64 files changed, 19611 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/16706-0.txt b/16706-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f1d990
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4324 @@
+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
+business@pglaf.org.  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
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+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.
diff --git a/16706-0.zip b/16706-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7db19c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-0.zip
diff --git a/16706-8.txt b/16706-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7ad10a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4328 @@
+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: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** 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}. Manuscripts identified
+by Greek letter are shown in the form {Pi}.
+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
+  _{Pi}_ a member of Class I
+  _{Pi}_ the direct ancestor of _BF_ with probably a copy intervening
+  The probable stemma
+  Further consideration of the external history of _P_, _{Pi}_, and _B_
+  Evidence from the portions of _BF_ outside the text of _{Pi}_
+
+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
+  Biblioth�que 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. 2� 416 and Rome Vatic. lat. 3256 reproduced in
+  Zangemeister and Wattenbach's _Exempla Codicum Latinorum_, etc., pl.
+  14, and in Steffens, _Lateinische Pal�ographie_{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, _Pal�ographie 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 Pal�ographie{2}_, 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]
+�{-C}� = 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, _Pal�ographie des classiques latins_, Paris 1884-1900,
+  and _Uncialis scriptura codicum latinorum novis exemplis illustrata_,
+  Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, _Lateinische Pal�ographie{2}_, 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; Steffens{2}, pl. 17; also
+    Schwartz in _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, XXVI (1906),
+    c. 746.
+
+3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 4�. 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; Steffens{2}, 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 copi� en 625" in _Notices et Extraits des
+    manuscrits de la biblioth�que nationale_, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149
+    sqq.; J. Havet, "Questions m�rovingiennes: III. La date d'un
+    manuscrit de Luxeuil" in _Biblioth�que de l'�cole 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
+    m�rovingien de Saint-M�dard de Soissons" in _Revue arch�ologique_,
+    Nouv. s�r. XLI (1881), pp. 257 sqq. and pl. IX; idem, "Notice sur
+    un manuscrit m�rovingien de la Biblioth�que 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 Biblioth�que 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;
+    Steffens{2}, 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;
+    Steffens{2}, 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_; Steffens{2}, 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, _Pal�ographie des classiques latins_, pl. XXXIX, 2;
+    _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 160; Steffens{2}, 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, _Pal�ographie 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,
+    _Pal�ographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXVI; _R�productions des
+    manuscrits et miniatures de la Biblioth�que 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, _Pal�ographie 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 K�niglich 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, _Pal�ographie 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 (ff{2}).
+
+    Traube, l.c., No. 214; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 87;
+    E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. II; Reusens, _�l�ments
+    de pal�ographie_, 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. 4�. 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, "�ber den �ltesten 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 si�cle
+    conserv�s � la biblioth�que imp�riale 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; Steffens{1}, 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. {Further consideration of...}]
+
+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 _provost�_ of Meaux, and Fran�ois
+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-simil�s � l'usage de l'�cole 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'�glise 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,
+C�sar, 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:
+Characters that could not be fully displayed are "unpacked" and shown
+within braces: {.T}. 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]
+
+�{-C}�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
+�{-C}�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
+{.R}{.A}T[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 IUDICI{.A}UM[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 PROCONSULATU{.S}[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
+{.T}{.U}{.M}[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 HOSP{.I}TIUM[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
+{.T}{.I}TISSIMUM[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
+
+�{-C}�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 {.D}{.E}FUNGAR[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 na�ve 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 Bud� (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
+_{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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] _{Pi}a_ SERUA _{Pi}{2}_ 61, 21 considit] _{Pi}_
+CONSIDET _{Pi}{2}a_ The original reading of _{Pi}_ 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] _{Pi}_ residet _a_ Here _{Pi}_ 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_?) _{Pi}_ 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_) _{Pi}_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut
+praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _{Pi}_ 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_ (?) _{Pi}_.
+
+There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in
+_{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi} B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _{Pi}_ 64, 24
+conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _{Pi}_.
+
+In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_
+might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64,3) modern
+editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] {Pi} aurium
+oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA {Pi} 65, 11
+et alii] {Pi} etiam alii _a_.
+
+There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri]
+{Pi} 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 {Pi} only in certain spellings, in the correction, with the
+help of existing editions, of three obvious errors of {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 _M�m. 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 monast�re 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 (angels�chsischen) Einfluss_ in Buchstabenformen,
+  Abk�rzungen, etc. Fol. 32r _saec._ IX _ex_ _vel_ X _in._ fol.
+  32v-46r in der Hauptsache _direkt insular_ mit historischen Notizen
+  in festl�ndischer 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 � 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 Orl�ans.]
+
+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 {sigma} 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 {sigma} 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: _{Pi} a member of Class I_]
+
+Now nothing is plainer than that _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}BFGa_; 61, 12
+confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _{Pi}BFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_
+doctissima _{Pi}BFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ et
+adficitur _{Pi}BFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _{Pi}BF_; 63, 22
+teque et] _MVDG_ teque _{Pi}BFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda
+_BFu_ CONFERANDA _{Pi}_ (_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 _{Pi}BFa_; 65, 12
+voluntariis accusationibus] _M_ (uoluntaris) _D_ voluntariis _om. V_
+accusationibus uoluntariis _{Pi}BFGa_; 65, 15 superiore] _MVD_ priore
+_{Pi}BFGa_; 65, 24 iam] _MVDG_ _om._ _{Pi}BFa._
+
+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, _{Pi}BF_ 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, _{Pi}_ is not of the latter
+class. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the whole
+passage, no one of which appears in _{Pi}_: 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 _{Pi}_ agrees with _V_ in an error
+easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2_
+_{Pi}_ ornata _V_.
+
+_{Pi}_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by different
+routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _{Pi}_ clearly
+has no close association.
+
+But the evidence for allying _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+then _BF_ must descend directly from _{Pi}_. The following instances
+point in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+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 _{Pi}_ are faded and blurred;
+the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscript
+derived directly from _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. _B_ did not, as we shall see,
+copy directly from _{Pi}_; 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ directly, the mistake
+would be especially easy, for PRAECEPTORIA ends the line in _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ are as
+follows: 62, 23 unice] _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 65, 24 fungerer]. In
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 66, 2 avunculi]
+AUONCULI _{Pi}_ (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 _{Pi}_
+seems particularly close. _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, which has the
+same amount of text, plus the first three letters of SPURINNAM, in the
+first two lines. If _B_ had _{Pi}_ before him, there is nothing to
+explain his most unusual procedure. His original, therefore, is not
+_{Pi}_ 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: _{Pi} the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copy
+intervening_]
+
+If _{Pi}_ is the direct ancestor of _BF_, these manuscripts should
+contain no good readings not found in _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_; 64, 4
+conprobasse] (comp.) _BF_ COMPROUASSE _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ before him should correct it as
+he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copy
+intervened between _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ that may not be found, by
+either the first or the second hand, in _{Pi}_.[37]
+
+  [Footnote 37: There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly
+  worth mention. The most important are 63, 10 caret _B_ KARET _{Pi}_;
+  caritas _B_ KARITAS _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_.]
+
+We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the close
+connection existing between _BF_ and _{Pi}_. _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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original title
+had been omitted in the manuscript which _{Pi}_ was copying and the
+corrector of _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_ is in the title of III, viii: AD SUETON TRANQUE _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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).
+_{Pi}BF_ agree in omitting SUAE (III, iii) and SUO (III, iv), but in
+retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in
+_{Pi}_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _{Pi}_ and _B_, as AD
+SUETON TRANQUE (tranqui _B_); AD UESTRIC SPURINN�; AD SILIUM PROCUL.[40]
+In the first of these cases, the parent of _{Pi}_ evidently had TRANQ�,
+which _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_.
+Further, _B_ omits one symbol of abbreviation which _{Pi}_ has (POSSUM
+IAM PERSCRI{-B}), 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 _{Pi}_. This detail, therefore, may be added to the
+indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _{Pi}_;
+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 _{Pi}_ and _BF_, and
+fit the supposition that _B_ and _F_ are direct descendants of _{Pi}_.
+This may be strengthened by another consideration. If _{Pi}_ and _B_
+independently copy the same source, they inevitably make independent
+errors, however careful their work. _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readings
+that _{Pi}_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settle
+that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ would furnish
+incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was
+independent of _{Pi}_; 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, 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
+
+    _{Pi}_            _{Pi}_              _X_
+      |                 |                /   \
+      |                 |               /     \
+    _{Pi}{1}_         _{Pi}{1}_        /       \
+     / \                |            _X{1}_   _{Pi}_
+    /   \               |             / \
+  _B_    \             _B_           /   \
+         _F_            |          _B_    \
+                        |                 _F_
+                       _F_
+
+Robbins put _P_ in the position of _{Pi}_ in this last stemma, but on
+the assumption that it did not contain the indices. That is not true of
+_{Pi}_.
+
+
+[Sidenote: _Further consideration of the external history of P, {Pi},
+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 _{Pi}_{1}, the
+copy intervening between _{Pi}_ and _B_, was also French, and that
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_{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 _{Pi}_ and _B_ descend, being earlier than _{Pi}_, must
+have been a manuscript in majuscules, written in Italy, since that is
+unquestionably the provenience of _{Pi}_. 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 (X{1}) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is
+the parent of _B_ and _F_; the other (_{Pi}_) 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 _{Pi}_ were floating about in France in the ninth century. There is
+nothing in the evidence presented by _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. The burden of proof would appear to rest on those
+who assert the contrary. _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_
+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 fr�hen 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 _{Pi}_ is a part.
+            |
+            |
+           _P{1}_
+           / \
+          /   \
+        _B_    \
+               _F_
+
+
+[Sidenote: _Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of {Pi}_]
+
+We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions
+of _BF_ outside the text of _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. Supposing that _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, 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 (_P{2}_) intervening between _P{1}_ and _F_,
+but doubtless neither that nor _P{1}_ itself had lines so short as those
+in _P_; the error of _F_, therefore, may be most naturally ascribed to
+_P{1}_, 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 _P{1}_ or _P{2}_. 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 _P{1}_ 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 _P{1}_ dropped by _B_ in
+copying, but it is equally possible that _P{1}_ 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 _P{1}_.
