_in all but twenty-six readings. [51] Aldus would have had fewest changesto make, then, if his basic text was ς. This is apparently the view ofKeil, [52] who would agree at any rate that Aldus made special use of theς editions and who also declares that _p_ is the _fundamentum_ of _r_ as_r_ is of the edition of Pomponius Laetus. [53]

 [Footnote 50: See the introduction to his edition, p. Xviii. ]

 [Footnote 51: See below, pp. 60 ff. ]

 [Footnote 52: _Op. Cit. _, p. Xxv: illis potissimum Aldum usum esse vidi. ]

 [Footnote 53: _Op. Cit. _, pp. Xviii, xx. ]

It would certainly be natural for Aldus to start with his immediatepredecessors, as they had started with theirs. The matter ought to becleared up, if possible, for in order to determine what Aldus found in_P_ we must know whether he took some text as a point of departure and, if so, what that text was. But the task should be undertaken by someone to whom the early editions are accessible. Keil’s report of them, intentionally incomplete, [54] is sufficient, he declares, [55] “_ad fidemAldinae editionis constituendam_, ” but, as I have found by comparing ourphotographs of the edition of Beroaldus in the present section, Keil hasnot collated minutely or accurately enough to encourage us to undertake, on the basis of his apparatus, an elaborate study of Aldus’s relation tothe editions preceding his own. 

 [Footnote 54: _Op. Cit. _, p. 2: Ex ς pauca adscripta sunt. ]

 [Footnote 55: _Op. Cit. _, p. Xxxii. ]

[Sidenote: _The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume_]

We may now test Aldus by the evidence of the Bodleian volume with itsvariants in the hand of Budaeus. For the section included in _Π_, theirnumber is disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus (= _i_)to the text of Beroaldus are: 61, 14 sera] _MVDoa_, (_m. 1_) _Π_ serua_BFuxi_, (_m. 2_) _Π_; 62, 4 ambulat] _i cum plerisque_ ambulabat _rBer. _ (ab _del. _) _M_; 62, 25 quoque] _i cum ceteris_ p̷ouq (ue) _Ber. _;64, 23 Quamvis] q Vmuis _Ber. _ _corr. I. _

This is all. Budaeus, who, according to Merrill, had the Parisinus athis disposal, has corrected two obvious misprints, made an inevitablechange in the tense of a verb--with or without the help of the ancientbook--and introduced from that book one unfortunate reading which wefind in the second hand of _Π_. 

There is one feature of Budaeus’s marginal jottings that at once arousesthe curiosity of the textual critic, namely, the frequent appearance ofthe _obelus_ and the _obelus cum puncto_. These signs as used byProbus[56] would denote respectively a surely spurious and a possiblyspurious line or portion of text. But such was not the usage of Budaeus;he employed the obelus merely to call attention to something thatinterested him. Thus at the end of the first letter of Book III we finda doubly pointed obelus opposite an interesting passage, the text ofwhich shows no variants or editorial questionings. Budaeus appears tohave expressed his grades of interest rather elaborately--at least I candiscover no other purpose for the different signs employed. The simpleobelus apparently denotes interest, the pointed obelus great interest, the doubly pointed obelus intense interest, and the pointing finger of acarefully drawn hand burning interest. He also adds catchwords. Thus onthe first letter he calls attention successively[57] to _Ambulatio_, _Gestatio_, _Hora balnei_, _pilae ludus_, _Coena_, and _Comoedi_. Thepurpose of the doubly pointed obelus is plainly indicated here, as itaccompanies two of these catchwords. Just so in the margin opposite 65, 17, a pointing finger is accompanied by the remark, “_Beneficiabeneficiis aliis cumulanda_, ” while 227, 5 is decorated with the moralejaculation, “_o hominem in diuitiis miserum_. ” Incidentally, it isobvious that the Morgan fragment was once perused by some thoughtfulreader, who marked with lines or brackets passages of special interestto him. For example, the account of how Spurinna spent his day[58] is somarked. This passage likewise called forth various marginal notes fromBudaeus, [59] and other coincidences exist between the markings in _Π_and the marginalia in the Bodleian volume. But there is not enoughevidence of this sort to warrant the suggestion that Budaeus himselfadded the marks in _Π_. 

