Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net






{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 masterpieces
of painting and sculpture, rare books, and illuminated manuscripts.
Scholars generally are perhaps not aware that it also possesses the
oldest Latin manuscripts in America, including several that even the
greatest European libraries would be proud to own. The collection is
also admirably representative of the development of script throughout
the Middle Ages. It comprises specimens of the uncial hand, the
half-uncial, the Merovingian minuscule of the Luxeuil type, the script
of the famous school of Tours, the St. Gall type, the Irish and
Visigothic 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 to
palaeographers, but to all students of the classics. It consists of six
leaves of an early sixth-century manuscript of the _Letters_ of the
younger Pliny. This new witness to the text, older by three centuries
than the oldest codex heretofore used by any modern editor, has
reappeared in this unexpected quarter, after centuries of wandering and
hiding. 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 De
Marinis, 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 Morgan
Library in 1915. One of the first manuscripts put into their hands was
this early sixth-century fragment of Pliny’s _Letters_, which forms the
subject of the following pages. Having received permission to study
the manuscript and publish results, they lost no time in acquainting
classical scholars with this important find. In December of the
same year, at the joint meeting of the American Archaeological and
Philological Associations, held at Princeton University, two papers
were read, one concerning the palaeographical, the other the textual,
importance of the fragment. The two studies which follow, Part I by
Doctor Lowe, Part II by Professor Rand, are an elaboration of the views
presented at the meeting. Some months after the present volume was in
the form of page-proof, Professor E.T. Merrill’s long-expected edition
of Pliny’s _Letters_ appeared (Teubner, Leipsic, 1922). We regret that
we 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 in
general he should regard the date of our production as 1921 rather
than 1922.

The writers wish to express their gratitude for the privilege of
visiting the Pierpont Morgan Library and making full use of its
facilities. For permission to publish the manuscript they are indebted
to the generous interest of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. They also desire to
make cordial acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness of
the Librarian, Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and her assistant, Miss Ada
Thurston. Lastly, the writers wish to thank the Carnegie Institution of
Washington for accepting their joint study for publication and for their
liberality in permitting them to give all the facsimiles necessary to
illustrate 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 II
and the beginning of Book III of the _Letters_ (II, xx. 13-III, v. 4).
The fragment consists of six vellum leaves, or twelve pages, which
apparently formed part of a gathering or quire of the original volume.

The leaves measure 11-3/8 by 7 inches (286 x 180 millimeters); the
written 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 (18
millimeters); 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 are
bound in a modern pliable vellum binding with three blank vellum
fly-leaves in front and seven in back, all modern. On the inside of the
front cover is the book-plate of John Pierpont Morgan, showing the
Morgan arms with the device: _Onward and Upward_. Under the book-plate
is the press-mark M.462.


[Sidenote: _Ruling_]

There are twenty-seven horizontal lines to a page and two vertical
bounding lines. The lines were ruled with a hard point on the flesh
side, each opened sheet being ruled separately: 48v and 53r, 49r and
52v, 50v and 51r. The horizontal lines were guided by knife-slits made
in the outside margins quite close to the text space; the two vertical
lines were guided by two slits in the upper margin and two in the lower.
The horizontal lines were drawn across the open sheets and extended
occasionally beyond the slits, more often just beyond the perpendicular
bounding lines. The written space was kept inside the vertical bounding
lines except for the initial letter of each epistle; the first letter of
the address and the first letter of the epistle proper projected into
the left margin. Here and there the scribe transgressed beyond the
bounding line. On the whole, however, he observed the limits and seemed
to prefer to leave a blank before the bounding line rather than to crowd
the 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 gathering
of the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios 48r
and 53v have a darker appearance, as though they had been the outside
leaves of a gathering that had been affected by exposure. But this
darker appearance is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that both
pages are on the hair side of the parchment, and the hair side is always
darker than the flesh side. Quires of six leaves or trinions are not
unknown. Examples of them may be found in our oldest manuscripts. But
they are the exception.[1] The customary quire is a gathering of eight
leaves, forming a quaternion proper. It would be natural, therefore, to
suppose that our fragment did not constitute a complete gathering in
itself but formed part of a quaternion. The supposition is confirmed by
the 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 outside
sheet, since our fragment furnishes a continuous text without any lacuna
whatever. Now, in the formation of quires, sheets were so arranged that
hair side faced hair side, and flesh side flesh side. This arrangement
is dictated by a sense of uniformity. As the hair side is usually much
darker than the flesh side the juxtaposition of hair and flesh sides
would offend the eye. So, in the case of our six leaves, folios 48v and
53r, presenting the flesh side, face folios 49r and 52v likewise on the
flesh side; and folios 49v and 52r presenting the hair side, face folios
50r and 51v likewise on the hair side. The inside pages 50v and 51r
which face each other, are both flesh side, and the outside pages 48r
and 53v are both hair side, as may be seen from the accompanying
diagram.

(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 formed
part of a quaternion the missing sheet was so folded that its hair side
faced the present outside sheet and its flesh side was on the outside of
the whole gathering. Now, it was by far the more usual practice in our
oldest uncial manuscripts to have the flesh side on the outside of the
quire.[2] And as our fragment belongs to the oldest class of uncial
manuscripts, the manner of arranging the sheets of quires seems to favor
the supposition that two outside leaves are missing. The hypothesis is,
moreover, strengthened by another consideration. According to the
foliation supplied by the fifteenth-century Arabic numerals, the leaf
which must have followed our fragment bore the number 54, the leaf
preceding it having the number 47. If we assume that our fragment was
a complete gathering, we are obliged to explain why the next gathering
began on a leaf bearing an even number (54), which is abnormal. We do
not have to contend with this difficulty if we assume that folios 47 and
54 formed the outside sheet of our fragment, for six quires of eight
leaves and one of six would give precisely 54 leaves. It seems,
therefore, reasonable to assume that our fragment is not a complete
unit, but formed part of a quaternion, the outside sheet of which is
missing.

  [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. With
this clue in our possession it can be demonstrated that the manuscript
began with the first book of the _Letters_. We start with the fact that
not all the 47 folios (or 94 pages) which preceded our six leaves were
devoted to the text of the _Letters_. For, from the contents of our six
leaves we know that each book must have been preceded by an index of
addresses and first lines. The indices for Books I and II, if arranged
in general like that of Book III, must have occupied four pages.[3] We
also learn from our fragment that space must be allowed for a colophon
at the end of each book. One page for the colophons of Books I and II is
a reasonable allowance. Accordingly it follows that out of the 94 pages
preceding our fragment 5 were not devoted to text, or in other words
that 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 text
we find that the average page in our manuscript corresponds to about 19
lines of the Teubner edition of 1912. If we multiply 89 by 19 we get
1691. This number of lines of the size of the Teubner edition should, if
our calculation be correct, contain the text of the _Letters_ preceding
our fragment. The average page of the Teubner edition of 1912 of the
part which interests us contains a little over 29 lines. If we divide
1691 by 29 we get 58.3. Just 58 pages of Teubner text are occupied by
the 47 leaves which preceded our fragment. So close a conformity is
sufficient to prove our point. We have possibly allowed too much space
for indices and colophons, especially if the former covered less ground
for Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviation
of _que_ and _bus_, and particularly of official titles, we can not
expect a closer agreement.

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

It is hard to believe that only six leaves of the original manuscript
have escaped destruction. The fact that the outside sheet (foll. 48r and
53v) is not much worn nor badly soiled suggests that the gathering of
six leaves must have been torn from the manuscript not so very long ago
and that the remaining portions may some day be found.


[Sidenote: _Disposition_]

The pages in our manuscript are written in long lines,[4] in _scriptura
continua_, 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 in
the 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 address
which precedes each epistle also begins with a large letter. In both
cases the large letter projects into the left margin.

The running title at the top of each page is in small rustic
capitals.[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 of
addresses and initial lines written in alternating lines of black and
red uncials. Alternating lines of black and red rustic capitals of a
large 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 of
the simplest kind. Such as it is, it is mostly found at the end and
beginning of books. In our case, the colophon is enclosed between two
scrolls of vine-tendrils terminating in an ivy-leaf at both ends. The
lettering in the colophon and in the running title is set off by means
of 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 at
the end of the Index on fol. 49. Red was also used, to judge by our
fragment, in the first three lines of a new book,[8] in the addresses
in 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 of
the Index on fol. 49 was added between the lines, probably by the scribe
himself, using a finer pen; likewise the omitted line on fol. 52v, lines
7-8. A number of slight corrections come either from the scribe or from
a contemporary reader; the others are by a somewhat later hand, which is
probably not more recent than the seventh century.[9] The method of
correcting varies. As a rule, the correct letter is added above the line
over the wrong letter; occasionally it is written over an erasure. An
omitted letter is also added above the line over the space where it
should be inserted. Deletion of single letters is indicated by a dot
placed over the letter and a horizontal or an oblique line drawn through
it. This double use of expunction and cancellation is not uncommon in
our oldest manuscripts. For details on the subject of corrections, see
the 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 fifteenth
century on fol. 51. On fol. 49, in the upper margin, a fifteenth-century
hand using a stilus or hard point scribbled a few words, now difficult
to decipher.[10] Presumably the same hand drew a bearded head with a
halo. Another relatively recent hand, using lead, wrote in the left
margin of fol. 53v the monogram QR[11] and the roman numerals i, ii, iii
under one another. These numerals, as Professor Rand correctly saw,
refer to the works of Pliny the Elder enumerated in the text. Further
activity 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 such
a division involves beginning the next syllable with a group of
consonants.[12] In that case the consonants are distributed between the
two syllables, one consonant going with one syllable and the other with
the following, except when the group contains more than two successive
consonants, in which case the first consonant goes with the first
syllable, the rest with the following syllable. That the scribe is
controlled by this mechanical rule and not by considerations of
pronunciation is obvious from the division SAN|CTISSIMUM and other
examples found below. The method followed by him is made amply clear
by 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 compares
favorably with the best spelling encountered in our oldest Latin
manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. The diphthong _ae_ is
regularly distinguished from _e_. The interchange of _b_ and _u_, _d_
and _t_, _o_ and _u_, so common in later manuscripts, is rare here: the
confusion between _b_ and _u_ occurs once (_comprouasse_, fo. 52v, l.
1); the omission of _h_ occurs once (_pulcritudo_, fo. 51v, l. 26); the
use 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 in
some, and in others the unassimilated form, as the following examples
go 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 are
found are subject to strict rules. What is true of the twelve pages was
doubtless true of the entire manuscript, inasmuch as the sparing use
of abbreviations in conformity with certain definite rules is a
characteristic of all our oldest manuscripts.[14] The abbreviations
found 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 or
inscription, _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 end
of 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 of
addresses preceding each book, suspensions which would never occur in
the 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, thickened
at either end, which is placed over the space immediately following the
final vowel.[19] This omission may occur in the middle of a word but
only 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 ancient
classical manuscript unknown to modern editors may easily arouse
suspicion in the minds of some scholars. Our experience with the
“Anonymus Cortesianus” has taught us to be wary,[20] and it is natural
to demand proof establishing the genuineness of the new fragment.[21] As
to the six leaves of the Morgan Pliny, it may be said unhesitatingly
that no one with experience of ancient Latin manuscripts could entertain
any 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 genuine
antiquity.