+
+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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 (_P{1}_)
+intervened between _P_ and _B_; _P_ had the spelling _Karitas_
+consistently, _P{1}_ altered it to the usual form, and _B_ reproduced
+the corrections in _P{1}_, failing to take them all, unless, as may well
+be, _P{1}_ 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
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, _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
+_{sigma}_ in all but twenty-six readings.[51] Aldus would have had
+fewest changes to make, then, if his basic text was {sigma}. This is
+apparently the view of Keil,[52] who would agree at any rate that Aldus
+made special use of the {sigma} 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 {sigma} 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 _{Pi}_,
+their number is disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus
+(=_i_) to the text of Beroaldus are: 61, 14 sera] _MVDoa_, (_m. 1_)
+_{Pi}_ serua _BFuxi_, (_m. 2_) _{Pi}_; 62, 4 ambulat] _i cum plerisque_
+ambulabat _r Ber._ (ab _del._) _M_; 62, 25 quoque] _i cum ceteris_
+{p_}ouq (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 _{Pi}_.
+
+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 _{Pi}_
+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 _{Pi}_.
+
+  [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 _{Pi}BF_ 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 {sigma} 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] _MVDr{sigma}_
+           duplicata _{Pi}BFGpa_
+
+    61, 12 confusa adhuc] _MV{sigma}_
+           adhuc confusa _{Pi}BFGpra_
+
+        18 milia passuum tria nec] _{Pi}BFMV_(_p_?)_a_
+           milia passum tria et nec _D_
+           mille pastria nec _r_
+           mille pas. nec _{sigma}_
+
+    62,  6 doctissime] _MV{sigma}_
+           et doctissime _r_
+           doctissima _{Pi}BFDa_
+           et doctissima _p_
+
+        26 igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           igitur et eundem mihi cursum et eundem _r{sigma}_
+
+           fuit (25)--potes (64, 12) _om. MV_
+
+    63,  2 MAXIMO] _{Pi}BFDG_(_pr?_)_a_
+           Valerio Max. _{sigma}_
+           Gauio Maximo _Catanaeus_
+
+         4 Arrianus Maturus] _{Pi}BFDra_
+           arianus maturus _Gp_
+           Arrianus Maturius _{sigma}_
+
+         5 est] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_ _om. r Ber._
+
+         9 ardentibus dicere] _{Pi}BFDG_(_r_?)_a_
+           dicere ardentius _p{sigma}_
+
+        12 excolendusque] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           extollendusque _Gr{sigma}_
+
+        15 conferas in eum] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           in eum conferas _Gr{sigma}_
+
+        17 excipit] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           accipit _r{sigma}_
+
+           quam si] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           quasi si _r_
+           quasi _Laet._, _Ber._
+
+        20 CORELLIAE HISPULLAE SUAE] CORELLIAE _{Pi}B_
+           AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE _ind. {Pi}B_
+           CORELLIE ISPULLAE _F_ CORELLIAE HISPULLAE _a_
+           corneliae (Coreliae _Catanaeus_) hispullae (suae _add. Do_)
+             _DGpr{sigma}_
+
+        22 teque et] _DG_(_p_?)_[sigma]_
+           teque _{Pi}BFra_
+
+        23 et in] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           et _r{sigma}_
+
+           diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] _{Pi}BFDG_(_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_)_{Pi}_
+           erroribus uel modica uel nulla _r_
+           erroribus modica uel nulla _Ber._
+           uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla _vulgo_
+
+         5 fortunaeque] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           form(a)eque _r_ _Ber._
+
+    65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali _D_) _DGp_
+           alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _{Pi}BFa_
+           alii quidam (quidem _Catanaeus_) minores sed tam
+             (tamen _r{sigma}_) innumeri _MVr{sigma}_
+
+        15 superiore] _MVD{sigma}_
+           priore _{Pi}BFGra_ prior _p_
+
+        24 iam] _MVDG_(_pr_?)_{sigma}_ _om._ _{Pi}BFa_
+
+    66,  7 sint omnes] _{Pi}BFMVDG_(_pr_?)_a_
+           sint _{sigma}_
+
+         9 haec quoque] _{Pi}BFDVGra_
+           hoc quoque _M_
+           hic quoque _p_
+           haec _{sigma}_
+
+        11 Pomponi] _{Pi}BMVo_
+           Pomponii _FDpra_
+           Q. Pomponii _{sigma}_
+
+        12 amatus] _{Pi}FDG_(_pr_?)_a_
+           est amatus _MV{sigma}_
+           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., _{sigma}_) 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 _{Pi}FB_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+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 _{Pi}_, 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 fr�hen 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ shows him, for this much
+of the _Letters_ at least, to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor.
+His method is to follow _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 j�ngeren 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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, K�nigl. Bibl. Lat. 4� 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 Pal�ographie{2}_
+    _text reads_ Palaographie
+
+_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.5
+  ...�ber den �ltesten...
+    _text reads_ uber den altesten
+
+_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.9
+  Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe si�cle conserv�s...
+    _text reads_ conserves
+
+Footnote 32:
+  Recueil de Fac-simil�s
+    _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 16706-8.txt or 16706-8.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
+business@pglaf.org.  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
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+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.
diff --git a/16706-8.zip b/16706-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f4d7e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-8.zip
diff --git a/16706-h.zip b/16706-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..03caa9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h.zip
diff --git a/16706-h/16706-h.htm b/16706-h/16706-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bcd7bd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/16706-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,6615 @@
+<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
+<html>
+<head>
+<title>Pliny Letters, Fragment</title>
+<meta http-equiv = "Content-Type" content = "text/html; charset=utf-8">
+
+<style type = "text/css">
+
+body {margin-left: 18%; margin-right: 10%;}
+hr {width: 80%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;}
+hr.tiny {width: 20%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;}
+sup {font-size: 90%; font-style: normal;}
+
+a.contents {text-decoration: none;}
+
+/* paragraphs */
+
+p {margin-top: .6em; margin-bottom: .6em; line-height: 1.2em;}
+p.image {text-align: center; margin: 1em 0em;}
+p.section {margin-top: 2em;}
+p.inset1 {margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em;}
+p.inset2 {margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 1em;}
+p.hanging2 {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 1em; text-indent: -1em;}
+
+/* headers */
+
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {text-align: center; margin-bottom: .5em;
+margin-top: .5em; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2em;}
+h1 {font-size: 175%; font-style: normal;}
+h2 {font-size: 133%; font-style: normal;}
+h3 {font-size: 115%; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;}
+h4 {font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;}
+h5 {font-size: 90%; font-style: normal;}
+h6 {font-size: 100%; font-style: italic;}
+
+.biblio {margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em; margin-left: 1em;
+margin-right: 1em; font-size: 90%;}
+.footnote {font-size: 95%; margin-top: .5em; margin-left: 2em;
+margin-right: 2em;}
+
+/* tables */
+
+td {vertical-align: top; padding: .5em;}
+
+td.right {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right;
+padding: 0em .1em 0em .5em;}
+td.left {vertical-align: bottom; text-align: left; padding: 0em .5em;}
+
+td.appright, td.appleft {line-height: 1.3em; padding-top: .2em;
+padding-bottom: .2em;}
+td.appleft {width: 3em; text-align: right; padding-left: 2em;}
+
+td.lineletters {padding-bottom: 0em; padding-top: 0em;
+padding-left: 3em; line-height: 1.2em; font-size: 90%;}
+td.linelength {padding-bottom: 0em; padding-top: 0em;
+text-align: right;}
+
+table.plates {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+td.plates {text-align: center; padding-right: .1em;
+padding-left: .1em;}
+td.vertplates {width: 60%;}
+
+/*table of contents */
+
+.contents1, .contents2, .contents3 {line-height: 1.4em;
+margin-bottom: .2em;}
+.contents1 {font-size: 125%; font-variant: small-caps;
+margin-top: 1em;}
+.contents2 {font-variant: small-caps; margin-top: .2em;}
+.contents3 {margin-left: 2em; margin-top: .2em;}
+
+/* MS transcription */
+
+table.mscontents {width: 60%;}
+td.mscontents {width: 50%; text-align: center; padding: 1em;
+line-height: 1.4em; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
+
+td.manuscript, td.mantitle {width: 60%; letter-spacing: .06em;
+line-height: 1.6em; padding: 0em .5em 0em .1em;}
+td.manuscript {font-size: 90%;}
+td.mantitle {font-size: 95%; padding-top: 3em;}
+td.footnote {font-size: 95%; padding: .1em}
+
+.manlist1 {color: #900;}
+.manlist2 {margin-left: 2em;}
+.verse {margin-left: 6em; font-style: italic; line-height: 1.3em;}
+.erasure {margin-left: 6em;}
+.fakelink {color: #000;}
+.firstletter {font-size: 200%;}
+
+/* marginal text */
+
+.pagenum {position: absolute; right: 4%; font-size: 95%;
+font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align: right;}
+.pagenum2 {position: absolute; right: 4%; font-size: 90%; color: #666;
+font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align: right;}
+.linenum {position: absolute; right: 85%; text-align: right;
+font-size: 90%; color: #000;}
+.folionum {position: absolute; left: 5%; font-weight: bold;}
+.sidenote {position: absolute; left: 4%; right: 82%;
+padding-right: 1em; font-style: italic;}
+
+/* floats */
+
+.textletter {float: left; clear: left; font-size: 3.5em;
+padding-right: 0.1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-bottom: 0em;
+margin-bottom: -0.2em; line-height: 1em;}
+.rightdate {float: right; margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: .5em;
+padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 3em;}
+
+.smallcaps {font-variant: small-caps;}
+.redtext {color: #900;}
+
+.mynote {background-color: #DDE; padding: .5em; margin: 1em 5%;
+font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
+ins.correction {text-decoration: none; border-bottom: thin dotted red;}
+
+</style>
+</head>
+
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+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
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+<div class = "mynote">
+A few typographical errors have been corrected. They have been
+marked in the text with <ins class = "correction"
+title = "like this">popups</ins>.