 [Footnote 56: See Ribbeck’s Virgil, _Prolegomena_, p. 152. ]

 [Footnote 57: See plate XVIII. ]

 [Footnote 58: _Epist. _ III, i (plate IV). ]

 [Footnote 59: See plate XVIII. ]

[Sidenote: _Aldus and Budaeus compared_]

It is of some importance to consider what Budaeus might have done to thetext of Beroaldus had he treated it to a systematic collation with theParisinus. Our fragment allows us to test Budaeus; for even if it be notthe Parisinus itself, its readings with the help of _B_, _F_, and Aldusshow what was in that ancient book. I have enumerated above[60] elevenreadings of _ΠBF_ which are called errors by Keil, but of which ninewere accepted by Aldus and five by the latest editor, Professor Merrill. In two of these (62, 33 and 64, 3), Budaeus, like Aldus, wisely doesnot harbor an obvious error of _P_. In two more (62, 16 and 65, 12), Beroaldus already has the reading of _P_. Of the remaining seven, however, all of which Aldus adopted, there is no trace in Budaeus. Thereare also nineteen cases of obvious error in the ς editions, whichAldus corrected but Budaeus did not touch. I give the completeapparatus[61] for these twenty-six places, as they will illustrate theradical difference between Aldus and Budaeus in their use of theParisinus. 

 [Footnote 60: See above, p. 47. ]

 [Footnote 61: The readings of manuscripts are taken from Merrill, those of the editions from Keil; in the latter case, I use parentheses if the reading is only implied, not stated. ]

 60, 15 duplicia] _MVDrς_ duplicata _ΠBFGpa_

 61, 12 confusa adhuc] _MVς_ adhuc confusa _ΠBFGpra_

 18 milia passuum tria nec] _ΠBFMV_(_p_?)_a_ milia passum tria et nec _D_ mille pastria nec _r_ mille pas. Nec _ς_

 62, 6 doctissime] _MVς_ et doctissime _r_ doctissima _ΠBFDa_ et doctissima _p_

 26 igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_ igitur et eundem mihi cursum et eundem _rς_

 fuit (25)--potes (64, 12) _om. MV_

 63, 2 MAXIMO] _ΠBFDG_(_pr?_)_a_ Valerio Max. _ς_ Gauio Maximo _Catanaeus_

 4 Arrianus Maturus] _ΠBFDra_ arianus maturus _Gp_ Arrianus Maturius _ς_

 5 est] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ _om. R Ber. _

 9 ardentibus dicere] _ΠBFDG_(_r_?)_a_ dicere ardentius _pς_

 12 excolendusque] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_ extollendusque _Grς_

 15 conferas in eum] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_ in eum conferas _Grς_

 17 excipit] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_ accipit _rς_

 quam si] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ quasi si _r_ quasi _Laet. _, _Ber. _

 20 CORELLIAE HISPULLAE SUAE] CORELLIAE _ΠB_ AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE _ind. ΠB_ CORELLIE ISPULLAE _F_ CORELLIAE HISPULLAE _a_ corneliae (Coreliae _Catanaeus_) hispullae (suae _add. Do_) _DGprς_

 22 teque et] _DG_(_p_?)_[sigma]_ teque _ΠBFra_

 23 et in] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ et _rς_

 diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ diligam et cupiam necesse est etiam _r_ diligam atque etiam cupiam nececesse (_sic_) est etiam _Ber. _

 64, 2 erroribus modica vel etiam nulla] _BFDG_(_p_?)_a_ (_ex_ ERRORIB·MODICAESTETIAMNULLA _m. 2_)_Π_ erroribus uel modica uel nulla _r_ erroribus modica uel nulla _Ber. _ uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla _vulgo_

 5 fortunaeque] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ form(a)eque _r_ _Ber. _

 65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali _D_) _DGp_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_ alii quidam (quidem _Catanaeus_) minores sed tam (tamen _rς_) innumeri _MVrς_