  [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 of
palaeography would be able to reproduce all these features of ancient
manuscripts. This objection can hardly be sustained. It is difficult
to believe that any modern could reproduce faithfully all the
characteristics of sixth-century uncials and fifteenth-century notarial
writing without unconsciously falling into some error and betraying
his modernity. Besides, there is one consideration which to my mind
establishes the genuineness of our fragment beyond a peradventure. We
have seen above that the leaves of our manuscript are so arranged that
hair side faces hair side and flesh side faces flesh side. The visible
effect of this arrangement is that two pages of clear writing alternate
with two pages of faded writing, the faded appearance being caused by
the ink scaling off from the less porous surface of the flesh side of
the vellum.[22] As a matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellum
showed faded writing long before modern time. To judge by the retouched
characters on fol. 53r it would seem that the original writing had
become illegible by the eighth or ninth century.[23] Still, a
considerable period of time would, so far as we know, be necessary for
this process. It is highly improbable that a forger could devise this
method of giving his forgery the appearance of antiquity, and even if he
attempted it, it is safe to say that the present effect would not be
produced 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 is
a modern forgery. We are then constrained to credit the forger not only
with a knowledge of palaeography which is simply faultless, but, as will
be shown in the second part, with a minute acquaintance with the
criticism and the history of the text. And this forger did not try to
attain fame or academic standing by his nefarious doings, as was the
case with the Roman author of the forged “Anonymus Cortesianus,” for
nothing was heard of this Morgan fragment till it had reached the
library of the American collector. If his motive was monetary gain he
chose a long and arduous path to attain it. It is hardly conceivable
that he should take the trouble to make all the errors and omissions
found in our twelve pages and all the additions and corrections
representing different ages, different styles, when less than half
the number would have served to give the forged document an air of
verisimilitude. The assumption that the Morgan fragment is a forgery
thus becomes highly unreasonable. When you add to this the fact that
there is nothing in the twelve pages that in any way arouses suspicion,
the conclusion is inevitable that the Morgan fragment is a genuine relic
of antiquity.


[Sidenote: _Archetype_]

As to the original from which our manuscript was copied, very little can
be said. The six leaves before us furnish scanty material on which to
build any theory. The errors which occur are not sufficient to warrant
any conclusion as to the script of the archetype. One item of
information, however, we do get: an omission on fol. 52v goes to show
that the manuscript from which our scribe copied was written in lines
of 25 letters or thereabout.[24] The scribe first wrote EXCUCURIS|SEM
COMMEATU. Discovering his error of omission, he erased SEM at the
beginning of line 8 and added it at the end of line 7 (intruding upon
margin-space in order to do so), and then supplied, in somewhat smaller
letters, the omitted words ACCEPTO UT PRAEFECTUS AERARI. As there are no
_homoioteleuta_ to account for the omission, it is almost certain that
it was caused by the inadvertent skipping of a line.[25] The omitted
letters 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 copied
must have had its names abbreviated in exactly the same form. There is
no other way of explaining why the scribe first wrote AD IULIUM
SERUIANUM (fol. 49, l. 12), and then erased the final UM and put a
point after SERUIAN.




 THE DATE AND LATER HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT.


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

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

The manuscript may be dated at about the year A.D. 500, for the reason
that the script is not quite so old as that of our oldest fifth-century
uncial manuscripts, and yet decidedly older than that of the Codex
Fuldensis 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 data
on which our judgments are based are meagre in the extreme and rather
difficult to formulate.

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

The student of manuscripts knows that a law of evolution is observable
in writing as in other aspects of human endeavor. The process of
evolution is from the less to the more complex, from the less to the
more differentiated, from the simple to the more ornate form. Guided by
these general considerations, he would find that his uncial manuscripts
naturally fall into two groups. One group is manifestly the older: in
orthography, punctuation, and abbreviation it bears close resemblance
to inscriptions of the classical or Roman period. The other group is as
manifestly composed of the more recent manuscripts: this may be inferred
from the corrupt or barbarous spelling, from the use of abbreviations
unfamiliar in the classical period but very common in the Middle Ages,
or from the presence of punctuation, which the oldest manuscripts
invariably lack. The manuscripts of the first group show letters that
are simple and unadorned and words unseparated from each other. Those
of the second group show a type of ornate writing, the letters having
serifs or hair-lines and flourishes, and the words being well separated.
There can be no reasonable doubt that this rough classification is
correct as far as it goes; but it must remain rough and permit large
play for subjective judgement.

A scientific classification, however, can rest only on objective
criteria--criteria which, once recognized, are acceptable to all. Such
criteria are made possible by the presence of dated manuscripts. Now, if
by a dated manuscript we mean a manuscript of which we know, through a
subscription or some other entry, that it was written in a certain year,
there is not a single dated manuscript in uncial writing which is older
than the seventh century--the oldest manuscript with a _precise_ date
known to me being the manuscript of St. Augustine written in the Abbey
of Luxeuil in A.D. 669.[26] But there are a few manuscripts of which we
can say with certainty that they were written either before or after
some given date. And these manuscripts which furnish us with a _terminus
ante quem_ or _post quem_, as the case may be, are extremely important
to us as being the only relatively safe landmarks for following
development 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 first
landmark of importance.[27] It was read by Bishop Victor of Capua in
the years A.D. 546 and 547, as is testified by two entries, probably
autograph. From this it follows that the manuscript was written before
A.D. 546. We may surmise--and I think correctly--that it was shortly
before 546, if not in that very year. In any case the Codex Fuldensis
furnishes a precise _terminus ante quem_.

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

The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragment
containing a computation for finding the correct date for Easter
Sunday.[28] Internal evidence makes it clear that this _Computus
Paschalis_ first saw light shortly after A.D. 447. The presumption is
that 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 much
later copy of the original, as the following purely palaeographical
considerations, 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 the
Fulda manuscript and the Berlin fragment were both written about the
year 500--a date representing, roughly speaking, the middle point in the
period of about one hundred years which separates the extreme limits of
the dates possible for either of these two manuscripts, as the following
diagram 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 striking
similarities if not close resemblance. As a matter of fact, a careful
comparison of the two manuscripts discloses differences so marked as to
render our assumption absurd. The Berlin fragment is obviously much
older than the Fulda manuscript. It would be rash to specify the exact
interval of time that separates these two manuscripts, yet if we
remember the slow development of types of writing the conclusion seems
justified that at least several generations of evolution lie between the
two manuscripts. If this be correct, we are forced to push the date of
each as far back as the ascertained limit will permit, namely, the
Fulda manuscript to the year 546 and the Berlin fragment to the year
447. Thus, apparently, considerations of form and style (purely
palaeographical considerations) confirm the dates derived from
examination of the internal evidence, and the Berlin and Fulda
manuscripts may, in effect, be considered two dated manuscripts,
two definite guide-posts.

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


[Sidenote: _Dated uncial manuscripts_]

Asked to enumerate the landmarks which may serve as helpful guides in
uncial writing prior to the year 800, we should hardly go far wrong if
we 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 the
Chronicle 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 by
Bishop 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 than
A.D. 438, when this body of law was promulgated, nor much later than
the middle of sixth century, when the Justinian Code supplanted the
Theodosian 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, containing
Canons, 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 the
Abbey 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 the
Chronicle 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 of
Childebert 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 in
England.    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 in
the 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 place
which the Morgan Pliny occupies in the series of uncial manuscripts. The
student of manuscripts recognizes at a glance that the Morgan fragment
is, as has been said, distinctly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about
the year 546. But how much older? Is it to be compared in antiquity with
such 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 of
our oldest group of fourth- and fifth-century manuscripts and compare
them with those of the Morgan manuscript we shall see that the latter,
though sharing some of the features found in manuscripts of the oldest
group, lacks others and in turn shows features peculiar to manuscripts
of a later group.


[Sidenote: _Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_]

Our oldest group would naturally be composed of those uncial manuscripts
which bear the closest resemblance to the above-mentioned manuscripts of
the fourth and fifth centuries, and I should include in that group such
manuscripts 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.--Scholia
Bobiensia 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 Bishop
Eusebius (†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, fragments
scattered in the libraries of Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Fulda, and St. Paul
in 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 of
the characteristics enumerated above as belonging to the oldest type of
uncial manuscripts. The parchment is not of the very thin sort. There
has been no corrosion along the furrows made by the pen. The running
title and colophons are in rustic capitals, not in uncials. The manner
of forming such letters as {B E M R S T} differs from that employed in
the 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 which
reaches fuller development in later uncial manuscripts, it is clear that
their presence in our manuscript is a sign of its more recent character
as compared with manuscripts of the oldest type. Just as our manuscript
is clearly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about the year 546, so it
is clearly more recent than the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ of about the
year 447. Its proper place is at the end of the oldest series of uncial
manuscripts, which begins with the Cicero palimpsest. Its closest
neighbors are, I believe, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia
and the _Codex Theodosianus_ of Turin. If we conclude by saying that the
Morgan manuscript was written about the year 500 we shall probably not
be far from the truth.

[Sidenote: _Later history of the Morgan manuscript_]

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

In the six leaves that have been saved of our Morgan manuscript we have
two 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 book
of Job, are written in Carolingian characters of the ninth century. As
these characters were used during the ninth century in northern Italy as
well as in France, it is impossible to say where this entry was made. If
in France, then the manuscript of Pliny must have left its Italian home
before 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 century
we know from the second entry. Nay, we learn more precise details. We
learn that our manuscript had found a home in France, in the town of
Meaux or its vicinity. The entry is found in the upper margin of fol.
51r and doubtless represents a _probatio pennae_ on the part of a
notary. 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 the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.[32] The formula of greeting with
which the document opens is in the precise form in which it occurs in
numberless charters of the period. All efforts to identify Jehan de
Sannemeres, keeper of the seal of the _provosté_ of Meaux, and François
Beloy, sworn clerk in behalf of the King, have so far proved
fruitless.[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 is
quite possible that it had crossed the Alps by the ninth century or even
before. It is certain that by the fifteenth century it had found asylum
in France. When and under what circumstances it got back to Italy will
be shown by Professor Rand in the pages that follow.