+<table align = "center" summary = "Abbreviated TOC">
+<tr>
+<td class = "mscontents">
+<a href = "#part_I">I. Palaeography of Fragment</a><br>
+<a href = "#notes_I">Notes to Part I</a><br>
+<a href = "#trans">Fragment Transcription</a><br>
+<a href = "#part_II">II. Text of Fragment</a><br>
+<a href = "#notes_II">Notes to Part II</a><br>
+<a href = "#plates">Plates</a>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<h2>A SIXTH-CENTURY FRAGMENT</h2>
+
+<h3>OF THE</h3>
+
+<h1>LETTERS OF<br>
+PLINY THE YOUNGER</h1>
+
+<h3>A STUDY OF SIX LEAVES OF AN UNCIAL<br>
+MANUSCRIPT PRESERVED IN<br>
+THE PIERPONT MORGAN LIBRARY<br>
+NEW YORK</h3>
+
+<h4>BY</h4>
+
+<h2>E. A. LOWE</h2>
+
+<h5>ASSOCIATE OF THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON<br>
+SANDARS READER AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (1914)<br>
+LECTURER IN PALAEOGRAPHY AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY</h5>
+
+<h4>AND</h4>
+
+<h2>E. K. RAND</h2>
+
+<h5>PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY</h5>
+
+<br>
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/carnegie.png" width = "134" height = "133"
+alt = "Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1902"
+title = "Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1902"></p>
+<br>
+<h5>PUBLISHED BY THE</h5>
+<h4>CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON</h4>
+<h5>WASHINGTON, 1922</h5>
+<br>
+<br>
+<h4>CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON<br>
+Publication No. 304</h4>
+<br>
+<br>
+<h5>THE UNIVERSITY PRESS<br>
+CAMBRIDGE, MASS.<br>
+U.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;A.</h5>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">iii</span>
+<a name = "page_iii"> </a>
+<h2>PREFATORY NOTE.</h2>
+
+<p><span class = "textletter">T</span>
+HE 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Letters</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Letters</i>, 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.&nbsp;T. Merrill’s long-expected
+edition of Pliny’s <i>Letters</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class = "pagenum">iv</span>
+<a name = "page_iv"> </a>
+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.</p>
+
+<p align = "right">E. K. RAND.<br>
+E. A. LOWE.</p>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">v</span>
+<a name = "page_v"> </a>
+<h2>CONTENTS.</h2>
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<div class = "contents1">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#part_I">Part I. The Palaeography of the
+Morgan Fragment. By E.&nbsp;A. Lowe.</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#fragment">Description of the
+Fragment</a></div>
+<div class = "contents3">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_1">Contents, size, vellum,
+binding</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_2">Ruling</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_3">Relation of the six leaves to the
+rest of the manuscript</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_4">Original size of the
+manuscript</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_5">Disposition</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_6">Ornamentation</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_7">Corrections</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_8">Syllabification</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_9">Orthography</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_10">Abbreviations</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_11">Authenticity of the six
+leaves</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#frag_12">Archetype</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#history">The Date and Later History of
+the Manuscript</a></div>
+<div class = "contents3">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_1">On the dating of uncial
+manuscripts</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_2">Dated uncial manuscripts</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_3">Oldest group of uncial
+manuscripts</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_4">Characteristics of the oldest
+uncial manuscripts</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_5">Date of the Morgan
+manuscript</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_6">Later history of the Morgan
+manuscript</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#hist_7">Conclusion</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#trans">Transcription</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents1">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#part_II">Part II. The Text of the Morgan
+Fragment. By E.&nbsp;K. Rand.</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#parisinus">The Morgan Fragment and
+Aldus’s Ancient Codex Parisinus</a></div>
+<div class = "contents3">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_1">The Codex Parisinus</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_2">The Bodleian volume</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_3">The Morgan fragment possibly a
+part of the lost Parisinus</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_4">The script</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_5">Provenience and contents</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_6">The text closely related to that
+of Aldus</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#paris_7">Editorial methods of
+Aldus</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<span class = "pagenum">vi</span>
+<a name = "page_vi"> </a>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other">Relation of the Morgan Fragment to
+the Other Manuscripts of the Letters</a></div>
+<div class = "contents3">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_1">Classes of the
+manuscripts</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_2">The early editions</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_3"><i>&Pi;</i> a member of Class
+I</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_4"><i>Π</i> the direct ancestor of
+<i>BF</i> with probably a copy intervening</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_5">The probable stemma</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_6">Further consideration of the
+external history of <i>P</i>, <i>Π</i>, and <i>B</i></a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#other_7">Evidence from the portions of
+<i>BF</i> outside the text of <i>Π</i></a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus">Editorial Methods of
+Aldus</a></div>
+<div class = "contents3">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_1">Aldus’s methods; his basic
+text</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_2">The variants of Budaeus in the
+Bodleian volume</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_3">Aldus and Budaeus
+compared</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_4">The latest criticism of
+Aldus</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_5">Aldus’s methods in the newly
+discovered parts of Books VIII, IX, and X</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_6">The Morgan fragment the best
+criterion of Aldus</a><br>
+<a class = "contents" href = "#aldus_7">Conclusion</a></div>
+
+<div class = "contents2">
+<a class = "contents" href = "#plates">Description of Plates</a></div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">1</span>
+<a name = "page_1"> </a>
+<h2><a name = "part_I">Part I.</a></h2>
+
+<h2>THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT</h2>
+
+<h3>BY</h3>
+
+<h3>E. A. LOWE</h3>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">3</span>
+<a name = "page_3"> </a>
+<h2>THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT.</h2>
+
+<h3><a name = "fragment">DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENT.</a></h3>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_1">Contents</a><br>
+&nbsp;size<br>
+&nbsp;vellum<br>
+&nbsp;binding
+</span>
+<span class = "textletter">T</span>
+HE Morgan fragment of Pliny the Younger contains the end of Book II and
+the beginning of Book III of the <i>Letters</i> (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.</p>
+
+<p>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).</p>
+
+<p>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: <i>Onward and Upward</i>. Under the
+book-plate is the press-mark M.462.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_2">Ruling</a>
+</span>
+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: 48<sup>v</sup> and
+53<sup>r</sup>, 49<sup>r</sup> and 52<sup>v</sup>, 50<sup>v</sup> and
+51<sup>r</sup>. 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_3">Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the
+manuscript</a>
+</span>
+One might suppose that the six leaves once formed a complete gathering
+of the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios
+48<sup>r</sup> and 53<sup>v</sup> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">4</span>
+<a name = "page_4"> </a>
+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.<a name = "tagI_1" href =
+"#noteI_1"><sup>1</sup></a> 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:</p>
+
+<p>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 48<sup>v</sup> and 53<sup>r</sup>, presenting the flesh side,
+face folios 49<sup>r</sup> and 52<sup>v</sup> likewise on the flesh
+side; and folios 49<sup>v</sup> and 52<sup>r</sup> presenting the hair
+side, face folios 50<sup>r</sup> and 51<sup>v</sup> likewise on the hair
+side. The inside pages 50<sup>v</sup> and 51<sup>r</sup> which face each
+other, are both flesh side, and the outside pages 48<sup>r</sup> and
+53<sup>v</sup> are both hair side, as may be seen from the accompanying
+diagram.</p>
+
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/fig_04.png" width = "375" height = "191"
+alt = "diagram of manuscript as described in text"
+title = "diagram of manuscript">
+</p>
+
+<p>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.<a name = "tagI_2" href = "#noteI_2"><sup>2</sup></a> And as our
+fragment belongs to the oldest
+<span class = "pagenum">5</span>
+<a name = "page_5"> </a>
+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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_4">Original size of the manuscript</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>Letters</i>. 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 <i>Letters</i>. 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.<a name = "tagI_3" href = "#noteI_3"><sup>3</sup></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<i>Letters</i> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">6</span>
+<a name = "page_6"> </a>
+Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviation of
+<i>que</i> and <i>bus</i>, and particularly of official titles, we can
+not expect a closer agreement.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Letters</i>. 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 <i>Letters</i>, then 260 folios is an approximately
+correct estimate of its size.</p>
+
+<p>It is hard to believe that only six leaves of the original manuscript
+have escaped destruction. The fact that the outside sheet (foll.
+48<sup>r</sup> and 53<sup>v</sup>) 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_5">Disposition</a>
+</span>
+The pages in our manuscript are written in long lines,<a name = "tagI_4"
+href = "#noteI_4"><sup>4</sup></a> in <i>scriptura continua</i>, with
+hardly any punctuation.</p>
+
+<p>Each page begins with a large letter, even though that letter occur
+in the body of a word (cf. foll. 48<sup>r</sup>, 51<sup>v</sup>,
+52<sup>r</sup>).<a name = "tagI_5" href =
+"#noteI_5"><sup>5</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The running title at the top of each page is in small rustic
+capitals.<a name = "tagI_6" href = "#noteI_6"><sup>6</sup></a> On the
+verso of each folio stands the word EPISTVLARVM; on the recto of the
+following folio stands the number of the book, <i>e.g.</i>, LIB. II,
+LIB. III.</p>
+
+<p>To judge by our fragment, each book was preceded by an index of
+addresses
+<span class = "pagenum">7</span>
+<a name = "page_7"> </a>
+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.<a name = "tagI_7" href =
+"#noteI_7"><sup>7</sup></a></p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_6">Ornamentation</a>
+</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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,<a name =
+"tagI_8" href = "#noteI_8"><sup>8</sup></a> in the addresses in the
+Index, and in the addresses preceding each letter.</p>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_7">Corrections</a>
+</span>
+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.
+52<sup>v</sup>, 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.<a name = "tagI_9" href = "#noteI_9"><sup>9</sup></a> 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 <a href = "#page_23">pp. 23-34</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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.<a name = "tagI_10" href = "#noteI_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
+Presumably the same hand drew a bearded head with a halo. Another
+relatively recent hand, using lead, wrote in the left margin of fol.
+53<sup>v</sup> the monogram QR<a name = "tagI_11" href =
+"#noteI_11"><sup>11</sup></a> and the roman numerals i, ii, iii under
+one another. These numerals, as Professor
+<span class = "pagenum">8</span>
+<a name = "page_8"> </a>
+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.