 15 superiore] _MVDς_ priore _ΠBFGra_ prior _p_

 24 iam] _MVDG_(_pr_?)_ς_ _om. _ _ΠBFa_

 66, 7 sint omnes] _ΠBFMVDG_(_pr_?)_a_ sint _ς_

 9 haec quoque] _ΠBFDVGra_ hoc quoque _M_ hic quoque _p_ haec _ς_

 11 Pomponi] _ΠBMVo_ Pomponii _FDpra_ Q. Pomponii _ς_

 12 amatus] _ΠFDG_(_pr_?)_a_ est amatus _MVς_ amatus est _corr. M. 1_ _B_

Here is sufficient material for a test. Aldus, it will be observed, whether or not he started with some special edition, refuses tofollow the latest and best texts of his day (i. E. , _ς_) in thesetwenty-six readings. In one sure case (60, 15) and eleven possible[62]cases (61, 18; 62, 26; 63, 5, 12, 15, 17 _bis_, 23 _bis_; 64, 2, 5), hisreading agrees with the Princeps. In four sure cases (63, 4, 22; 65, 15;66, 9) and one possible one (63, 9), he agrees with the Roman edition;in two sure (61, 12; 66, 11) and three possible (63, 2; 66, 7, 12)cases, with both _p_ and _r_. Once he breaks away from all editionsreported by Keil and agrees with _D_ (62, 6). At the same time, allthese readings are attested by _ΠFB_ and hence were presumably in theParisinus. In two cases (65, 11, 24), we know of no source other than_P_ that could have furnished him his reading. Further, in thesuperscription of the third letter of Book III (63, 20), he might havetaken a hint from Catanaeus, who was the first to depart from thereading CORNELIAE, universally accepted before him, but again it is only_P_ that could give him the correct spelling CORELLIAE. [63]

 [Footnote 62: I say “possible” because the reading is implied, not stated, in Keil’s edition. The reading of Beroaldus on 63, 23 I get from our photograph, not from Keil, who does not give it. ]

 [Footnote 63: I have purposely omitted to treat Aldus’s use of the superscriptions in _P_, as that matter is best reserved for a consideration of the superscriptions in general. ]

If all the above readings, then, were in the Parisinus, how did Aldusarrive at them? Did he fish round, now in the Princeps, now in the Romanedition, despite the repellent errors that those texts contained, [64]and extract with felicitous accuracy excellent readings that coincidedwith those of the Parisinus, or did he draw them straight from thatsource itself? The crucial cases are 65, 11 and 24. As he must have goneto the Parisinus for these readings, he presumably found the othersthere, too. Moreover, he did not get his new variants by a merelysporadic consultation of the ancient book when he was dissatisfied withthe accepted text of his day, for in the two crucial cases and many ofthe others, too, that text makes sense; some of the readings, indeed, are accepted by modern editors as correct. [65] Aldus was collating. He carefully noted minutiae, such as the omission of _et_ and _iam_, and accepted what he found, unless the ancient text seemed to himindisputably wrong. He gave it the benefit of the doubt even when it maybe wrong. This is the method of a scrupulous editor who cherishes aproper veneration for his oldest and best authority. 

 [Footnote 64: See above, p. 58. ]

 [Footnote 65: See above, pp. 47 f. ]

Budaeus, on the other hand, is not an editor. He is a vastly interestedreader of Pliny, frequently commenting on the subject-matter or callingattention to it by marginal signs. As for the text, he generally findsBeroaldus good enough. He corrects misprints, makes a conjecture now andthen, or adopts one of Catanaeus, and, besides supplementing the missingportions with transcripts made for him from the Parisinus, insertsnumerous variants, some of which indubitably come from thatmanuscript. [66] In the present section, occupying 251 lines in _Π_, there is only one reading of the Parisinus--a false reading, ithappens--that seems to Budaeus worth recording. Compared with what Aldusgleaned from _Π_, Budaeus’s extracts are insignificant. It isremarkable, for instance, that on a passage (65, 11) which, as theappended obelus shows, he must have read with attention, he has notadded the very different reading of the Parisinus. Either, then, Budaeusdid not consult the Parisinus with care, or he did not think the greatmajority of its readings preferable to the text of Beroaldus, or, as Ithink may well have been the case, he had neither the manuscript itselfnor an entire copy of it accessible at the time when he added hisvariants in his combined edition of Beroaldus and Avantius. [67]

 [Footnote 66: See Merrill, “Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan, ” in _Wiener Studien_ XXXI (1909), p. 257; _C. P. _ II, p. 154; XIV, p. 30 f. Two examples (216, 23 and 227, 18) will be noted in plate XVII a. ]