So it is France that has saved this, the oldest extant witness of
Pliny’s _Letters_, for modern times. To mediaeval France we are, in
fact, indebted for the preservation of more than one ancient classical
manuscript. The oldest manuscript of the third decade of Livy was at
Corbie in Charlemagne’s time, when it was loaned to Tours and a copy of
it made there. Both copy and original have come down to us. Sallust’s
_Histories_ were saved (though not in complete form) for our generation
by the Abbey of Fleury. The famous Schedae Vergilianae, in square
capitals, as well as the Codex Romanus of Virgil, in rustic capitals,
belonged to the monastery of St. Denis. Lyons preserved the _Codex
Theodosianus_. It was again some French centre that rescued Pomponius
Mela from destruction. The oldest fragments of Ovid’s _Pontica_, the
oldest fragments of the first decade of Livy, the oldest manuscript of
Pliny’s _Natural History_--all palimpsests--were in some French centre
in the Middle Ages, as may be seen from the indisputably eighth-century
French writing which covers the ancient texts. The student of Latin
literature knows that the manuscript tradition of Lucretius, Suetonius,
Cæsar, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius--to mention only the greatest
names--shows that we are indebted primarily to Gallia Christiana for the
preservation 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 the
original text, representing the manuscript itself.
In a few places the authors used V in place of U. This appears to be
an 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 EX
TA DUPLICATA QUIB_US_ PORTENDI MI^{L}LIES[1] ET
DUCENTIES HABITURUM ET HABEBIT SI
MODO UT COEPIT ALIENA TESTAMENTA
QUOD EST IMPROBISSIMUM GENUS FAL
SI IPSIS QUORUM SUNT ILLA DICTAUERIT
UALE


[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                                5
AD UIBIUM·MAXIMUM
  QUOD·IPSE AMICIS TUIS
AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE[2]
  CUM PATREM TUUM
AD CAE^{CI}LIUM[3] MACRINUM                     10
  QUAMUIS ET AMICI
AD BAEBIUM MACRUM
  PERGRATUM EST MIHI
[4]AD ANNIUM[4] SEUERUM
  [4]EX HEREDITATE[4] QUAE                      15
AD CANINIUM RUFUM
  MODO NUNTIATUS EST
AD SUETON[5] TRANQUE
  FACIS AD PRO CETERA
AD CORNELIUM[6] MINICIANUM                      20
  POSSUM IAM PERSCRIB
AD 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                          5
AD CATILINUM SEUER·
  UENIAM AD CENAM
AD UOCONIUM ROMANUM
  LIBRUM QUO NUPER
AD PATILIUM                                     10
  REM ATROCEM
AD SILIUM PROCUL·
  PETIS UT LIBELLOS TUOS
ad nepotem adnotasse uideor fata dictaque·[1]
AD IULIUM SERUIAN·[2]
  RECTE OMNIA                                   15
AD UIRIUM SEUERUM
  OFFICIU CONSULATUS
AD CALUISIUM RUFUM·
  ADSUMO TE IN CONSILIUM
AD MAESIUM MAXIMUM                              20
  MEMINISTINE TE
AD 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 SALUTEM
NESCIO AN ULLUM IUCUNDIUS TEMPUS
EXEGERIM QUAM QUO NUPER APUD SPU
RINNAM FUI ADEO QUIDEM UT NEMINEM
MAGIS IN SENECTUTE SI MODO SENESCE               5
RE DATUM EST AEMULARI UELIM NIHIL
EST ENIM ILLO UITAE GENERE DISTIN
CTIUS ME AUTEM UT CERTUS SIDERUM
CURSUS ITA UITA HOMINUM DISPOSITA
DELECTAT SENUM PRAESERTIM NAM                   10
IUUENES ADHUC CONFUSA QUAEDAM
ET QUASI TURBATA NON INDECENT SE
NIB_US_ PLACIDA OMNIA ET OR^{DI}NATA[1] CON
UENIUNT QUIB_US_ INDUSTRIA SER^{U}A[1] TURPIS
AMBITIO EST HANC REGULAM SPURIN                 15
NA CONSTANTISSIME SERUAT·QUIN ETIA_M_
PARUA HAEC PARUA·SI NON COTIDIE FIANT
ORDINE QUODAM ET UELUT ORBE CIRCU_M_
AGIT MANE LECTULO[2] CONTINETUR HORA
SECUNDA CALCEOS POSCIT AMBULAT MI               20
LIA PASSUUM TRIA NEC MINUS ANIMUM
QUAM CORPUS EXERCET SI ADSUNT AMICI
HONESTISSIMI SERMONES EXPLICANTUR
SI NON LIBER LEGITUR INTERDUM ETIAM PRAE
SENTIB_US_ AMICIS SI TAMEN ILLI NON GRAUA_N_    25
TUR DEINDE CONSIDIT[3] ET LIBER RURSUS
AUT 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 SINGU
LARIS EXEMPLI UEL ALIQUEM AMICORUM
UT ME PROXIME QUAM PULCHRUM ILLUD
QUAM DULCE SECRETUM QUANTUM IBI A_N_
TIQUITATIS QUAE FACTA QUOS UIROS AU              5
DIAS QUIB_US_ PRAECEPTIS IMBUARE QUAMUIS
ILLE HOC TEMPERAMENTUM MODESTIAE
SUAE INDIXERIT NE PRAECIPE REUIDEATUR
PERACTIS SEPTEM MILIB_US_ PASSUUM ITE
RUM AMBULAT MILLE ITERUM RESIDIT                10
UEL SE CUBICULO AC STILO REDDIT SCRI
BIT ENIM ET QUIDEM UTRAQ_UE_ LINGUA LY
RICA DOCTISSIMA MIRA ILLIS DULCEDO
MIRA SUAUITAS MIRA HILARITA[.T][.I]S[1] CUIUS
GRATIAM CUMULAT SANCTITA[.T][.I]S[2] SCRI       15
BENTIS UBI HORA BALNEI NUNTIATA EST
EST AUTEM HIEME NONA·AESTATE OCTA
UA IN SOLE SI CARET UENTO AMBULAT
NUDUS DEINDE MOUETUR PILA UEHE
MENTER ET DIU NAM HOC QUOQ_UE_ EXER             20
CITATIONIS GENERE PUGNAT CUM SE
NECTUTE LOTUS ACCUBAT ET PAULIS
PER CIBUM DIFFERT INTERIM AUDIT LE
GENTEM REMISSIUS ALIQUID ET DULCIUS
PER HOC OMNE TEMPUS LIBERUM EST                 25
AMICIS UEL EADEM FACERE UEL ALIA
SI 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 ET
ANTIQUO SUNT IN USU ET C^{H}ORINTHIA[1] QUIB_US_ DE
LECTATUR ET ADFICITUR FREQUENTER CO
MOEDIS CENA DISTINGUITUR UT UOLUPTA
TES QUOQ_UE_ STUDIIS CONDIANTUR SUMIT ALI             5
QUID DE NOCTE ET AESTATE NEMI^{NI}[1] HOC LO_N_
GUM EST TANTA COMITATE CONUIUIUM
TRAHITUR INDE ILLI POST SEPTIMUM ET
SEPTUAGENSIMUM ANNUM AURIUM
OCULORUM UIGOR INTEGER INDE AGILE                    10
ET UIUIDUM CORPUS SOLAQ_UE_ EX SENEC
TUTE PRUDENTIA HANC EGO UITAM UO
TO ET COGITATIONE PRAESUMO INGRES
SURUS AUIDISSIME UT PRIMUM RATIO AE
TATIS RECEPTUI CANERE PERMISERIT[2] IN               15
TERIM MILLE LABORIB_US_ CONTEROR QUI HO
RUM MIHI ET SOLACIUM ET EXEMPLUM
EST IDEM SPURINNA NAM ILLE QUOQ_UE_
QUOAD HONESTUM FUIT OB^{I}IT[1] OFFICIA
GESSIT MAGISTRATUS PROVINCIAS RE                     20
XIT MULTOQ^{_UE_} LABORE HOC OTIUM ME
RUIT IGITUR EUNDEM MIHI CURSUM EU_N_
DEM TERMINUM STATUO IDQ_UE_ IAM NUNC
APUD TE SUBSIGNO UT SI ME LONGIUS SE
EUEHI[3] UIDERIS IN IUS UOCES AD HANC EPIS           25
TULAM MEAM ET QUIESCERE IUBEAS CUM
INERTIAE 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 MI
HI EADEM MATERIA SUPPETERET ID NUNC
IURE UIDEOR A TE MEIS PETITURUS ARRIA
NUS MATURUS ALTINATIUM EST PRINCEPS              5
CUM DICO PRINCEPS NON DE FACULTATI
BUS LOQUOR QUAE ILLI LARGE SUPER
SUNT SED DE CASTITATE IUSTITIA GRA
UITATE PRUDENTIA HUIOS EGO CONSI
LIO IN NEGOTIIS IUDICIO IN STUDIIS UT           10
OR NAM PLURIMUM FIDE PLURIMUM
VERITATE PLURIMUM INTELLEGENTIA
PRAESTAT AMAT ME NIHIL POSSUM AR
DENTIUS DICERE UT TU KARET AMBITUI[2]
IDEO SE IN EQUESTRI GRADU TENUIT CUM            15
FACILE POSSIT[3] ASCENDERE ALTISSIMU_M_
MIHI TAMEN ORNANDUS EXCOLENDUS
QUE EST ITAQ_UE_ MAGNI AESTIMO DIGNITATI
EIUS ALIQUID ADSTRUERE INOPINANTIS
NESCIENTIS IMMO ETIAM FORTASSE                  20
NOLENTIS ADSTRUERE AUTEM QUOD SIT
SPLENDIDUM NEC MOLESTUM CUIUS
GENERIS QUAE PRIMA OCCASIO TIBI CO_N_
FERAS IN EUM ROGO HABEBIS ME HABE
BIS IPSUM GRATISSIMUM DEBITOREM                 25
QUAMUIS ENIM ISTA NON ADPETAT TAM
GRATE 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 SAN
CTISSIMUM UIRUM SUSPEXERIM MAGIS
AN AMAUERIM DUBITEM TEQ_UE_ IN MEMO                        5
RIAM 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 FILIUS
TUUS AUO SIMILIS EXSISTAT EQUIDEM
MALO MATERNO QUAMQ^{U}AM[2] ILLI PATER                    10
NUS ETIAM CLARUS SPECTATUS^{Q_UE_}[3] CONTIGE
RIT PATER QUOQ_UE_ ET PATRUUS INLUSTRI LAU
DE CONSPICUI QUIB_US_ OMNIB_US_ ITA DEMUM
SIMILIS ADOLESCET SIBI INBUTUS HONES
TIS ARTIBUS FUERIT QUAS PLURIMUM REFER[4]                 15
ṘȦT[5] A QUO POTISSIMUM ACCIPIAT ADHUC
ILLUM PUERITIAE RATIO INTRA CONTUBER
NIUM TUUM TENUIT PRAECEPTORES DOMI
HABUIT UBI EST ERRORIB_US_ MODICA ^{U}E^{L}ST[6] ETIA_M_
NULLA MATERIA IAM STUDIA EIUS EXTRA                       20
LIMEN CONFERANDA SUNT IAM CIRCUMSPI
CIENDUS RHETOR LATINUS CUIUS SCHO
LAE SEUERITAS PUDOR INPRIMIS CASTITAS
CONSTET ADEST ENIM ADULESCENTI NOS
TRO CUM CETERIS NATURAE FORTUNAEQ_UE_                     25
DOTIB_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 DEMON
STRARE TIBI POSSE IULIUM GEN^{I}TIOREM[1]
AM^{N}ATUR[2] A ME I^{U}DICIO[3] TAMEN MEO NON
OBSTAT KARITAS HOMINIS QUAE ^{EX}[4]IUDI         5
CIO NATA EST UIR EST EMENDATUS ET GRA
UIS PAULO ETIAM HORRIDIOR ET DURIOR
UT IN HAC LICENTIA TEMPORUM QUAN
TUM ELOQUENTIA UALEAT PLURIB_US_ CRE
DERE POTES NAM DICENDI FACULTAS                 10
APERTA ET EXPOSITA·STATIM CERNITUR
UITA HOMINUM ALTOS RECESSUS MAG
NASQ_UE_ LATEBRAS HABET CUIUS PRO GE
NITORE ME SPONSOREM ACCIPE NIHIL
EX HOC UIRO FILIUS TUUS AUDIET NISI             15
PROFUTURUM NIHIL DISCET QUOD NESCIS[5]
SE RECTIUS FUERIT NE^{C}[6] MINUS SAEPE AB
ILLO QUAM A TE MEQUE ADMONEBITUR
QUIB_US_ IMAGINIB_US_ ONERETUR QUAE NOMI
NA ET QUANTA SUSTINEAT PROINDE FAUE_N_          20
TIBUS DIIS TRADE eUM[7] PRAECEPTORI A
QUO MORES PRIMUM MOX ELOQUENTIA_M_
DISCAT QUAE MALE SINE MORIBUS DIS
CITUR UALE