+49<sup>v</sup>, ll. 8, 10, 15; fol. 52, ll. 4, 10, 13, 21, 22; fol. 53,
+ll. 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27; fol. 53<sup>v</sup>, ll. 5, 10, 15.</p>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_8">Syllabification</a>
+</span>
+Syllables are divided after a vowel or diphthong except where such a
+division involves beginning the next syllable with a group of
+consonants.<a name = "tagI_12" href = "#noteI_12"><sup>12</sup></a> 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 <span class = "smallcaps">san|ctissimum</span> and
+other examples found below. The method followed by him is made amply
+clear by the examples which occur in our twelve pages:<a name =
+"tagI_13" href = "#noteI_13"><sup>13</sup></a></p>
+
+<table summary = "syllabification">
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 48<sup>r</sup>, line 1,</td>
+<td class = "left">con&ndash;suleret</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">2,</td>
+<td class = "left">sescen&ndash;ties</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">ex&ndash;ta</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">fal&ndash;si</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 49<sup>v</sup>, line 3,</td>
+<td class = "left">spu&ndash;rinnam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">senesce&ndash;re</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">distin&ndash;ctius</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">se&ndash;nibus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">13,</td>
+<td class = "left">con&ndash;ueniunt</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">spurin&ndash;na</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">18,</td>
+<td class = "left">circum&ndash;agit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">mi&ndash;lia</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">24,</td>
+<td class = "left">prae&ndash;sentibus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">25,</td>
+<td class = "left">grauan&ndash;tur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 50<sup>r</sup>, line 1,</td>
+<td class = "left">singu&ndash;laris</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">4,</td>
+<td class = "left">an&ndash;tiquitatis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">au&ndash;dias</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">9,</td>
+<td class = "left">ite&ndash;rum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">scri&ndash;bit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">ly&ndash;rica</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">scri&ndash;bentis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">17,</td>
+<td class = "left">octa&ndash;ua</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">19,</td>
+<td class = "left">uehe&ndash;menter</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">exer&ndash;citationis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">21,</td>
+<td class = "left">se&ndash;nectute</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">22,</td>
+<td class = "left">paulis&ndash;per</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">le&ndash;gentem</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 50<sup>v</sup>, line 2,</td>
+<td class = "left">de&ndash;lectatur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">co&ndash;moedis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">4,</td>
+<td class = "left">uolupta&ndash;tes</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">ali&ndash;quid</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">6,</td>
+<td class = "left">lon&ndash;gum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">senec&ndash;tut</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">uo&ndash;to</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">13,</td>
+<td class = "left">ingres&ndash;surus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">14,</td>
+<td class = "left">ae&ndash;tatis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">in&ndash;terim</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">16,</td>
+<td class = "left">ho&ndash;rum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">re&ndash;xit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">21,</td>
+<td class = "left">me&ndash;ruit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">
+<span class = "pagenum">9</span>
+<a name = "page_9"> </a>
+22,</td>
+<td class = "left">eun&ndash;dem</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">25,</td>
+<td class = "left">epis&ndash;tulam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 51<sup>r</sup>, line 2,</td>
+<td class = "left">mi&ndash;hi</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">4,</td>
+<td class = "left">afria&ndash;nus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">6,</td>
+<td class = "left">facultati&ndash;bus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">super&ndash;sunt</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">gra&ndash;uitate</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">9,</td>
+<td class = "left">consi&ndash;lio</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">10,</td>
+<td class = "left">ut&ndash;or</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">13,</td>
+<td class = "left">ar&ndash;dentius</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">con&ndash;feras</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">24,</td>
+<td class = "left">habe&ndash;bis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">27,</td>
+<td class = "left">concu&ndash;piscat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 51<sup>v</sup>, line 3,</td>
+<td class = "left">san&ndash;ctissimum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">memo&ndash;riam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">10,</td>
+<td class = "left">pater&ndash;nus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">contige&ndash;rit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">lau&ndash;de</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">14,</td>
+<td class = "left">hones&ndash;tis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">refe&ndash;rat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">17,</td>
+<td class = "left">contuber&ndash;nium</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">21,</td>
+<td class = "left">circumspi&ndash;ciendus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">22,</td>
+<td class = "left">scho&ndash;lae</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">24,</td>
+<td class = "left">nos&ndash;tro</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">27,</td>
+<td class = "left">praecep&ndash;tor</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 52<sup>r</sup>, line 2,</td>
+<td class = "left">demon&ndash;strare</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">iudi&ndash;cio</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">6,</td>
+<td class = "left">gra&ndash;uis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">quan&ndash;tum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">9,</td>
+<td class = "left">cre&ndash;dere</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">mag&ndash;nasque</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">13,</td>
+<td class = "left">ge&ndash;nitore</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">16,</td>
+<td class = "left">nes[cis]&ndash;se</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">19,</td>
+<td class = "left">nomi&ndash;na</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">fauen&ndash;tibus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">dis&ndash;citur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 52<sup>v</sup>, line 1,</td>
+<td class = "left">uidean&ndash;tur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">con&ndash;silium</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">concu&ndash;pisco</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">6,</td>
+<td class = "left">pecu&ndash;nia</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">excucuris&ndash;sem</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">10,</td>
+<td class = "left">se&ndash;natu</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">ne&ndash;cessitatibus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">19,</td>
+<td class = "left">postulaue&ndash;runt</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">21,</td>
+<td class = "left">bae&ndash;bium</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">clari&ndash;sima</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">25,</td>
+<td class = "left">in&ndash;quam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">26,</td>
+<td class = "left">excusa&ndash;tionis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 53<sup>r</sup>, line 1,</td>
+<td class = "left">com (<i>or</i> con)&ndash;pulit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">ueni&ndash;ebat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">iniu&ndash;rias</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">ex&ndash;secutos</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">10,</td>
+<td class = "left">prae&ndash;terea</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">aduoca&ndash;tione</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">13,</td>
+<td class = "left">con&ndash;seruandum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">com&ndash;paratum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">16,</td>
+<td class = "left">sub&ndash;uertas</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">17,</td>
+<td class = "left">cumu&ndash;les</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">18,</td>
+<td class = "left">obliga&ndash;ti</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">tris&ndash;tissimum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 53<sup>v</sup>, line 2,</td>
+<td class = "left">facili&ndash;orem</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">si&ndash;quis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">offi&ndash;ciorum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">7,</td>
+<td class = "left">praepara&ndash;tur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">super&ndash;est</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">10,</td>
+<td class = "left">sim&ndash;plicitas</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">compro&ndash;bantis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">14,</td>
+<td class = "left">diligen&ndash;ter</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">cog&ndash;nitio</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">22,</td>
+<td class = "left">milita&ndash;ret</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">26,</td>
+<td class = "left">exsol&ndash;uit</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_9">Orthography</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>ae</i>
+is regularly distinguished from <i>e</i>. The interchange of <i>b</i>
+and <i>u</i>, <i>d</i> and <i>t</i>, <i>o</i> and <i>u</i>, so common in
+later manuscripts, is rare here: the confusion between <i>b</i> and
+<i>u</i> occurs once (<i>comprouasse</i>, fo. 52<sup>v</sup>, l. 1); the
+omission of <i>h</i> occurs once (<i>pulcritudo</i>, fo. 51<sup>v</sup>,
+l. 26); the use of <i>k</i> for <i>c</i> occurs twice (<i>karet</i>, fo.
+51<sup>r</sup>, l. 14, and <i>karitas</i>, fo. 52<sup>r</sup>, l. 5).
+The scribe uses the correct forms in <i>adolescet</i> (fo.
+51<sup>v</sup>, l. 14) and <i>adulescenti</i> (fo. 51<sup>v</sup>, l.
+24); he writes <i>auonculi</i> (fo. 53<sup>v</sup>, l. 15),
+<i>exsistat</i> (fo. 51<sup>v</sup>, l. 9), and <i>exsecutos</i> (fo.