 [Footnote 67: Certain errors of the scribe who wrote the additional pages in the Bodleian book warrant the surmise that he was copying not the Parisinus itself, but some copy of it. Thus in 227, 14 (see plate XVII b) we find him writing _Tamen_ for _tum_, Budaeus correcting this error in the margin. A scribe is of course capable of anything, but with an uncial _tum_ to start from, _tamen_ is not a natural mistake to commit; it would rather appear that the scribe falsely resolved a minuscule abbreviation. ]

But I do not mean to present here a final estimate of Budaeus; for that, I hope, we may look to Professor Merrill. Nor do I particularly blameBudaeus for not constructing a new text from the wealth of materialdisclosed in the Parisinus. His interests lay elsewhere; _suos quoiquemos_. What I mean to say, and to say with some conviction, is that forthe portion of text included in our fragment, the evidence of thatfragment, coupled with that of _B_ and _F_, shows that as a witness tothe ancient manuscript Aldus is overwhelmingly superior to eitherBudaeus or any of the ancient editors. 

Our examination of the Morgan fragment, therefore, leads to what I deema highly probable conclusion. We could perhaps hope for absolute proofin a matter of this kind only if another page of the same manuscriptshould appear, bearing a note in the hand of Aldus Manutius to theeffect that he had used the codex for his edition of 1508. Failing that, we can at least point out that all the data accessible comport with thehypothesis that the Morgan fragment was a part of this very codex. Wehave set our hypothesis running a lengthy gauntlet of facts, and nonehas tripped it yet. We have also seen that _Π_ is most intimatelyconnected with manuscripts _BF_ of Class I, and indeed seems to be apart of the very manuscript whence they are descended. Finally, acareful comparison of Aldus’s text with _Π_ shows him, for this muchof the _Letters_ at least, to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor. His method is to follow _Π_ throughout, save when, confronted by itsobvious blunders, he has recourse to the editions of his day. 

[Sidenote: _The latest criticism of Aldus_]

Since the publication of Otto’s article in 1886, [68] in which the authordefended the _F_ branch against that of _MV_, to which, as the elderrepresentative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred, critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearanceof _B_ greatly helped, as it corroborates the testimony of _F_. _B_ and_F_ head the list of the manuscripts used by Kukula in his edition of1912, [69] and _B_ and _F_ with Aldus’s Parisinus make up Class I, notClass II, in Merrill’s grouping of the manuscripts. Obviously, the valueof Class I mounts higher still now that we have evidence in the Morganfragment of its existence in the early sixth century. This fact helps usto decide the question of glosses in our text. We are more than everdisposed to attribute not to _BF_ but to what has now become theyounger branch of the tradition, Class II, the tendency to interpolateexplanatory glosses. The changed attitude towards the _BF_ branch hasnaturally resulted in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seenin the portion included in _Π_ that of the eleven readings which Keilregarded as errors of the _F_ branch, three are accepted by Kukula andfive by Merrill. [70]

 [Footnote 68: “Die Ueberlieferung der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius, ” in _Hermes_ XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff. ]

 [Footnote 69: See p. Iv. ]

 [Footnote 70: See above, pp. 47 f. ]

Since Class I has thus appreciated in value, we should expect thatAldus’s stock would also take an upward turn. In Aldus’s lifetime, curiously, he was criticized for excessive conservatism. His rivalCatanaeus finds his chief quality _supina ignorantia_ and adds:[71]

 “Verum enim uero non satis est recuperare venerandae vetustatis exemplaria, nisi etiam simul adsit acre emendatoris iudicium: quoniam et veteres librarii in voluminibus describendis saepissime falsi sunt, et Plinius ipse scripta sua se viuo deprauari in quadam epistola demonstrauerit. ”

 [Footnote 71: See the prefatory letter in his edition of 1518. ]