·C· PLINIUS MACRINO SALUTEM                     25

QUAMUIS ET AMICI QUOS PRAESENTES
HABEBAM 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 UIDEAN
TUR MAGNI TAMEN AESTIMO SCIRE QUID
SENTIAS TU NAM CUIUS INTEGRA RE CON
SILIUM EXQUIRERE O^{P}TASSEM[1] HUIUS ETIA_M_
PERACTA IUDICIȦUM[2] NOSSE MIRE CONCU            5
PISCO CUM PUBLICUM OPUS MEA PECU
NIA 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             10
NATU PETIERUNT COLLEGAE OPTIMI MEIQ_UE_
AMANTISSIMI DE COMMUNIS OFFICII NE
CESSITATIB_US_ PRAELOCUTI EXCUSARE
ME ET EXIMERE TEMPTARUNT FACTUM
ṪU̇Ṁ[5] EST SENATUS CONSULTUM PERQUAM            15
HONORIFICUM UT DARE^{R}[6] PROVINCIALIB_US_
PATRONUS SI AB IPSO ME IMPETRASSENT
LEGATI RURSUS INDUCTI ITERUM ME IA_M_
PRAESENTEM ADUOCATUM POST^{U}LAUE[7]
RUNT INPLORANTES FIDEM MEAM                     20
QUAM ESSENT CONTRA MASSAM BAE
BIUM EXPERTI ADLEGANTES PATRO^{C}INII[8]
FOEDUS SECUTA EST SENATUS CLARIS
SIMA ADSENSIO QUAE SOLET DECRETA
PRAECURRERE TUM EGO DESINO IN                   25
QUAM P. C. PUTARE ME IUSTAS EXCUSA
TIONIS 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 QUIDEM
MINORIS SED TAMEN NUMERI UENI                    5
EBAT IN MENTEM PRIORES NOSTROS
ETIAM SINGULORUM HOSPİTIUM[1] INIU
RIAS ACCUSATIONIB_US_ UOLUNTARIIS EX
SECUTOS QUO DEFORMIUS ARBITRABAR
PUBLICI ^{H}OSPITII ^{I}URA[2] NEGLEGERE PRAE   10
TEREA CUM RECORDARER QUANTA
PRO IISDEM BAETICIS PRIORE ADUOCA
TIONE ETIAM PERICULA SUBISSEM CO_N_
SERVANDUM UETERIS OFFICII MERITU_M_
NOVO VIDEBATUR EST ENIM ITA COM                 15
PARATUM UT ANTIQUIORA BENEFICIA SUB
UERTAS NISI ILLA POSTERIORIB_US_ CUMU
LES NAM QUAMLIBET SAEPE OBLIGA(N)[3]
TI SIQUID[4] UNUM NEGES HOC SOLUM
MEMINERUNT QUOD NEGATUM EST                     20
DUCEBAR ETIAM QUOD DECESSERAT
CLASSICUS AMOTUMQ_UE_ ERAT QUOD
I[5]N EIUSMODI CAUSIS SOLET ESSE TRIS
ṪİTISSIMUM[6] PERICULUM SENATORIS
UIDEBAM ERGO ADUOCATIONI MEAE                   25
NON MINOREM GRATIAM QUAM SI
UIUERET 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 COMPUTABAM
SI MUNERE HOC TERTIO FUNGERE^{R}[1] FACILI
OREM MIHI EXCUSATIONEM FORE SI
QUIS INCIDISSET QUEM NON DEBEREM
ACCUSARE NAM CUM EST OMNIUM OFFI                 5
CIORUM FINIS ALIQUIS TUM OPTIME
LIBERTATI UENIA OBSEQUIO PRAEPARA
TUR AUDISTI CONSILII MEI MOTUS SUPER
EST ALTERUTRA EX PARTE IUDICIUM TUUM
IN QUO MIHI AEQ_UE_ IUCU^{I}NDA[2] ERIT SIM     10
PLICITAS DISSI^{N}TIENTIS[3] QUAM COMPRO
BANTIS AUCTORITAS      UALE

·C̅·PLINIUS MACRO·SUO·SALUTEM

PERGRATUM EST MIHI QUOD TAM DILIGE_N_
TER LIBROS AUONCULI MEI LECTITAS UT             15
HABERE OMNES UELIS QUAERASQ_UE_ QUI
SINT OMNES ḊĖFUNGAR[4] INDICIS PARTIBUS
ATQUE ETIAM QUO SINT ORDINE SCRIPTI
NOTUM TIBI FACIAM EST ENIM HAEC
QUOQ_UE_ STUDIOSIS NON INIUCUNDA COG            20
NITIO DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI UNUS·
HUNC CUM PRAEFECTUS ALAE MILITA
RET· PARI[5] INGENIO CURAQ_UE_ COMPOSUIT·
DE UITA POMPONI SECUNDI DUO A QUO
SINGULARITER AMATUS HOC MEMORIAE                25
AMICI QUASI DEBITUM MUNUS EXSOL
UIT·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 exceptionally
fine manuscript of the _Letters_; the book had been found not long
before at or near Paris by the architect Fra Giocondo of Verona. The
_editio princeps_, 1471, was based on a family of manuscripts that
omitted Book VIII, called Book IX Book VIII, and did not contain Book X,
the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Subsequent editions had
only in part made good these deficiencies. More than a half of Book X,
containing the letters numbered 41-121 in editions of our day, was
published by Avantius in 1502 from a copy of the Paris manuscript made
by Petrus Leander.[2] Aldus himself, two years before printing his
edition, had received from Fra Giocondo a copy of the entire manuscript,
with six other volumes, some of them printed editions which Giocondo had
collated with manuscripts. Aldus, addressing Mocenigo, thus describes
his 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 its
value in supplying the defects of previous editions. The _Letters_ will
now 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 marvellous
and venerable antiquity,” stimulates the imagination: Aldus thinks that
now 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 it
hard to read; its ancient appearance even suggested to Aldus a date as
early 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 it
supplied 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 uncial
script would have seemed difficult and alien to one accustomed to the
current 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 that
came down from Germany and declared that the Paris manuscript had no
right to the antiquity which Aldus had imputed to it. But Catanaeus has
been proved a liar.[5] He had no ancient manuscript from Germany, and
abused Aldus mainly to conceal his cribbings from that scholar’s
edition; we may discount his opinion of the age of the Parisinus. Until
Aldus, an eminent scholar and honest publisher,[6] is proved guilty, we
should assume him innocent of mendacity or naïve ignorance. He speaks in
earnest; his words ring true. We must be prepared for the possibility
that 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 Merrill
again:[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 peculiar
volume of Pliny’s _Letters_. It consisted of Beroaldus’s edition of the
nine 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] The
printed portions, moreover, were provided with over five hundred variant
readings and lemmata in a different hand from that which appeared on the
inserted leaves; the hand that added the variants also wrote in the
margin the sixteenth letter of Book IX, which is not in the edition of
Beroaldus. Hearne recognized the importance of this supplementary
matter, for he copied the variants into his own edition of the _Letters_
(1703), intending, apparently, to use them in a larger edition which he
is 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, this
valuable volume was acquired by the Bodleian Library in Oxford, but lay
unnoticed until Mr. E.G. Hardy, in 1888,[9] examined it and, after a
comparison of the readings, pronounced it the very copy from which Aldus
had printed his edition in 1508. External proof of this highly exciting
surmise seemed to appear in a manuscript note on the last page of the
edition of Avantius, written in the hand that had inserted the variants
and 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 Aldus
prepared from the ancient manuscript and the collations and transcripts
sent him by Fra Giocondo? One fact blocks this attractive conjecture:
though there are many agreements between the readings of the emended
Bodleian book and those of Aldus, there are also many disagreements.
Mr. Hardy removed the obstacle by assuming that Aldus made changes in
the proof; but the changes are numerous; they are not too numerous for a
scholar who can mark up his galleys free of cost, but they are decidedly
too numerous if the scholar is also his own printer.