+53<sup>r</sup>, 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:</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">10</span>
+<a name = "page_10"> </a>
+<table summary = "list of assimilated and unassimilated forms">
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">fo. 48<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">line 3,</td>
+<td class = "left">inpleturus</td>
+<td class = "right">fo. 48<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">line 7,</td>
+<td class = "left">improbissimum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">49<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">13a,</td>
+<td class = "left">adnotasse</td>
+<td class = "right">48<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">composuisse</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">19,</td>
+<td class = "left">adsumo</td>
+<td class = "right">50<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">1,</td>
+<td class = "left">ascendit</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">50<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">1,</td>
+<td class = "left">adsumit</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">6,</td>
+<td class = "left">imbuare</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">27,</td>
+<td class = "left">adponitur</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">22,</td>
+<td class = "left">accubat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">50<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">adficitur</td>
+<td class = "right">51<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">2,</td>
+<td class = "left">optulissem</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">51<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">19,</td>
+<td class = "left">adstruere</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">3,</td>
+<td class = "left">suppeteret</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">21,</td>
+<td class = "left">adstruere</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">16,</td>
+<td class = "left">ascendere</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">26,</td>
+<td class = "left">adpetat</td>
+<td class = "right">51<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">16,</td>
+<td class = "left">accipiat</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">51<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">9,</td>
+<td class = "left">exsistat</td>
+<td class = "right">52<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">1,</td>
+<td class = "left">comprouasse</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">12,</td>
+<td class = "left">inlustri</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">collegae</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">14,</td>
+<td class = "left">inbutus</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">17,</td>
+<td class = "left">impetrassent</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">52<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">18,</td>
+<td class = "left">admonebitur</td>
+<td class = "right">53<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">accusationibus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">52<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">20,</td>
+<td class = "left">inplorantes</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">15,</td>
+<td class = "left">comparatum</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">22,</td>
+<td class = "left">adlegantes</td>
+<td class = "right">53<sup>v</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">1,</td>
+<td class = "left">computabam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">24,</td>
+<td class = "left">adsensio</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">5,</td>
+<td class = "left">accusare</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">27,</td>
+<td class = "left">adtulisse</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">11,</td>
+<td class = "left">comprobantis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">53<sup>r</sup>,</td>
+<td class = "right">8,</td>
+<td class = "left">exsecutos</td>
+<td class = "right"></td>
+<td class = "right">23,</td>
+<td class = "left">composuit</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_10">Abbreviations</a>
+</span>
+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.<a name = "tagI_14" href =
+"#noteI_14"><sup>14</sup></a> The abbreviations found in our fragment
+may conveniently be grouped as follows:</p>
+
+<p>1. Suspensions which might occur in any ancient manuscript or
+inscription, <i>e.g.</i>:</p>
+
+<table summary = "suspension">
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">B· =</td>
+<td class = "left">BUS</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">Q· =</td>
+<td class = "left">QUE<a name = "tagI_15" href =
+"#noteI_15"><sup>15</sup></a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">·C̅· =</td>
+<td class = "left">GAIUS<a name = "tagI_16" href =
+"#noteI_16"><sup>16</sup></a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">P· C· =</td>
+<td class = "left">PATRES CONSCRIPTI</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>2. Technical or recurrent terms which occur in the colophons at the
+end of each book and at the end of letters, as:</p>
+
+<table summary = "technical or recurrent terms">
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">·EXP· =</td>
+<td class = "left">EXPLICIT</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">·INC· =</td>
+<td class = "left">INCIPIT</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">LIB· =</td>
+<td class = "left">LIBER</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "right">VAL· =</td>
+<td class = "left">VALE<a name = "tagI_17" href =
+"#noteI_17"><sup>17</sup></a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">11</span>
+<a name = "page_11"> </a>
+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: <span class = "smallcaps">sueton tranque,<a
+name = "tagI_18" href = "#noteI_18"><sup>18</sup></a> uestric
+spurinn</span>·
+
+<p>4. Omitted <i>M</i> at the end of a line, omitted <i>N</i> 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.<a name = "tagI_19" href =
+"#noteI_19"><sup>19</sup></a> This omission may occur in the middle of a
+word but only at the end of a line.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_11">Authenticity of the six leaves</a>
+</span>
+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,<a name = "tagI_20" href
+= "#noteI_20"><sup>20</sup></a> and it is natural to demand proof
+establishing the genuineness of the new fragment.<a name = "tagI_21"
+href = "#noteI_21"><sup>21</sup></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.<a name = "tagI_22" href = "#noteI_22"><sup>22</sup></a> As a
+matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellum showed
+<span class = "pagenum">12</span>
+<a name = "page_12"> </a>
+faded writing long before modern time. To judge by the retouched
+characters on fol. 53<sup>r</sup> it would seem that the original
+writing had become illegible by the eighth or ninth century.<a name =
+"tagI_23" href = "#noteI_23"><sup>23</sup></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "frag_12">Archetype</a>
+</span>
+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. 52<sup>v</sup> goes
+to show that the manuscript from which our scribe copied was written in
+lines of 25 letters or thereabout.<a name = "tagI_24" href =
+"#noteI_24"><sup>24</sup></a> The scribe first wrote <span class =
+"smallcaps">excucuris|sem commeatu</span>. Discovering his error of
+omission, he erased <span class = "smallcaps">sem</span> 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 <span class = "smallcaps">accepto ut
+praefectus aerari</span>. As there are no <i>homoioteleuta</i> to
+<span class = "pagenum">13</span>
+<a name = "page_13"> </a>
+account for the omission, it is almost certain that it was caused by the
+inadvertent skipping of a line.<a name = "tagI_25" href =
+"#noteI_25"><sup>25</sup></a> The omitted letters number 25.</p>
+
+<p>A glance at the abbreviations used in the index of addresses on foll.
+48<sup>v</sup>-49<sup>r</sup> 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 <span class = "smallcaps">ad iulium seruianum</span> (fol. 49, l.
+12), and then erased the final <span class = "smallcaps">um</span> and
+put a point after <span class = "smallcaps">seruian</span>.</p>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<h3><a name = "history">THE DATE AND LATER HISTORY OF THE
+MANUSCRIPT.</a></h3>
+
+<p>Our manuscript was written in Italy at the end of the fifth or more
+probably at the beginning of the sixth century.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_1">On the dating of uncial manuscripts</a>
+</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>The history of uncial writing still remains to be written. The chief
+value of excellent works like Chatelain’s <i>Uncialis Scriptura</i> or
+Zangemeister and Wattenbach’s <i>Exempla Codicum Latinorum Litteris
+Maiusculis Scriptorum</i> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">14</span>
+<a name = "page_14"> </a>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>A scientific classification, however, can rest only on objective
+criteria&mdash;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&mdash;the oldest manuscript with
+a <i>precise</i> date known to me being the manuscript of St. Augustine
+written in the Abbey of Luxeuil in A.D. 669.<a name = "tagI_26" href =
+"#noteI_26"><sup>26</sup></a> 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
+<i>terminus ante quem</i> or <i>post quem</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>The Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels, mentioned above, is our first
+landmark of importance.<a name = "tagI_27" href =
+"#noteI_27"><sup>27</sup></a> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">15</span>
+<a name = "page_15"> </a>
+the manuscript was written before A.D. 546. We may surmise&mdash;and I
+think correctly&mdash;that it was shortly before 546, if not in that
+very year. In any case the Codex Fuldensis furnishes a precise
+<i>terminus ante quem</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragment
+containing a computation for finding the correct date for Easter
+Sunday.<a name = "tagI_28" href = "#noteI_28"><sup>28</sup></a> Internal
+evidence makes it clear that this <i>Computus Paschalis</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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&mdash;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:</p>
+
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/fig_15.png" width = "510" height = "50" alt =
+"dates of Berlin and Fulda MSS" title = "dates of Berlin and Fulda MSS">
+</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>De Re Publica</i>
+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 <i>Chronicle</i> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">16</span>
+<a name = "page_16"> </a>
+one that the Bodleian manuscript can not have been written much after
+the date of its archetype, which is A.D. 442.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_2">Dated uncial manuscripts</a>
+</span>
+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:<a name = "tagI_29" href =
+"#noteI_29"><sup>29</sup></a></p>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ca. a. 371</span>
+1. Codex Vercellensis of the Gospels (a).
+</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">post a. 442</span>
+2. Bodleian Manuscript (Auct. T. 2. 26) of Jerome’s translation of the
+Chronicle of Eusebius (older portion).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 164; J.&nbsp;K. Fotheringham,
+<i>The Bodleian manuscript of
+Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius reproduced in
+collotype</i>, Oxford 1905, pp. 25-6; Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 17; also
+Schwartz in <i>Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift</i>, XXVI (1906), c.
+746.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ca. a. 447</span>
+3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 4º. 298).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 13; Th. Mommsen, “Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre 447” in
+<i>Abhandl. der Berliner Akad. aus dem Jahre 1862</i>, Berlin 1863, pp.
+539 sqq.; “Liber Paschalis Codicis Cicensis A. CCCCXLVII” in
+<i>Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi</i>, IX, 1, pp.
+502 sqq.; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXIII.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ante a. 546</span>
+4. Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F), Fulda MS. Bonifat. 1, read by
+Bishop Victor of Capua.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 47; E. Ranke, <i>Codex Fuldensis, Novum Testamentum
+Latine interprete Hieronymo ex manuscripto Victoris Capuani</i>, Marburg
+and Leipsic 1868; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXIV;
+Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 21a.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 438-ca. 550</span>
+5. Codex Theodosianus (Turin, MS. A. II. 2).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 311; idem, “Enarratio tabularum” in <i>Theodosiani
+libri</i> XVI edited by Th. Mommsen and P.&nbsp;M. Meyer, Berlin 1905;
+Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pls. XXV-XXVIII; C. Cipolla, <i>Codici
+Bobbiesi</i>, pls. VII, VIII. See also <i>Oxyrh. Papyri</i> XV (1922),
+No. 1813, pl. 1.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 600-666</span>
+6. The Toulouse Manuscript (No. 364) and Paris MS. lat. 8901, containing
+Canons, written at Albi.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 304; F. Schulte, “Iter Gallicum” in
+<i>Sitzungsberichte der K. Akad. der Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl.</i> LIX
+(1868), p. 422, facs. 5; C.&nbsp;H. Turner,
+“Chapters in the history of Latin
+manuscripts: II. A group of manuscripts of Canons at Toulouse, Albi and
+Paris” in <i>Journal of Theological Studies</i>, II (1901), pp. 266
+sqq.; and Traube’s descriptions in A.&nbsp;E. Burn, <i>Facsimiles of the
+Creeds from Early Manuscripts</i> (=&nbsp;vol. XXXVI of the publications
+of the Henry Bradshaw Society).</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 669</span>
+7. The Morgan Manuscript of St. Augustine’s Homilies, written in the
+Abbey of Luxeuil. Later at Beauvais and Chateau de Troussures.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No 307; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit de l’abbaye
+de Luxeuil copié en 625” in <i>Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la
+bibliothèque nationale</i>, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149 sqq.; J. Havet,
+“Questions mérovingiennes: III. La date d’un manuscrit de Luxeuil” in
+<i>Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes</i>, XLVI (1885), pp. 429
+sqq.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 699</span>
+8. The Berne Manuscript (No. 219B) of Jerome’s translation of the
+Chronicle of Eusebius, written in France, possibly at Fleury.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 16; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LIX;
+J.&nbsp;R. Sinner,
+<i>Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bernensis</i> (Berne
+1760), pp. 64-7; A. Schone, <i>Eusebii chronicorum libri duo</i>, vol.
+II (Berlin 1866), p. XXVII; J.&nbsp;K. Fotheringham, <i>The Bodleian
+manuscript of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius</i> (Oxford
+1905), p. 4.</div>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">17</span>
+<a name = "page_17"> </a>
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 695-711</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 27; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit mérovingien
+de Saint-Médard de Soissons” in <i>Revue archéologique</i>, 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
+<i>Notices et extraits des manuscrits</i>, etc., XXXI. 1 (1884), pp.
