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

The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger, by Elias Avery Lowe and Edward Kennard Rand This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: 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 Author: Elias Avery Lowe and Edward Kennard Rand Release Date: September 17, 2005 [EBook #16706] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SIXTH-CENTURY FRAGMENT *** 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 } End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger, by Elias Avery Lowe and Edward Kennard Rand *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SIXTH-CENTURY FRAGMENT *** ***** This file should be named 16706-0.txt or 16706-0.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: https://www.gutenberg.org/1/6/7/0/16706/ Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. *** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at https://gutenberg.org/license). Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email [email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at https://pglaf.org For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director [email protected] Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit https://pglaf.org While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: https://www.gutenberg.org This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.