Merrill, in a brilliant and searching article,[11] entirely demolishes
Hardy’s argument. Unlike most destructive critics, he replaces the
exploded theory by still more interesting fact. For the rediscovery of
the Bodleian book and a proper appreciation of its value, students of
Pliny’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 parts
together and added the variants with his own hand was the famous
Hellenist Guillaume Budé (Budaeus). The parts on the supplementary
leaves were done by some copyist who imitated the general effect of the
type used in the book itself; Budaeus added his notes on these inserted
leaves in the same way as elsewhere. It had been shown before by
Keil[12] that Budaeus must have used the readings of the Parisinus;
indeed, it is from his own statement in _Annotationes in Pandectas_ that
we 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 the
Bodleian book. After establishing his case convincingly from the
readings followed by Budaeus in his quotations from the _Letters_,
Merrill eventually was able to compare the handwriting with the
acknowledged script of Budaeus and to find that the two are
identical.[14] The Bodleian book, then, is not Aldus’s copy for the
printer. It is Budaeus’s own collation from the Parisinus. Whether he
examined the manuscript directly or used a copy made by Giocondo is
doubtful; the note at the end of the Bodleian volume seems to favor
the latter possibility. Budaeus does not by any means give a complete
collation, but what he does give constitutes, in Merrill’s opinion, our
best 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_ our
best authority. For a fragment of the ancient book, if my conjecture is
right, is now, after various journeys, reposing in the Pierpont Morgan
Library in New York City.


[Sidenote: _The script_]

First of all, we are impressed with the script. It is an uncial of about
the year 500 A.D.--certainly _venerandae vetustatis_. If Aldus had this
same uncial codex at his disposal, we can understand his delight and
pardon his slight exaggeration, for it is only slight. The essential
truth of his statement remains: he had found a book of a different
class from that of the ordinary manuscript--indeed _diversis a nostris
characteribus_. Instead of thinking him arrant knave or fool enough to
bring down “antiquity” to the thirteenth century, we might charitably
push back his definition of “_nostri characteres_” to include anything
in minuscules; script “not our own” would be the majuscule hands in
vogue before the Middle Ages. That is a position palaeographically
defensible, seeing that the humanistic script is a lineal descendant of
the Caroline variety. Furthermore, an uncial hand, though clear and
regular as in our fragment, is harder to read than a glance at a page of
it promises. This is due to the writing of words continuously. It takes
practice, as Aldus says, to decipher such a script quickly and
accurately. 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 from
Aldus’s country, where, as Dr. Lowe has amply shown, it was written; how
it came into the possession of the Marquis Taccone would be interesting
to know. But, like the Parisinus, the book to which our fragment
belonged had not stayed in Italy always. It had made a trip to
France--and was resting there in the fifteenth century, as is proved by
the French note of that period on fol. 51r. We may say “the book” and
not merely “the present six leaves,” for the fragment begins with fol.
48, and the foliation is of the fifteenth century. The last page of our
fragment is bright and clear, showing no signs of wear, as it would if
no more had followed it;[16] I will postpone the question of what
probably did follow. Moreover, if the _probatio pennae_ on fol. 53r is
Carolingian,[17] it would appear that the book had been in France at the
beginning as well as at the end of the Middle Ages. Thus our manuscript
may well have been one of those brought up from Italy by the emissaries
of Charlemagne or their successors during the revival of learning in the
eighth and ninth centuries. The outer history of our book, then, and the
character 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 used
the entire manuscript of which this is a part, his text must show a
general conformity to that of the fragment. An examination of the
appended collation will establish this fact beyond a doubt. The
references are to Keil’s critical edition of 1870, but the readings are
verified 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 various
spellings 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 are
other 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 correction
in _Π_ by either the scribe himself or a second and possibly a third
ancient hand. Here Aldus, if he read the pages of our fragment and read
them with care, might have seen warrant for following either the
original text or the emended form, as he preferred. The most important
cases 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 the
proper form for uncial. 62, 5 residit] _Π_ residet _a_ Here _Π_ is
not corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case of
CONSIDET (_m. 2_) supported what he supposed the better form _residet_.
63, 11 posset] _a_ POSSIT (in _posset m. 1_?) _Π_ Again the corrected
E is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in
adopting the reading of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] _a_
MODICA EST ETIAM (_corr. m. 2_) _Π_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut
praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _Π_ omitted _accepto ut
praefectus aerari_,--evidently a line of the manuscript that he was
copying, for there are no similar endings to account otherwise for the
omission. 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 found
the right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conteror
quorum] _a_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM _Π B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _Π_ 64, 24
conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _Π_.

In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _Π_, most of
them corrected but a few not, Aldus may have felt justified in abiding
by 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) modern
editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] Π aurium
oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA Π 65, 11
et 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 not
in any of the editions cited by Keil. This may be a conscious
emendation, but it is just as possibly an error of hearing made by
either Aldus or his compositor in repeating the word to himself as he
wrote or set up the passage. Once in the text, _quaesturi_ gives no
offense, and is not corrected by Aldus in his edition of 1518. An
apparently more certain effort at emendation is reported by Keil on 62,
13, where Aldus is said to differ from all the manuscripts and the
editions in reading _agere_ for _facere_. So he does in his second
edition; but here he has _facere_ with everybody else. The changes in
the second edition are few and are largely confined to the correction
of 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 an
emending editor. At all events, it has no bearing on our immediate
concern.

The striking similarity, therefore, between Aldus’s text and that of
our fragment confirms our surmise that the latter may be a part of that
ancient manuscript which he professes to have used in his edition.
Whatever his procedure may have been, he has produced a text that
differs from Π only in certain spellings, in the correction, with the
help of existing editions, of three obvious errors of Π and of three
of its readings that to Aldus might well have seemed erroneous, in two
misprints, and in one reading which is possibly an emendation but which
may just as well be another misprint. Thus the internal evidence of the
text offers no contradiction of what the script and the history of the
manuscript have suggested. I can not claim to have established an
irrefutable conclusion, but the signs all point in one direction. I see
enough evidence to warrant a working hypothesis, which we may use
circumspectly as a clue, submit to further tests, and abandon in case
these 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 the
manuscript of which Π is a part, the fragment is instructive as to
his editorial methods. If he proceeded elsewhere as carefully as here,
he certainly did not perform his task with the high-handedness of the
traditional humanistic editor; rather, he treated his ancient witness
with respect, and abandoned it only when confronted with what seemed its
obvious mistakes. I will revert to this matter at a later stage of the
argument.




        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 than
some other manuscript that had a very similar text and that happened to
have gone through the same travels? To answer this question we must
examine the relation of Π to the other extant manuscripts in the
light of what is known of the transmission of Pliny’s _Letters_ in the
Middle Ages. A convenient summary is given by Merrill on the basis of
his 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 or
Riccardianus), now Ashburnhamensis, R 98 in the Laurentian Library in
Florence, its former home, whence it had been diverted on an interesting
pilgrimage by the noted book-thief Libri. This manuscript is attributed
to the tenth century by Merrill, and by Chatelain in his description of
the book. But Chatelain labels his facsimile page “_Saec._ IX.”[20] The
latter 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 style
in vogue at Fleury and its environs about the middle of the ninth
century. A good specimen is accessible in a codex of St. Hilary on
the Psalms (Vaticanus Reginensis 95), written at Micy between 846 and
859, of which a page is reproduced by Ehrle and Liebaert.[21] _F_
(Florentinus), the other important representative of this class, is also
in the Laurentian Library (S. Marco 284). The date assigned to it seems
also too late. It is apparently as early as the tenth century, and also
has some of the characteristics of the script of Fleury; it is French
work, at any rate. Keil’s suggestion[22] that it may be the book
mentioned as _liber epistolarum Gaii Plinii_ in a tenth-century
catalogue of the manuscripts at Lorsch may be perfectly correct; though
not written at Lorsch, it might have been presented to the monastery by
that time.[23] These two manuscripts agree in containing, by the first
hand, only Books I-V, vi (_F_ having all and _B_ only a part of the
sixth letter). However, as the initial title in _B_ is PLINI · SECUNDI ·
EPISTULARUM · LIBRI · DECEM, we may infer that some ancestor, if not the
immediate 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 (Mediceus
XLVII 36), which contains Books I-IX, xxvi, 8. It was written in the
ninth century, at Corvey, whence it was brought to Rome at the beginning
of the sixteenth century. It is part of a volume that also once
contained our only manuscript of the first part of the _Annals_ of
Tacitus.[24] The other chief manuscript of this class is _V_ (Vaticanus
Latinus 3864), which has Books I-IV. The script has been variously
estimated. I am inclined to the opinion that the book was written
somewhere near Tours, perhaps Fleury, in the earlier part of the ninth
century.[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 be
that the codex is a Corbeiensis. But it is also possible that a volume
of the _Letters_ at Corbie was twice copied, once at Corvey (_M_) and
once 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 of
this class. There are likewise two fragmentary texts, both of brief
extent, Monacensis 14641 (olim Emmeramensis) _saec._ IX, and Leidensis
Vossianus 98 _saec._ IX, the latter partly in Tironian notes. Merrill
regards these as bearing “testimony to the existence of the nine-book
text in the same geographical region,” namely Germany.[27] There they
are to-day, in Germany and Holland, but where they were written is
another affair. The Munich fragment is part of a composite volume of
which it occupies only a page or two. The script is continental, and
may well be that of Regensburg, but it shows marked traces of insular
influence, English rather than Irish in character. The work immediately
preceding the fragment is in an insular hand, of the kind practised at
various continental monasteries, such as Fulda; there are certain notes
in the usual continental hand. Evidently the manuscript deserves
consideration in the history of the struggle between the insular and the
continental hands in Germany.[28] The script of the Leyden fragment, on
the other hand, so far as I can judge from a photograph, looks very much
like the mid-century Fleury variety with which I have associated the
Bellovacensis; there can hardly be doubt, at any rate, that De Vries is
correct in assigning it to France, where Voss obtained so many of his
manuscripts.[29] Except, therefore, for _M_ and the Munich fragment,
there is no evidence furnished by the chief manuscripts which connects
the tradition of the _Letters_ with Germany. The insular clue afforded
by the latter book deserves further attention, but I can not follow it
here. 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 started
from one or more centres--Fleury and Corbie seem the most probable--in
France.