+33-47, pls. 1, 2, 4; J. Van den Ghejn, <i>Catalogue des manuscrits de la
+Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique</i>, II (1902), pp. 224-6.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ante a. 716</span>
+10. Codex Amiatinus of the Bible (Florence Laur. Am. 1) written in
+England.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 44: Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXV;
+Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 21b; E.&nbsp;H. Zimmermann,
+<i>Vorkarolingische Miniaturen</i> (Berlin 1916), pl. 222;
+but particularly G.&nbsp;B. de Rossi,
+<i>La biblia offerta da Ceolfrido abbate al sepolcro di S. Pietro,
+codice antichissimo tra i superstiti delle biblioteche della sede
+apostolica</i>&mdash;Al Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII, omaggio giubilare
+della biblioteca Vaticana, Rome 1888, No. v.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 719</span>
+11. The Treves Prosper (MS. 36, olim S. Matthaei).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 306; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XLIX; M. Keuffer,
+<i>Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu
+Trier</i>, I (1888), pp. 38 sqq.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ca. a. 750</span>
+12. The Milan Manuscript (Ambros. B. 159 sup.) of Gregory’s Moralia,
+written at Bobbio in the abbacy of Anastasius.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 102; <i>Palaeographical Society</i>,
+pl. 121; E.&nbsp;H. Zimmermann, <i>Vorkarolingische Miniaturen</i>
+(Berlin 1916), pl. 14-16, Text, pp. 10, 41, 152; A. Reifferscheid,
+<i>Bibliotheca patrum latinorum italica</i>, II, 38 sq.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">ante a. 752</span>
+13. The Bodleian Acts of the Apostles (MS. Selden supra 30) written in
+the Isle of Thanet.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 165; Smith’s <i>Dictionary of the Bible</i>, IV (New
+York 1876) 3458 b; S. Berger, <i>Histoire de la Vulgate</i> (Paris
+1893), p. 44; Wordsworth and White, <i>Novum Testamentum</i>, II (1905),
+p. vii.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 754</span>
+14. The Autun Manuscript (No. 3) of the Gospels, written at
+Vosevium.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 3; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LXI;
+Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 37.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">a. 739-760</span>
+15. Codex Beneventanus of the Gospels (London Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 5463)
+written at Benevento.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 88; <i>Palaeographical Society</i>, pl. 236;
+<i>Catalogue of the Ancient Manuscripts in the British Museum</i>, II,
+pl. 7.</div>
+
+<p><span class = "rightdate">post a. 787</span>
+16. The Lucca Manuscript (No. 490) of the Liber Pontificalis.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 92; J.&nbsp;D. Mansi,
+“De insigni codice Caroli Magni aetate
+scripto” in <i>Raccolta di opuscoli scientifici e filologici</i>, T. XLV
+(Venice 1751), ed. A. Calogiera, pp. 78-80; Th. Mommsen, <i>Gesta
+pontificum romanorum</i>, I (1899) in <i>Monumenta Germaniae
+Historica</i>; Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 48.</div>
+
+<p>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 <i>De Re Publica</i>, with products like the Berlin <i>Computus
+Paschalis</i> or the Bodleian <i>Chronicle</i> 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_3">Oldest group of uncial manuscripts</a>
+</span>
+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:</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">18</span>
+<a name = "page_18"> </a>
+<h4>A. Of Classical Authors.</h4>
+
+<p>1. Rome, Vatic. lat. 5757.&mdash;Cicero, De Re Publica,
+palimpsest.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 269-70; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVII; E.
+Chatelain, <i>Paléographie des classiques latins</i>, pl. XXXIX, 2;
+<i>Palaeographical Society</i>, pl. 160; Steffens<sup>2</sup>, pl. 15.
+For a complete facsimile edition of the manuscript see <i>Codices e
+Vaticanis selecti phototypice expressi</i>, Vol. II, Milan 1907;
+Ehrle-Liebaert, <i>Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum</i> (Bonn
+1912), pl. 4.</div>
+
+<p>2. Rome, Vatic. lat. 5750 + Milan, Ambros. E. 147 sup.&mdash;Scholia
+Bobiensia in Ciceronem, palimpsest.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 265-68; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXI;
+<i>Palaeographical Society</i>, pl. 112; complete facsimile edition in
+<i>Codices e Vaticanis selecti</i>, etc., Vol. VII, Milan 1906;
+Ehrle-Liebaert, <i>Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum</i>, pl.
+5a.</div>
+
+<p>3. Vienna, 15.&mdash;Livy, fifth decade (five books).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 359; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVIII; E. Chatelain,
+<i>Paléographie des classiques latins</i>, pl. CXX; complete facsimile
+edition in <i>Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti</i>, Tom.
+IX, Leyden 1907.</div>
+
+<p>4. Paris, lat. 5730.&mdash;Livy, third decade.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 183; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XIX;
+<i>Paleographical Society</i>, pls. 31 and 32; E. Chatelain,
+<i>Paléographie des classiques latins</i>, pl. CXVI; <i>Réproductions
+des manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliothèque Nationale</i>, ed. H.
+Omont, Vol. I, Paris 1907.</div>
+
+<p>5. Verona, XL (38).&mdash;Livy, first decade, 6 palimpsest
+leaves.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 349-50. Th. Mommsen, <i>Analecta Liviana</i>, Leipsic
+1873; E. Chatelain, <i>Paléographie des classiques latins</i>, pl.
+CVI.</div>
+
+<p>6. Rome, Vatic. lat. 10696.&mdash;Livy, fourth decade, Lateran
+fragments.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 277; M. Vattasso, “Frammenti d’un Livio del V. secolo
+recentemente scoperti, Codice Vaticano Latino 10696” in <i>Studi e
+Testi</i>, Vol. XVIII, Rome 1906; Ehrle-Liebaert, <i>Specimina codicum
+latinorum Vaticanorum</i>, pl. 5b.</div>
+
+<p>7. Bamberg, Class. 35<i>a</i>.&mdash;Livy, fourth decade,
+fragments.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 7; idem, “Palaeographische Forschungen IV, Bamberger
+Fragmente der vierten Dekade des Livius” in <i>Abhandlungen der
+Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften</i>, III Klasse, XXIV
+Band, I Abteilung, Munich 1904.</div>
+
+<p>8. Vienna, lat. 1<i>a</i>.&mdash;Pliny, Historia Naturalis,
+fragments.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 357; E. Chatelain, <i>Paléographie des classiques
+latins</i>, pl. CXXXVII, 1.</div>
+
+<p>9. St. Paul in Carinthia, XXV a 3.&mdash;Pliny, Historia Naturalis,
+palimpsest.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 231; E. Chatelain, ibid. pl. CXXXVI. Chatelain cites
+the manuscript under the press-mark XXV 2/67.</div>
+
+<p>10. Turin, A. II. 2.&mdash;Theodosian Codex, fragments,
+palimpsest.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 311; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXV; Cipolla,
+<i>Codici Bobbiesi</i>, pl. VII.</div>
+
+
+<h4>B. Of Christian Authors.</h4>
+
+<p>1. Vercelli, Cathedral Library.&mdash;Gospels (<i>a</i>) ascribed to
+Bishop Eusebius (†371).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX.</div>
+
+<p>2. Paris, lat. 17225.&mdash;Corbie Gospels (ff<sup>2</sup>).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 214; <i>Palaeographical Society</i>, pl. 87; E.
+Chatelain, <i>Uncialis scriptura</i>, pl. II; Reusens, <i>Éléments de
+paléographie</i>, pl. III, Louvain 1899.</div>
+
+<p>3. Constance-Weingarten Biblical fragments.&mdash;Prophets, fragments
+scattered in the libraries of Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Fulda, and St. Paul
+in Carinthia.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 302; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXI; complete
+facsimile reproduction of the fragments in <i>Codices graeci et latini
+photographice depicti</i>, Supplementum IX, Leyden 1912, with
+introduction by P. Lehmann.</div>
+
+<p>4. Berlin, lat. 4º. 298.&mdash;Computus Paschalis of ca. a. 447.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 13; see above, <a href = "#page_16">p. 16</a>,
+no. 3.</div>
+
+<p>5. Turin, G. VII. 15.&mdash;Bobbio Gospels (k).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 324; <i>Old Latin Biblical Texts</i>, vol. II, Oxford
+1886; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, C. Frati, <i>Monumenta Palaeographica
+sacra</i>, pl. V, 2; R. Beer, “<ins class = "correction"
+title = "text reads 'uber den altesten'">Über den Ältesten</ins>
+Handschriftenbestand
+des Klosters Bobbio” in <i>Anzeiger der Kais. Akad. der Wiss. in
+Wien</i>, 1911, No. XI, pp. 91 sqq.; C. Cipolla, <i>Codici Bobbiesi</i>,
+pls. XIV-XV; complete facsimile reproduction of the manuscript, with
+preface by C. Cipolla: <i>Il codice Evangelico </i>k<i> della Biblioteca
+Universitaria Nazionale di Torino</i>, Turin 1913.</div>
+
+<p>6. Turin, F. IV. 27 + Milan, D. 519. inf. + Rome, Vatic. lat.
+10959.&mdash;Cyprian, Epistolae, fragments.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 320; E. Chatelain, <i>Uncialis scriptura</i>, pl. IV,
+2; C. Cipolla, <i>Codici Bobbiesi</i>, pl. XIII; Ehrle-Liebaert,
+<i>Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum</i>, pl. 5d.</div>
+
+<p>7. Turin, G. V. 37.&mdash;Cyprian, de opere et eleemosynis.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 323; Carta, Cipolla e Frati, <i>Monumenta
+palaeographica sacra</i>, pl. V, 1; Cipolla, <i>Codici Bobbiesi</i>, pl.