Nowadays, however, editors hesitate to accept an unsupported reading ofAldus as that of the Parisinus, since they believe that he abounds inthose very conjectures of which Catanaeus felt the lack. The attitude ofthe expert best qualified to judge is still one of suspicion towardsAldus. In his most recent article, [72] Professor Merrill declares thatKeil’s remarks[73] on the procedure of Aldus in the part of Book Xalready edited by Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus might safely havebeen extended to cover the work of Aldus on the entire body of the_Letters_. He proceeds to subject Aldus to a new test, the material forwhich we owe to Merrill’s own researches. He compares with Aldus’s textthe manuscript parts of the Bodleian volume, which are apparentlytranscripts from the Parisinus (= _I_);[74] in them Budaeus with his ownhand (= _i_) has corrected on the authority of the Parisinus itself, according to Merrill, the errors of his transcriber. In a few instances, Merrill allows, Budaeus has substituted conjectures of his own. Thismaterial, obviously, offers a valuable criterion of Aldus’s methods asan editor. There is a further criterion in the shape of Codex _M_, notutilized till after Aldus’s edition. As this manuscript represents ClassII, concurrences between _M_ and _Ii_ against _a_ make it tolerablycertain that Aldus himself and no higher authority is responsible forsuch readings. On this basis, Merrill cites twenty-five readings in theadded part of Book VIII (viii, 3 _quas obvias_--xviii, II _amplissimoshortos_) and nineteen readings in the added part of Book X (lettersiv-xli), which represent examples “wherein Aldus abandons indubitablysatisfactory readings of his only and much belauded manuscript in favorof conjectures of his own. ”[75] Letter IX xvi, a very short affair, added by Budaeus in the margin, contains no indictment against Aldus. 

 [Footnote 72: _C. P. _ XIV (1919), pp. 29 ff. ]

 [Footnote 73: _Op. Cit. _, p. Xxxvii: nam ea quae aliter in Aldina editione atque in illis (i. E. , Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus) exhibentur ita comparata sunt omnia, ut coniectura potius inventa quam e codice profecta esse existimanda sint et plura quidem in pravis et temerariis interpolationibus versantur. ]

 [Footnote 74: But see above, p. 62, n. 2. ]

 [Footnote 75: Pp. 31 ff. ]

[Sidenote: _Aldus’s methods in the newly discovered parts of Books VIII, IX, and X_]

The result of this exposure, Professor Merrill declares, should convince“any unprejudiced student” of the question that “Aldus stands clearlyconvicted of being an extremely unsafe textual critic of Pliny’s_Letters_. ”[76] “This conclusion does not depend, as that of Keilnecessarily did, on any native or acquired acuteness of criticalperception. The wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. ”[77]I speak as a wayfarer, but nevertheless I must own that ProfessorMerrill’s path of argument causes me to stumble. I readily admit thatAldus, in editing a portion of text that no man had put into printbefore him, fell back on conjecture when his authority seemed not tomake sense. But Merrill’s lists need revision. He has included withAldus’s “willful deviations” from the true text of _P_ certain readingsthat almost surely were misprints (218, 12; 220, 3), some that may wellbe (as 217, 28; 221, 12), one case in which Aldus has retained an errorof _P_ while _I_ emends (221, 11), and several cases in which Aldus and_I_ or _i_ emend in different ways an error of _P_ (222, 14; 226, 5;272, 4--not 5). In one case he misquotes Aldus, when the latter reallyhas the reading that both Merrill and Keil indicate as correct (276, 21); in another he fails to remark that Aldus’s erroneous reading issupported by _M_ (219, 17). However, even after discounting these andpossibly other instances, a significant array of conjectures remains. Still, it is not fair to call the Parisinus Aldus’s _only_ manuscript. We know that he had other material in the six volumes of manuscripts andcollated editions sent him by Giocondo, as well as the latter’s copy of_P_. There could hardly have been in this number a source superior tothe Parisinus, but Giocondo may have added here and there his own orothers’ conjectures, which Aldus adopted unwisely, but at least notsolely on his own authority; the most apparent case of interpolation(224, 8) Keil thought might have been a conjecture of Giocondo’s. Further, if the general character of _P_ is represented in _Π_, BookX, as well as the beginning of Book III, may have had variants by thesecond hand, sometimes taken by Aldus and neglected, wisely, byBudaeus’s transcriber. 