  [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 eighth
being omitted and the ninth called the eighth. Representatives of this
class are all codices of the fifteenth century, though the class has a
more ancient basis than that, namely a lost manuscript of Verona. This
is best attested by _D_, a Dresden codex, while almost all other
manuscripts of this class descend from a free recension made by Guarino
and conflated with _F_; _o_, _u_, and _x_ are the representatives of
this recension (_G_) that are reported by Merrill. The relation of this
third class to the second is exceedingly close; indeed, it may be merely
a 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 only
inadequately represented in the early editions. The Editio Princeps
(_p_) of 1471 was based on a manuscript of the Guarino recension. A
Roman editor in 1474 added part of Book VIII, putting it at the end and
calling it Book IX; he acquired this new material, along with various
readings in the other books, from some manuscript of Class II that may
have come down from the north. Three editors, called ς by
Keil--Pomponius Laetus 1490, Beroaldus 1498, and Catanaeus 1506--took
_r_ as a basis; but Laetus had another and a better representative of
the same type of text as that from which _r_ had drawn, and he likewise
made use of _V_. With the help of these new sources the ς editors
polished away a large number of the gross blunders of _p_ and _r_, and
added a sometimes unnecessary brilliance of emendation. Avantius’s
edition of part of Book X in 1502 was appropriated by Beroaldus in the
same year and by Catanaeus in 1506; these latter editors had no new
sources at their disposal. No wonder that the Parisinus seemed a godsend
to Aldus. The only known ancient manuscripts whose readings had been
utilized in the editions preceding his own were _F_ and _V_, both
incomplete representatives of Classes I and II. The manuscripts
discovered by the Roman editor and Laetus were of great help at the
time, but we have no certain evidence of their age. _B_ and _M_ were not
accessible.[31] Now, besides the transcript of Giocondo and his other
six volumes, whatever these may have been, Aldus had the ancient codex
itself with all ten books complete. Everybody admits that the Parisinus,
as shown by the readings of Aldus, is clearly associated with the
manuscripts of Class I. Its contents corroborate the evidence of the
title in _B_, which indicates descent from some codex containing ten
books.

  [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 it
agrees with _BF_ in the following errors, or what are regarded by Keil
as errors. I consider the text of the _Letters_ and not their
superscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] _MVD_ duplicata _ΠBFGa_; 61, 12
confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _ΠBFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_
doctissima _ΠBFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ et
adficitur _ΠBFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _ΠBF_; 63, 22
teque et] _MVDG_ teque _ΠBFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda
_BFu_ CONFERANDA _Π_ (_MV_ lack an extensive passage here); 65, 11
alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri] _DG_ alii quidam minores sed tam
innumeri _MV_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_; 65, 12
voluntariis 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 be
errors. Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (1912), accepts
three of them (60, 15; 62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcoming
edition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6; 65, 12; 65, 15). Personally I
could be reconciled to them all with the exception of the very two which
Aldus could not admit--62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places he had the early
editions to fall back on. However, I should concur with Merrill and
Kukula 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 in
which all recent editors would attribute error to Class I; in the
remaining six cases the manuscripts of Class I either agree in error or
avoid the error of Class II--surely, then, _Π_ is not of the latter
class. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the whole
passage, 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] est
amatus _MV_. Once the first hand in _Π_ agrees with _V_ in an error
easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2_
_Π_ ornata _V_.

_Π_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by different
routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _Π_ clearly
has no close association.

But the evidence for allying _Π_ with _B_ and _F_, the manuscripts of
Class I, is by no means exhausted. In 61, 14, _BFux_ have the erroneous
emendation, which Budaeus includes among his variants, of _serua_ for
_sera_. A glance at _Π_ shows its apparent origin. The first hand has
SERA correctly; the second hand writes U above the line.[32] If the
second 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 instances
point in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _Π_ has
CONSIDIT by the first hand, the second hand changing the second I to a
capital 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 the
letters of the _scriptura continua_ in _Π_ are faded and blurred;
the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscript
derived directly from _Π_. If one ask whether the page were as faded
in the ninth century as now, Dr. Lowe has already answered this
question; the flesh side of the parchment might well have lost a portion
of its ink considerably before the Carolingian period.[34] In any case,
the error of _praestatam ad me_ seems natural enough to one who reads
the 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 was
made 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_ is
not many removes from the _scriptura continua_ of some majuscule hand.
In the section included in _Π_, apart from the general tightness of
the writing, which led to the later insertion of strokes between many of
the words,[35] we note these special indications of a parent manuscript
in majuscules. In 61, 10 me autem], _B_ started to write _mea_ and then
corrected it. 64, 19 praeceptori a quo] praeceptoria quo _B_, (_m. 1_)
_F_. If _B_ or its parent manuscript copied _Π_ directly, the mistake
would 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 as
follows: 62, 23 unice] _Π_ has by the first hand INUICE, the second
hand 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_; this
second hand, Professor Merrill informs me, seems to be that of a writer
in the same scriptorium as the first. The error in _BF_ might, of
course, be due to copying an original in minuscules, but it might also
be 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 abbreviation
P.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 the
bottom of fol. 52v, a page on the flesh side of the parchment, the
combination might readily be mistaken for REPUTARE.

Another curious bit of testimony appears at the beginning of the third
book. The scribe of _B_[36] wrote the words NESCIO--APUD in rustic
capitals, occupying therewith the first line and about a third of the
second. This is not effective calligraphy. It would appear that he is
reproducing, 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 the
same amount of text, plus the first three letters of SPURINNAM, in the
first two lines. If _B_ had _Π_ before him, there is nothing to
explain his most unusual procedure. His original, therefore, is not
_Π_ but an intervening copy, which he is transcribing with an utter
indifference to aesthetic effect and with a laudable, if painful, desire
for accuracy. This trait, obvious in _B_’s work throughout, is perhaps
nowhere more strikingly exhibited than here.

  [Footnote 36: See plate XIV.]