+XII.</div>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">19</span>
+<a name = "page_19"> </a>
+<p>8. Oxford, Bodleian Auct. T. 2. 26.&mdash;Eusebius-Hieronymus,
+Chronicle, post a. 442.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 164; see above, <a href = "#page_16">p. 16</a>,
+no. 2.</div>
+
+<p>9. Petrograd Q. v. I. 3 (Corbie).&mdash;Varia of St. Augustine.</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 140; E. Chatelain, <i>Uncialis scriptura</i>, pl. III;
+A. Staerk, <i>Les manuscrits latins du V<sup>e</sup> au XIII<sup>e</sup>
+siècle <ins class = "correction" title =
+"text omits accent">conservés</ins> à la bibliothèque impériale de Saint
+Petersburg</i> (St. Petersburg 1910), Vol. II. pl. 2.</div>
+
+<p>10. St. Gall, 1394.&mdash;Gospels (n).</p>
+
+<div class = "biblio">
+Traube, l.c., No. 60; <i>Old Latin Biblical Texts</i>, Vol. II, Oxford
+1886; <i>Palaeographical Society</i>, II. pl. 50; Steffens<sup>1</sup>,
+pl. 15; E. Chatelain, <i>Uncialis scriptura</i>, pl. I, 1; A. Chroust,
+<i>Monumenta Palaeographica</i>, XVII, pl. 3.</div>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_4">Characteristics of the oldest uncial
+manuscripts</a>
+</span>
+The main characteristics of the manuscripts included in the above list,
+which is by no means complete, may briefly be described thus:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+1. General effect of compactness. This is the result of <i>scriptura
+continua</i>, which knows no separation of words and no punctuation. See
+the facsimiles cited above.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+2. Precision in the mode of shading. The alternation of stressed and
+unstressed strokes is very regular. The two arcs of <img src =
+"images/ltr_19a.png" width = "15" height = "15" alt = "uncial O"
+title = "uncial 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 <img src = "images/ltr_19a.png" width = "15" height = "15"
+alt = "uncial O" title = "uncial O">. What is true of the
+<img src = "images/ltr_19a.png" width = "15" height = "15"
+alt = "uncial O" title = "uncial 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.<a name = "tagI_30" href =
+"#noteI_30"><sup>30</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+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 <img src =
+"images/ltr_19b.png" width = "75" height = "26" alt = "uncial H L P Q"
+title = "uncial H L P Q">
+projecting but slightly beyond the head and base lines.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+4. The broadness of the letters <img src = "images/ltr_19c.png" width =
+"116" height = "22" alt = "uncial M N U" title = "uncial M N U"></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+5. The relative narrowness of the letters <img src =
+"images/ltr_19d.png" width = "78" height = "24" alt = "uncial F L P S T"
+title = "uncial F L P S
+T"></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+6. The manner of forming <img src = "images/ltr_19e.png" width = "172"
+height = "23" alt = "uncial B E L M N P S T"
+title = "uncial B E L M N P S T"></p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>B</i> with the lower bow considerably larger than the upper, which
+often has the form of a mere comma.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>E</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>L</i> with very small base.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>M</i> with the initial stroke tending to be a straight line instead
+of the well-rounded bow of later uncials.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>N</i> with the oblique connecting stroke shaded.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>P</i> with the loop very small and often open.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>S</i> with a rather longish form and shallow curves, as compared with
+the broad form and ample curves of later uncials.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>T</i> 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).</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+7. Extreme fineness of parchment, at least in parts of the
+manuscript.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+<span class = "pagenum">20</span>
+<a name = "page_20"> </a>
+8. Perforation of parchment along furrows made by the pen.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+9. Quires signed by means of roman numerals often preceded by the letter
+<i>Q·</i> (=&nbsp;Quaternio) in the lower right corner of the last page
+of each gathering.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+10. Running titles, in abbreviated form, usually in smaller uncials than
+the text.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+11. Colophons, in which red and black ink alternate, usually in
+large-sized uncials.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+12. Use of a capital, <i>i.e.</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+13. Lack of all but the simplest ornamentation, <i>e.g.</i>, scroll or
+ivy-leaf.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+14. The restricted use of abbreviations. Besides B· and Q· and such
+suspensions as occur in classical inscriptions only the contracted forms
+of the <i>Nomina Sacra</i> are found.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+15. Omission of <i>M</i> and <i>N</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+16. Absence of nearly all punctuation.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+17. The use of <img src = "images/mark_20a.png" width = "31" height =
+"25" alt = "'infra' symbol" title = "'infra'"> in the text where an
+omission has occurred, and <img src = "images/mark_20b.png" width = "28"
+height = "21" alt = "'supra' symbol" title = "'supra' symbol">
+<i>after</i> the supplied omission in the lower margin, or the same
+symbols reversed if the supplement is entered in the upper margin.</p>
+
+<p>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 <img src = "images/ltr_20a.png" width = "115"
+height = "20" alt = "uncial B E M R S T" title = "uncial B E M R S T">
+differs from that employed in the oldest group.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>B</i> with the lower bow not so markedly larger than the upper.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>E</i> with the horizontal stroke placed nearer the middle.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>M</i> with the left bow tending to become a distinct curve.</p>
+
+<p class = "hanging2">
+<i>R S T</i> have gained in breadth and proportionately lost in
+height.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_5">Date of the Morgan manuscript</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>Computus Paschalis</i> 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 <i>Codex Theodosianus</i> 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.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">21</span>
+<a name = "page_21"> </a>
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_6">Later history of the Morgan manuscript</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>probatio pennae</i> or casual entry,
+may become important in tracing the wanderings of a manuscript.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The unimportant entry occurs in the lower margin of folio
+53<sup>r</sup>. The words “<i>uir erat in terra</i>,” 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.<a name = "tagI_31" href = "#noteI_31"><sup>31</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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. 51<sup>r</sup> and doubtless represents a <i>probatio pennae</i> on
+the part of a notary. It runs thus:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“A tous ceulz qui ces p<i>rese</i>ntes l<i>ett</i>res verront et
+orront<br>
+Jeh<i>an</i> de Sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de<br>
+Meaulx &amp; Francois Beloy clerc Jure de p<i>ar</i> le Roy<br>
+nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que p<i>ar</i>.”
+</p>
+
+<p>The above note is made in the regular French notarial hand of the
+fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.<a name = "tagI_32" href =
+"#noteI_32"><sup>32</sup></a> 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 <i>provosté</i> of Meaux, and François Beloy,
+sworn clerk in behalf of the King, have so far proved fruitless.<a name
+= "tagI_33" href = "#noteI_33"><sup>33</sup></a></p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "hist_7">Conclusion</a>
+</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>So it is France that has saved this, the oldest extant witness of
+Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>,
+<span class = "pagenum">22</span>
+<a name = "page_22"> </a>
+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 <i>Histories</i> 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 <i>Codex Theodosianus</i>. It was again some
+French centre that rescued Pomponius Mela from destruction. The oldest
+fragments of Ovid’s <i>Pontica</i>, the oldest fragments of the first
+decade of Livy, the oldest manuscript of Pliny’s <i>Natural
+History</i>&mdash;all palimpsests&mdash;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&mdash;to mention only the
+greatest names&mdash;shows that we are indebted primarily to Gallia
+Christiana for the preservation of these authors.</p>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<h4><a name = "notes_I">Notes to Part I</a></h4>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">4</span>
+<a name = "page_4_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_1" href = "#tagI_1">1.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_2" href = "#tagI_2">2.</a>
+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.&nbsp;R. Gregory, “Les cahiers
+des manuscrits grecs” in <i>Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des
+Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres</i> (1885), p. 261. I am informed by
+Professor Hyvernat, of the Catholic University of Washington, that the
+same custom is observed by Coptic scribes.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">5</span>
+<a name = "page_5_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_3" href = "#tagI_3">3.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">6</span>
+<a name = "page_6_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_4" href = "#tagI_4">4.</a>
+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,
+<i>e.g.</i>, the Codex Vindobonensis of Livy, the Codex Bobiensis of the
+Gospels, or the manuscript of Pliny’s <i>Natural History</i> preserved
+at St. Paul in Carinthia.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_5" href = "#tagI_5">5.</a>
+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.
+2<sup>o</sup> 416 and Rome Vatic. lat. 3256 reproduced in Zangemeister
+and Wattenbach’s <i>Exempla Codicum Latinorum</i>, etc., pl. 14, and in
+Steffens, <i>Lateinische Paläographie</i><sup>2</sup>, 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 <i>De Re Publica</i> and in other manuscripts.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_6" href = "#tagI_6">6.</a>
+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, <i>C. Plini Secundi
+Naturalis Historiae</i>, Libri XXXVI, Vol. VI, Gotha 1855, and
+Chatelain, <i>Paléographie des Classiques Latins</i>, pl. CXXXVI.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">7</span>
+<a name = "page_7_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_7" href = "#tagI_7">7.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_8" href = "#tagI_8">8.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_9" href = "#tagI_9">9.</a>
+The strokes over the two consecutive <i>i</i>’s on fol. 53<sup>v</sup>,
+l. 23, were made by a hand that can hardly be older than the thirteenth
+century.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_10" href = "#tagI_10">10.</a>
+I venture to read <i>dominus meus ... in te deus</i>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_11" href = "#tagI_11">11.</a>
+This doubtless stands for <i>Quaere</i> (=&nbsp;“investigate”), a
+frequent marginal note in manuscripts of all ages. A number of instances
+of <i>Q</i> for <i>quaere</i> are given by A.&nbsp;C. Clark,
+<i>The Descent of Manuscripts</i>, Oxford 1918, p. 35.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">8</span>
+<a name = "page_8_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_12" href = "#tagI_12">12.</a>
+Such a division as <i>ut</i>|<i>or</i> on fol. 7, l. 10, is due entirely
+to thoughtless copying. The scribe probably took <i>ut</i> for a word.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_13" href = "#tagI_13">13.</a>
+For further details on syllabification in our oldest Latin manuscripts,
+see Th. Mommsen, “Livii Codex Veronensis,” in <i>Abhandlungen der k.
+Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, phil. hist. Cl.</i> (1868), p. 163, n. 2, and
+pp. 165-6; Mommsen-Studemund, <i>Analecta Liviana</i> (Leipsic 1873), p.
+3; Brandt, “Der St. Galler Palimpsest,” in <i>Sitzungsberichte der phil.
+hist. Cl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien</i>, CVIII (1885), pp. 245-6;
+L. Traube, “Palaeographische Forschungen IV,” in <i>Abhandlungen d. h.
+t. Cl. d. k. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss.</i> XXIV. 1 (1906), p. 27; A.&nbsp;W.