 [Footnote 76: P. 33. ]

 [Footnote 77: P. 30. ]

[Sidenote: _The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus_]

With the discovery of the Morgan fragment, a new criterion of Aldus isoffered. I believe that it is the surest starting-point from which toinvestigate Aldus’s relation to his ancient manuscript. I admit that forBook X, Avantius and the Bodleian volume in its added parts are betterauthorities for the Parisinus than is Aldus. I admit that Aldus resortedthroughout the text of the _Letters_--in some cases unhappily--to thecustomary editorial privilege of emendation. But I nevertheless maintainthat for the entire text he is a much better authority than the Bodleianvolume as a whole, and that he should be given, not absolute confidence, but far more confidence than editors have thus far allowed him. Nor isthe section of text preserved in the fragment of small significance forour purpose. Indeed, both for Aldus and in general, I think it even morevaluable than a corresponding amount of Book X would be. We could wishthat it were longer, but at least it includes a number of crucialreadings and above all vouches for the existence of the indices some twohundred years before the date previously assigned for their compilation. It also supplies a final confirmation of the value of Class I; indeed, _B_ and _F_, the manuscripts of this class, appear to have descendedfrom the very manuscript of which _Π_ was a part. We see still moreclearly than before that _BF_ can be used elsewhere in the _Letters_ asa test of Aldus, and we also note that these manuscripts contain errorsnot in the Parisinus. This is a highly important factor for forming atrue estimate of Aldus and one that we could not deduce from a fragmentof Book X, which _BF_ do not contain. 

[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]

I conclude, then, that the Morgan fragment is a piece of the Parisinus, and that we may compare with Aldus’s text the very words which hestudied out, carefully collated, and treated with a decent respect. Onthe basis of the new information furnished us by the fragment, I shallendeavor, at some future time, to confirm my present judgement of Aldusby testing him in the entire text of Pliny’s _Letters_. Further, despiteMerrill’s researches and his brilliant analysis, I am not convinced thatthe last word has been spoken on the nature of the transcript made forBudaeus and incorporated in the Bodleian volume. I will not, however, venture on this broad field until Professor Merrill, who has the firstright to speak, is enabled to give to the world his long-expectededition. Meanwhile, if my view is right, we owe to the acquisition ofthe ancient fragment by the Pierpont Morgan Library a new confidence inthe integrity of Aldus, a clearer understanding of the history of the_Letters_ in the early Middle Ages, and a surer method of editing theirtext. 

 DESCRIPTION OF PLATES. 

Nos. I-XII. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462. Afragment of 12 pages of an uncial manuscript of the early sixth century. The fragment contains Pliny’s _Letters_, Book II, xx. 13--Book III, v. 4. For a detailed description, see above, pp. 3 ff. The entire fragmentis here given, very slightly reduced. The exact size of the script isshown in Plate XX. 

XIII-XIV. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. Ashburnham R 98, known asCodex Bellovacensis (_B_) or Riccardianus (_R_), written in Carolineminuscule of the ninth century. See above, p. 44. Our plates reproducefols. 9 and 9v (slightly reduced), containing the end of Book II and thebeginning of Book III. 

XV-XVI. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. San Marco 284, written inCaroline minuscule of the tenth century. See above, pp. 44 f. Our platesreproduce fols. 56v and 57r, containing the end of Book II and thebeginning of Book III. 

XVII-XVIII. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. L 4. 3. See above, pp. 39 f. The lacuna in Book VIII (216, 27-227, 10 Keil) is indicated by a cross(+) on fol. 136v (plate XVIIa). The missing text is supplied on addedleaves by the hand shown on plate XVIIb (= fol. 144). The variants arein the hand of Budaeus. Plate XVIII contains fols. 32v and 33, showingthe end of Book II and the beginning of Book III. 

XIX. Aldine edition of Pliny’s _Letters_, Venice 1508. Our platereproduces the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III. 

XX. Specimens of three uncial manuscripts:

 (_a_) Berlin, Königl. Bibl. Lat. 4º 298, _circa a. _ 447. 

 (_b_) New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462, _circa a. _ 500 (exact size). 

 (_c_) Fulda, Codex Bonifatianus 1, _ante a. _ 547. 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

{Transcriber’s Corrections:

PART I:

Footnote 29: Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_ _text reads_ Palaographie

_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B. 5 . .. Über den Ältesten. .. _text reads_ uber den altesten

_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B. 9 Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe siècle conservés. .. _text reads_ conserves

Footnote 32: Recueil de Fac-similés _text reads_ Receuil

PART II:

Footnote 28: Briefe des Plinius _text reads_ Plinus }