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

If _Π_ is the direct ancestor of _BF_, these manuscripts should
contain no good readings not found in _Π_, unless their writers
could arrive at such readings by easy emendation or unless there is
contamination with some other source. From what we know of the text of
_BF_ in general, the latter supposition may at once be ruled out. There
are but three cases to consider, two of which may be readily disposed
of: 64, 3 proferenda] conferenda _BF_ CONFERANDA _Π_; 64, 4
conprobasse] (comp.) _BF_ COMPROUASSE _Π_. These are simple slips,
which a scribe might almost unconsciously correct as he wrote. The
remaining error (63, 28 SIBI to _si_) is not difficult to emend when
one considers the entire sentence: _quibus omnibus ita demum similis
adolescet_, si _imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas_, etc. It is less
probable, however, that _B_ with _Π_ before him should correct it as
he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copy
intervened between _Π_ and _B_, in which the letters _bi_ were
deleted by some careful reviser. Two other passages tend to confirm
this assumption of an intermediate copy. In 65, 6 (_tum optime libertati
venia obsequio praeparatur_), _B_ has _optimae_, a false alteration
induced perhaps by the following _libertati_. In _Π_, OPTIME stands
at 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 rather
pronounced tendency to write _ae_ for _e_. A more certain case is 66, 7
fungar indicis] fungarindicis _ex_ fungari dicis _B_; here the error is
easier to derive from an original in minuscules in which _in_ was
abbreviated with a stroke above the _i_. There is abundant evidence
elsewhere in the _Letters_ that the immediate ancestor of _BF_ was
written in minuscules; I need not elaborate this point. Our present
consideration is that apart from the three instances of simple
emendation just discussed, there is no good reading of _B_ or _F_ in
the portion of text contained in _Π_ that may not be found, by
either 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 the
close connection existing between _BF_ and _Π_. _B_ alone of all
manuscripts hitherto known is provided with indices of the _Letters_,
one for each book, which give the names of the correspondents and the
opening words of each letter. Now _Π_, by good luck, preserves the
end of Book II, the beginning of Book III, and between them the index
for Book III. Dr. F.E. Robbins, in a careful article on _B_ and _F_, and
one on the tables of contents in _B_,[38] concluded that _P_ did not
contain the indices which are preserved in _B_, and that these were
compiled in some ancestor of _B_, perhaps in the eighth century. Here
they are, in the Morgan fragment, which takes us back two centuries
farther into the past. A comparison of the index in _Π_ shows
indubitably a close kinship with _B_. A glance at plates XIII and XIV
indicates, first of all, that the copy _B_, here as in the text of the
_Letters_, is not many removes from _scriptura continua_. Moreover, the
lists are drawn up on the same principle; the _nomen_ and _cognomen_ but
not the _praenomen_ of the correspondent being given, and exactly the
same amount of text quoted at the beginning of each letter. The incipit
of III, xvi (AD NEPOTEM--ADNOTASSE UIDEOR FATADICTAQ·) is an addition in
_Π_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original title
had been omitted in the manuscript which _Π_ was copying and the
corrector of _Π_ had substituted a title of his own making.[39] It
reappears in _B_, with the easy emendation of _facta_ from _fata_. The
only 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&on
tranqui. _B_. In both these instances the scribe of _B_ needed no
external help in correcting the simple error. Far more significant is
the coincidence of _B_ and _Π_ in very curious mistakes, as the
address 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 in
retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in
_Π_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _Π_ and _B_, as AD
SUETON 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· is
the 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 (POSSUM
IAM PERSCRIB̅), the lemma of the ninth letter), and in the lemma of
the tenth neither manuscript preserves the symbol (COMPOSUISSE ME
QUAED). In the first of these cases, it will be observed, _B_ has a very
long _i_ in _perscrib_.[41] This long _i_ is not a feature of the script
of _B_, nor is there any provocation for it in the way in which the word
is written in _Π_. This detail, therefore, may be added to the
indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _Π_;
the curious _i_, faithfully reproduced, as usual, by _B_, may have
occurred 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_, and
fit 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 independent
errors, however careful their work. _Π_ should contain, then, a
certain number of errors not in _B_. As we have found only three such
cases in 12 pages, or 324 lines, and as in all these three the right
reading in _B_ could readily have been due to emendation on the part of
the scribe of _B_ or of a copy between _Π_ and _B_, we have acquired
negative evidence of an impressive kind. It is distinctly harder to
believe that the two texts derive independently from a common source.
Show us the significant errors of _Π_ not in _B_, and we will accept
the existence of that common source; otherwise the appropriate
supposition is that _B_ descends directly from its elder relative
_Π_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readings
that _Π_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settle
that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that
_Π_ and _B_ were of the same age, we could readily prove that the
former is not copied from the latter. For _B_ contains a significant
collection of errors which are not present in _Π_. Six slight
mistakes were made by the first hand and corrected by it, three more
were corrected by the second hand, and twelve were left uncorrected.
Some of these are trivial slips that a scribe copying _B_ might emend
on his own initiative, or perhaps by a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26
iudicium] 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), while
it would take a Madvig to remedy the corruptions in 63, 9 (_praestatam
ad me_) and 65,7 (_reputare_ into _patres conscripti putare_). These
are the sort of errors which if found in _Π_ would furnish
incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was
independent of _Π_; but there is no such evidence of independence
in the case of _B_. Our case is strengthened by the consideration
that various of the errors in _B_ may well be traced to idiosyncrasies
of _Π_, not merely to its _scriptura continua_, a source of
misunderstanding that any majuscule would present, but to the fading
of the writing on the flesh side of the pages in _Π_, and to the
possibility that some of the corrections of the second hand may be the
private inventions of that hand.[42] We are hampered, of course, by the
comparatively small amount of matter in _Π_, nor are we absolutely
certain that this is characteristic of the entire manuscript of which
it was once a part. But my reasoning is correct, I believe, for the
material 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 not
No. 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 on
the 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 our
manuscripts. _B_ was at Beauvais at the end of the twelfth or the
beginning of the thirteenth century, as we have seen.[43] Whatever the
uncertainties as to its origin, any palaeographer would agree that it
could hardly have been written before the middle of the ninth century
or after the middle of the tenth. It was undoubtedly produced in France,
as was _F_, its sister manuscript. The presumption is that _Π_¹, the
copy intervening between _Π_ and _B_, was also French, and that
_Π_ was in France when the copy was made from it. Merrill, for what
reason I fail to see, suggested that the original of _BF_ might be
“Lombardic,” written in North Italy.[44] An extraneous origin of this
sort must be proved from the character of the errors, such as spellings
and the false resolution of abbreviations, made by _BF_. If no such
signs can be adduced, it is natural to suppose that _Π_¹ was of the
same nationality and general tendencies as its copies _B_ and _F_.
This consideration helps out the possible evidence furnished by the
scribbling in a hand of the Carolingian variety on fol. 53v;[45] we
may now be more confident that it is French rather than Italian. But
whatever the history of our book in the early Middle Ages, in the
fifteenth century it was surely near Meaux, which is not far from
Paris--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 have
been a manuscript in majuscules, written in Italy, since that is
unquestionably the provenience of _Π_. There were, then, by this
supposition, _two_ ancient majuscule manuscripts of the _Letters_, most
closely related in text--veritable twins, indeed--that travelled from
Italy to France. One (X¹) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is
the parent of _B_ and _F_; the other (_Π_) was probably there in the
early Middle Ages, and surely was there in the fifteenth century. We can
not deny this possibility, but, on the principle _melius est per unum
fieri quam per plura_, we must not adopt it unless driven to it. The
history of the transmission of Classical texts in the Carolingian period
is against such a supposition.[46] Not many books of the age and quality
of _Π_ were floating about in France in the ninth century. There is
nothing in the evidence presented by _Π_ and _B_ that drives us to
assume the presence of two such codices. There is nothing in this
evidence that does not fit the simpler supposition that _BF_ descend
directly from _Π_. The burden of proof would appear to rest on those
who 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 all
ten books from a very ancient manuscript that came down from Paris. Our
simpler stemma indicates the presence of one rather than more than one
such manuscript in the vicinity of Paris in the ninth or the tenth
century and again in the fifteenth. This line of argument, which
presents not a mathematically absolute demonstration but at least a
highly probable concatenation of facts and deductions, warrants the
assumption, to be used at any rate as a working hypothesis, that _Π_
is a fragment of the lost Parisinus which contained all the books of
Pliny’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 portions
of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_. We note, above all, a number of
omissions in _BF_ that indicate the length of line in some manuscript
from which they descend. This length of line is precisely what we find
in _Π_. Our fragment has lines containing from 23 to 33 letters, very
rarely 23, 24, or 33, and most frequently from 27 to 30, the average
being 28.4. These figures tally closely with those given by Professor
A.C. Clark[47] for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed in
date from _Π_. Supposing that _Π_ is a typical section of _P_--and
after Professor Clark’s studies[48] we may more confidently assume that
it is--_P_ had the same length of line. The important cases of omission
are 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 incolumen
optimum atque] etiam--atque _om. BF_. _P_ would have the abbreviation
for _bus_ in _virtutibus_ and for _que_ in _atque_. There would thus be
in 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 the
first. It will be at once objected that the repeated ATQ· might have
occasioned the mistake, whatever the length of the line. Thus in
82, 2 (aegrotabat Caecina Paetus, maritus eius, aegrotabat] Caecina--
aegrotabat _om. BF_), the omitted portion comprises 34 letters--a bit
too 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 (32
letters) _om. BF_. _Cetera_ and _paria_, to be sure, offer a mild case
of _homoioteleuta_, but not powerful enough to occasion an omission
unless the words happened to stand at the ends of lines, as they might
well have done in _P_. As the line occurs near the beginning of a
letter, we may verify our conjecture by plotting the opening lines.
The address, as in _Π_, would occupy a line. Then, allowing for
contractions in _rebus_ (18) and _quoque_ (19) and reading _cum_ (Class
I) for _quod_ (18), _cetera_ (Class I) for _alia_ (20), we can arrange
the 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 similar
endings, as _interrogati_ and _responderunt_ are both repeated, but
neither chance is taken by _BF_. Instead, a far less striking case
(_sentiebant--responderunt_) leads to the omission. The arrangement
in _P_ might be

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

Here the dangerous words INTERROGATI and RESPONDERUNT are in safe
places. 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_, unless
these stand at the end of lines, is distinctly less than in a script in
which the words are divided. Here again, as in 94, 10, we may reckon the
lengths of the opening lines of the letter. After the line occupied with
the addresses, we have 296 letters, or ten lines with an average of 29.6
letters apiece.

We may add two omissions of _F_ in passages now missing altogether
in _B_. 69, 28 quod minorem ex liberis duobus amisit sed maiorem]
minorem--sed _om._ _F_. Here again an omission is imminent from the
similar endings _minorem--maiorem_; that made by _F_ (29 letters and one
dot) 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 those
in _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 meum
vel errorem?) primum ego] in summa--primum (59 letters) _om. F_. As
there are no _homoioteleuta_ here at all, we surely are concerned with
the omission of a line or lines. Perhaps 59 letters would make up a line
in _P¹_ or _P²_. Perhaps two lines of _P_ were dropped.

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

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

87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. nam quoto cuique eadem
honestatis] suffragiis--honestatis _om. m. 1, add. in mg. m. 2_ _B_ (54
letters, with QUE abbreviated). This may be like the preceding, except
that the correction was done not by the original scribe of _B_, but by a
scribe in the same monastery. The presence of _homoioteleuta_, we must
admit, adds an element of uncertainty.

So, of the passages here brought forward, 94, 20; 123, 10 and 69, 28 are
best explained by supposing that _B_ and _F_ descend from a manuscript
that like _Π_ had from 24 to 32 letters in a line, while 32, 19 and
130, 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] We
do, however, find _karitate_ elsewhere in _B_ (109, 8), and the curious
reading _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_ reproduced
the corrections in _P¹_, failing to take them all, unless, as may well
be, _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 fragment
itself. We have found nothing yet to overthrow our surmise that a bit
of 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 of
critical procedure. Finding his agreement with _Π_ so close, even in
what editors before and after him have regarded as errors, I am disposed
to think that he studied his Parisinus with care and followed its
authority respectfully. Finding that his seemingly extravagant
statements about the antiquity of his book are essentially true, I am
disposed to put more confidence in Aldus than editors have granted him
thus far. I should suppose that, working in the most convenient way, he
turned over to his compositor, not a fresh copy of _P_, but the pages of
some edition corrected from _P_--which Aldus surely tells us that he
used--and from whatever other sources he consulted. It may be beyond our
powers to discover the precise edition that he thus employed. It does
not at first thought seem likely that he would select the Princeps,
which does not include the eighth book at all, and contains errors that
later 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 apparently
made free use of abbreviations. Keil’s damning estimate of _r_[50] is
amply borne out in this section of the text; Aldus differs from _r_ in
sixty-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 changes
to make, then, if his basic text was ς. This is apparently the view of
Keil,[52] who would agree at any rate that Aldus made special use of the
ς 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 immediate
predecessors, as they had started with theirs. The matter ought to be
cleared 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 some
one to whom the early editions are accessible. Keil’s report of them,
intentionally incomplete,[54] is sufficient, he declares,[55] “_ad fidem
Aldinae editionis constituendam_,” but, as I have found by comparing our
photographs of the edition of Beroaldus in the present section, Keil has
not collated minutely or accurately enough to encourage us to undertake,
on the basis of his apparatus, an elaborate study of Aldus’s relation to
the 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 its
variants in the hand of Budaeus. For the section included in _Π_, their
number 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 _r
Ber._ (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 at
his disposal, has corrected two obvious misprints, made an inevitable
change in the tense of a verb--with or without the help of the ancient
book--and introduced from that book one unfortunate reading which we
find in the second hand of _Π_.

There is one feature of Budaeus’s marginal jottings that at once arouses
the curiosity of the textual critic, namely, the frequent appearance of
the _obelus_ and the _obelus cum puncto_. These signs as used by
Probus[56] would denote respectively a surely spurious and a possibly
spurious line or portion of text. But such was not the usage of Budaeus;
he employed the obelus merely to call attention to something that
interested him. Thus at the end of the first letter of Book III we find
a doubly pointed obelus opposite an interesting passage, the text of
which shows no variants or editorial questionings. Budaeus appears to
have expressed his grades of interest rather elaborately--at least I can
discover no other purpose for the different signs employed. The simple
obelus apparently denotes interest, the pointed obelus great interest,
the doubly pointed obelus intense interest, and the pointing finger of a
carefully drawn hand burning interest. He also adds catchwords. Thus on
the first letter he calls attention successively[57] to _Ambulatio_,
_Gestatio_, _Hora balnei_, _pilae ludus_, _Coena_, and _Comoedi_. The
purpose of the doubly pointed obelus is plainly indicated here, as it
accompanies two of these catchwords. Just so in the margin opposite 65,
17, a pointing finger is accompanied by the remark, “_Beneficia
beneficiis aliis cumulanda_,” while 227, 5 is decorated with the moral
ejaculation, “_o hominem in diuitiis miserum_.” Incidentally, it is
obvious that the Morgan fragment was once perused by some thoughtful
reader, who marked with lines or brackets passages of special interest
to him. For example, the account of how Spurinna spent his day[58] is so
marked. This passage likewise called forth various marginal notes from
Budaeus,[59] and other coincidences exist between the markings in _Π_
and the marginalia in the Bodleian volume. But there is not enough
evidence of this sort to warrant the suggestion that Budaeus himself
added 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 the
text of Beroaldus had he treated it to a systematic collation with the
Parisinus. Our fragment allows us to test Budaeus; for even if it be not
the Parisinus itself, its readings with the help of _B_, _F_, and Aldus
show what was in that ancient book. I have enumerated above[60] eleven
readings of _ΠBF_ which are called errors by Keil, but of which nine
were accepted by Aldus and five by the latest editor, Professor Merrill.
In two of these (62, 33 and 64, 3), Budaeus, like Aldus, wisely does
not 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. There
are also nineteen cases of obvious error in the ς editions, which
Aldus corrected but Budaeus did not touch. I give the complete
apparatus[61] for these twenty-six places, as they will illustrate the
radical difference between Aldus and Budaeus in their use of the
Parisinus.

  [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 to
follow the latest and best texts of his day (i.e., _ς_) in these
twenty-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), his
reading 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 editions
reported by Keil and agrees with _D_ (62, 6). At the same time, all
these readings are attested by _ΠFB_ and hence were presumably in the
Parisinus. In two cases (65, 11, 24), we know of no source other than
_P_ that could have furnished him his reading. Further, in the
superscription of the third letter of Book III (63, 20), he might have
taken a hint from Catanaeus, who was the first to depart from the
reading 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 Aldus
arrive at them? Did he fish round, now in the Princeps, now in the Roman
edition, despite the repellent errors that those texts contained,[64]
and extract with felicitous accuracy excellent readings that coincided
with those of the Parisinus, or did he draw them straight from that
source itself? The crucial cases are 65, 11 and 24. As he must have gone
to the Parisinus for these readings, he presumably found the others
there, too. Moreover, he did not get his new variants by a merely
sporadic consultation of the ancient book when he was dissatisfied with
the accepted text of his day, for in the two crucial cases and many of
the 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 him
indisputably wrong. He gave it the benefit of the doubt even when it may
be wrong. This is the method of a scrupulous editor who cherishes a
proper 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 interested
reader of Pliny, frequently commenting on the subject-matter or calling
attention to it by marginal signs. As for the text, he generally finds
Beroaldus good enough. He corrects misprints, makes a conjecture now and
then, or adopts one of Catanaeus, and, besides supplementing the missing
portions with transcripts made for him from the Parisinus, inserts
numerous variants, some of which indubitably come from that
manuscript.[66] In the present section, occupying 251 lines in _Π_,
there is only one reading of the Parisinus--a false reading, it
happens--that seems to Budaeus worth recording. Compared with what Aldus
gleaned from _Π_, Budaeus’s extracts are insignificant. It is
remarkable, for instance, that on a passage (65, 11) which, as the
appended obelus shows, he must have read with attention, he has not
added the very different reading of the Parisinus. Either, then, Budaeus
did not consult the Parisinus with care, or he did not think the great
majority of its readings preferable to the text of Beroaldus, or, as I
think may well have been the case, he had neither the manuscript itself
nor an entire copy of it accessible at the time when he added his
variants 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 blame
Budaeus for not constructing a new text from the wealth of material
disclosed in the Parisinus. His interests lay elsewhere; _suos quoique
mos_. What I mean to say, and to say with some conviction, is that for
the portion of text included in our fragment, the evidence of that
fragment, coupled with that of _B_ and _F_, shows that as a witness to
the ancient manuscript Aldus is overwhelmingly superior to either
Budaeus or any of the ancient editors.

Our examination of the Morgan fragment, therefore, leads to what I deem
a highly probable conclusion. We could perhaps hope for absolute proof
in a matter of this kind only if another page of the same manuscript
should appear, bearing a note in the hand of Aldus Manutius to the
effect 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 the
hypothesis that the Morgan fragment was a part of this very codex. We
have set our hypothesis running a lengthy gauntlet of facts, and none
has tripped it yet. We have also seen that _Π_ is most intimately
connected with manuscripts _BF_ of Class I, and indeed seems to be a
part of the very manuscript whence they are descended. Finally, a
careful comparison of Aldus’s text with _Π_ shows him, for this much
of the _Letters_ at least, to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor.
His method is to follow _Π_ throughout, save when, confronted by its
obvious 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 author
defended the _F_ branch against that of _MV_, to which, as the elder
representative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred,
critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearance
of _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 of
1912,[69] and _B_ and _F_ with Aldus’s Parisinus make up Class I, not
Class II, in Merrill’s grouping of the manuscripts. Obviously, the value
of Class I mounts higher still now that we have evidence in the Morgan
fragment of its existence in the early sixth century. This fact helps us
to decide the question of glosses in our text. We are more than ever
disposed to attribute not to _BF_ but to what has now become the
younger branch of the tradition, Class II, the tendency to interpolate
explanatory glosses. The changed attitude towards the _BF_ branch has
naturally resulted in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seen
in the portion included in _Π_ that of the eleven readings which Keil
regarded as errors of the _F_ branch, three are accepted by Kukula and
five 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 that
Aldus’s stock would also take an upward turn. In Aldus’s lifetime,
curiously, he was criticized for excessive conservatism. His rival
Catanaeus 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 of
Aldus as that of the Parisinus, since they believe that he abounds in
those very conjectures of which Catanaeus felt the lack. The attitude of
the expert best qualified to judge is still one of suspicion towards
Aldus. In his most recent article,[72] Professor Merrill declares that
Keil’s remarks[73] on the procedure of Aldus in the part of Book X
already edited by Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus might safely have
been 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 for
which we owe to Merrill’s own researches. He compares with Aldus’s text
the manuscript parts of the Bodleian volume, which are apparently
transcripts from the Parisinus (= _I_);[74] in them Budaeus with his own
hand (= _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. This
material, obviously, offers a valuable criterion of Aldus’s methods as
an editor. There is a further criterion in the shape of Codex _M_, not
utilized till after Aldus’s edition. As this manuscript represents Class
II, concurrences between _M_ and _Ii_ against _a_ make it tolerably
certain that Aldus himself and no higher authority is responsible for
such readings. On this basis, Merrill cites twenty-five readings in the
added part of Book VIII (viii, 3 _quas obvias_--xviii, II _amplissimos
hortos_) and nineteen readings in the added part of Book X (letters
iv-xli), which represent examples “wherein Aldus abandons indubitably
satisfactory readings of his only and much belauded manuscript in favor
of 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 clearly
convicted of being an extremely unsafe textual critic of Pliny’s
_Letters_.”[76] “This conclusion does not depend, as that of Keil
necessarily did, on any native or acquired acuteness of critical
perception. The wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.”[77]
I speak as a wayfarer, but nevertheless I must own that Professor
Merrill’s path of argument causes me to stumble. I readily admit that
Aldus, in editing a portion of text that no man had put into print
before him, fell back on conjecture when his authority seemed not to
make sense. But Merrill’s lists need revision. He has included with
Aldus’s “willful deviations” from the true text of _P_ certain readings
that almost surely were misprints (218, 12; 220, 3), some that may well
be (as 217, 28; 221, 12), one case in which Aldus has retained an error
of _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 really
has the reading that both Merrill and Keil indicate as correct (276,
21); in another he fails to remark that Aldus’s erroneous reading is
supported by _M_ (219,17). However, even after discounting these and
possibly 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 and
collated 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 to
the Parisinus, but Giocondo may have added here and there his own or
others’ conjectures, which Aldus adopted unwisely, but at least not
solely 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_, Book
X, as well as the beginning of Book III, may have had variants by the
second hand, sometimes taken by Aldus and neglected, wisely, by
Budaeus’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 is
offered. I believe that it is the surest starting-point from which to
investigate Aldus’s relation to his ancient manuscript. I admit that for
Book X, Avantius and the Bodleian volume in its added parts are better
authorities for the Parisinus than is Aldus. I admit that Aldus resorted
throughout the text of the _Letters_--in some cases unhappily--to the
customary editorial privilege of emendation. But I nevertheless maintain
that for the entire text he is a much better authority than the Bodleian
volume as a whole, and that he should be given, not absolute confidence,
but far more confidence than editors have thus far allowed him. Nor is
the section of text preserved in the fragment of small significance for
our purpose. Indeed, both for Aldus and in general, I think it even more
valuable than a corresponding amount of Book X would be. We could wish
that it were longer, but at least it includes a number of crucial
readings and above all vouches for the existence of the indices some two
hundred 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 descended
from the very manuscript of which _Π_ was a part. We see still more
clearly than before that _BF_ can be used elsewhere in the _Letters_ as
a test of Aldus, and we also note that these manuscripts contain errors
not in the Parisinus. This is a highly important factor for forming a
true estimate of Aldus and one that we could not deduce from a fragment
of 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 he
studied out, carefully collated, and treated with a decent respect. On
the basis of the new information furnished us by the fragment, I shall
endeavor, at some future time, to confirm my present judgement of Aldus
by testing him in the entire text of Pliny’s _Letters_. Further, despite
Merrill’s researches and his brilliant analysis, I am not convinced that
the last word has been spoken on the nature of the transcript made for
Budaeus and incorporated in the Bodleian volume. I will not, however,
venture on this broad field until Professor Merrill, who has the first
right to speak, is enabled to give to the world his long-expected
edition. Meanwhile, if my view is right, we owe to the acquisition of
the ancient fragment by the Pierpont Morgan Library a new confidence in
the integrity of Aldus, a clearer understanding of the history of the
_Letters_ in the early Middle Ages, and a surer method of editing their
text.




             DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.


Nos. I-XII. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462. A
fragment 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 fragment
is here given, very slightly reduced. The exact size of the script is
shown in Plate XX.

XIII-XIV. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. Ashburnham R 98, known as
Codex Bellovacensis (_B_) or Riccardianus (_R_), written in Caroline
minuscule of the ninth century. See above, p. 44. Our plates reproduce
fols. 9 and 9v (slightly reduced), containing the end of Book II and the
beginning of Book III.

XV-XVI. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. San Marco 284, written in
Caroline minuscule of the tenth century. See above, pp. 44 f. Our plates
reproduce fols. 56v and 57r, containing the end of Book II and the
beginning 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 added
leaves by the hand shown on plate XVIIb (= fol. 144). The variants are
in the hand of Budaeus. Plate XVIII contains fols. 32v and 33, showing
the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.

XIX. Aldine edition of Pliny’s _Letters_, Venice 1508. Our plate
reproduces 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 }