+Van Buren, “The Palimpsest of Cicero’s <i>De Re Publica</i>,” in
+<i>Archaeological Institute of America, Supplementary Papers of the
+American School of Classical Studies in Rome</i>, 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, <i>Codices graeci et
+latini</i>, etc., T. XI. See also W.&nbsp;G. Hale,
+“Syllabification in Roman
+speech,” in <i>Harvard Studies of Classical Philology</i>, VII (1896),
+pp. 249-71, and W. Dennison, “Syllabification in Latin Inscriptions,” in
+<i>Classical Philology</i>, I (1906), pp. 47-68.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">10</span>
+<a name = "page_10_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_14" href = "#tagI_14">14.</a>
+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” (<i>deus</i>, <i>dominus</i>, <i>Iesus</i>,
+<i>Christus</i>, <i>spiritus</i>, <i>sanctus</i>), 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, <i>Gaii Institutionum
+Commentarii Quattuor</i>, etc., Leipsic 1874; and F. Steffens,
+<i>Lateinische Paläographie<sup>2</sup></i>, 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.&nbsp;M. Lindsay, <i>Notae Latinae</i>,
+Cambridge 1915, pp. 1-2.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_15" href = "#tagI_15">15.</a>
+Found only at the end of words in our fragment. Its use in the body of a
+word is, however, very ancient.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_16" href = "#tagI_16">16.</a>
+The <i>C</i> invariably has the two dots as well as the superior
+horizontal stroke.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_17" href = "#tagI_17">17.</a>
+The abbreviation is indicated by a stroke above the letters as well as
+by a dot after them.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">11</span>
+<a name = "page_11_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_18" href = "#tagI_18">18.</a>
+An ancestor of our manuscript must have had <span class =
+"smallcaps">tranq</span>·, which was wrongly expanded to <span class =
+"smallcaps">tranque</span>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_19" href = "#tagI_19">19.</a>
+This is a sign of antiquity. After the sixth century the <i>M</i> or
+<i>N</i>stroke is usually placed above the vowel. The practice of
+confining the omission of <i>M</i> or <i>N</i> to the end of a line is a
+characteristic of our very oldest manuscripts. Later manuscripts omit
+<i>M</i> or <i>N</i> in the middle of a line and in the middle of a
+word. No distinction is made in our manuscript between omitted <i>M</i>
+and omitted <i>N</i>. Some ancient manuscripts make a distinction. Cf.
+Traube, <i>Nomina Sacra</i>, pp. 179, 181, 183, 185, final column of
+each page; and W.&nbsp;M. Lindsay, <i>Notae Latinae</i>,
+pp. 342 and 345.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_20" href = "#tagI_20">20.</a>
+The fraudulent character of the alleged discovery was exposed in
+masterly fashion by Ludwig Traube in his “Palaeographische Forschungen
+IV,” published in the <i>Abhandlungen der K. Bayerischen Akademie der
+Wissenschaften</i>, III Klasse, XXIV Band, 1 Abteilung, Munich 1904.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_21" href = "#tagI_21">21.</a>
+Cf. E.&nbsp;T. Merrill, “On the use by Aldus of his manuscripts of
+Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>,” in <i>Classical Philology</i>, XIV (1919),
+p. 34.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_22" href = "#tagI_22">22.</a>
+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
+<i>Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti</i>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">12</span>
+<a name = "page_12_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_23" href = "#tagI_23">23.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_24" href = "#tagI_24">24.</a>
+On the subject of omissions and the clues they often furnish, see the
+exhaustive treatise by A.&nbsp;C. Clark entitled <i>The Descent of
+Manuscripts</i>, Oxford 1918.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">13</span>
+<a name = "page_13_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_25" href = "#tagI_25">25.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">14</span>
+<a name = "page_14_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_26" href = "#tagI_26">26.</a>
+See below, <a href = "#page_16">p. 16</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_27" href = "#tagI_27">27.</a>
+See below, <a href = "#page_16">p. 16</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">15</span>
+<a name = "page_15_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_28" href = "#tagI_28">28.</a>
+See below, <a href = "#page_16">p. 16</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">16</span>
+<a name = "page_16_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_29" href = "#tagI_29">29.</a>
+For the pertinent literature on the manuscripts in the following list
+the student is referred to Traube’s <i>Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen</i>,
+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, <i>Exempla codicum latinorum litteris maiusculis
+scriptorum</i>, Heidelberg 1876 &amp; 1879; E. Chatelain,
+<i>Paléographie des classiques latins</i>, Paris 1884-1900, and
+<i>Uncialis scriptura codicum latinorum novis exemplis illustrata</i>,
+Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, <i>Lateinische <ins class = "correction"
+title = "text omits umlaut">Paläographie</ins><sup>2</sup></i>, Treves
+1907. (Second edition in French appeared in 1910.)
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">19</span>
+<a name = "page_19_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_30" href = "#tagI_30">30.</a>
+In later uncials the fore-stroke is often a horizontal hair-line.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">21</span>
+<a name = "page_21_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteI_31" href = "#tagI_31">31.</a>
+This supposition will be strengthened by Professor Rand;
+see <a href = "#page_53">p. 53.</a>
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_32" href = "#tagI_32">32.</a>
+Compare, for example, the facsimile of a French deed of sale at Roye,
+November 24, 1433, reproduced in <i><ins class = "correction" title =
+"text reads 'Receuil'">Recueil</ins> de Fac-similés à l’usage de l’école
+des chartes</i>. Premier fascicule (Paris 1880), No. 1.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteI_33" href = "#tagI_33">33.</a>
+No mention of either of these is to be found in Dom Toussaints du
+Plessis’ <i>Histoire de l’église de Meaux</i>. For documents with
+similar opening formulas, see ibid. vol. ii (Paris 1731), pp. 191, 258,
+269, 273.
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">23</span>
+<a name = "page_23"> </a>
+<h3><a name = "trans">[TRANSCRIPTION]</a>*</h3>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+* The original manuscript is in <i>scriptura continua</i>. For the
+reader’s convenience, words have been separated and punctuation added in
+the transcription.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "mynote">
+In a few places the transcribers used V in place of U.
+This appears to be an error, but has not been changed.
+</div>
+
+<table class = "mscontents" summary = "transcription links">
+<tr>
+<td class = "mscontents">
+<a href = "#trans_48r">folio 48<sup>r</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_49r">folio 49<sup>r</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_50r">folio 50<sup>r</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_51r">folio 51<sup>r</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_52r">folio 52<sup>r</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_53r">folio 53<sup>r</sup></a>
+</td>
+<td class = "mscontents">
+<a href = "#trans_48v">folio 48<sup>v</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_49v">folio 49<sup>v</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_50v">folio 50<sup>v</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_51v">folio 51<sup>v</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_52v">folio 52<sup>v</sup></a><br>
+<a href = "#trans_53v">folio 53<sup>v</sup></a>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<a name = "trans_48r"><span class = "folionum">48<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 48r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>LIBER·II·</h5>
+</td>
+<td>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "firstletter">C</span>ESSIT UT IPSE MIHI DIXERIT CUM
+CO<i>N</i><br>
+SULERET QUAM CITO SESTERTIUM SESCE<i>N</i><br>
+TIES INPLETURUS ESSET INUENISSE SE EX
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+TA DUPLICATA QUIB<i>US</i> PORTENDI MI<sup>L</sup>LIES<sup>1</sup>
+ET<br>
+DUCENTIES HABITURUM ET HABEBIT SI<br>
+MODO UT COEPIT ALIENA TESTAMENTA<br>
+QUOD EST IMPROBISSIMUM GENUS FAL<br>
+SI IPSIS QUORUM SUNT ILLA DICTAUERIT<br>
+UALE
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. <i>L</i> added by a hand which seems contemporary, if not the
+scribe’s own. If the scribe’s, he used a finer pen for corrections.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "mantitle">
+<sup>2</sup>· C · PLINI · SECUNDI
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "mantitle">
+<span class = "redtext">
+EPISTULARUM · EXP<i>LICIT</i> · LIBER · II.</span>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2-2 The colophon is written in rustic capitals, the middle line being in
+red.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "mantitle">
+· INC<i>IPIT</i> · LIB<i>ER</i> · III · FELICITER<sup>2</sup>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">24</span>
+<a name = "page_24"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_48v"><span class = "folionum">48<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 48v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CALUISIUM RUFUM<span class = "fakelink"><sup>1</sup></span></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+NESCIO AN ULLUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD UIBIUM · MAXIMUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+QUOD · IPSE AMICIS TUIS</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. On this and the following page lines in red alternate with lines in
+black. The first line is in red.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE<span class =
+"fakelink"><sup>2</sup></span></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+CUM PATREM TUUM</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. The <i>h</i> seems written over an erasure.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+AD CAE<sup>CI</sup>LIUM<span class = "fakelink"><sup>3</sup></span>
+MACRINUM<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+QUAMUIS ET AMICI</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD BAEBIUM MACRUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+PERGRATUM EST MIHI</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. <i>ci</i> above the line by first hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+<span class = "fakelink"><sup>4</sup></span>AD ANNIUM<span class =
+"fakelink"><sup>4</sup></span> SEUERUM
+</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+<span class = "fakelink"><sup>4</sup></span>EX HEREDITATE<span class =
+"fakelink"><sup>4</sup></span> QUAE<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CANINIUM RUFUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+MODO NUNTIATUS EST</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+4-4 Over an erasure apparently.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD SUETON<span class = "fakelink"><sup>5</sup></span> TRANQUE</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+FACIS AD PRO CETERA</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+5. <i>t</i> over an erasure.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+AD CORNELIUM<span class = "fakelink"><sup>6</sup></span>
+MINICIANUM<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+POSSUM IAM PERSCRIB</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD UESTRIC SPURINN ·</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+COMPOSUISSE ME QUAED</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+6. <i>c</i> over an erasure.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">25</span>
+<a name = "page_25"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_49r"><span class = "folionum">49<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 49r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD IULIUM GENITOR ·</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+EST OMNINO ARTEMIDORI<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CATILINUM SEUER ·</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+UENIAM AD CENAM</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD UOCONIUM ROMANUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+LIBRUM QUO NUPER</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+AD PATILIUM<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+REM ATROCEM</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD SILIUM PROCUL ·</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+PETIS UT LIBELLOS TUOS</div>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "smallcaps">ad nepotem adnotasse uideor fata
+dictaque·</span><span class = "fakelink"><sup>1</sup></span>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD IULIUM SERUIAN ·<span class = "fakelink"><sup>2</sup></span></div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+RECTE OMNIA<br></div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD UIRIUM SEUERUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+OFFICIU CONSULATUS</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CALUISIUM RUFUM ·</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+ADSUMO TE IN CONSILIUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+AD MAESIUM MAXIMUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+MEMINISTINE TE</div>
+<div class = "manlist1">
+AD CORNELIUM PRISCUM</div>
+<div class = "manlist2">
+AUDIO UALERIUM MARTIAL ·</div>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. Added interlineally, in black, by first hand using a finer pen.
+<br>
+2. This is followed by an erasure of the letters <i>um</i> in red.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">26</span>
+<a name = "page_26"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_49v"><span class = "folionum">49<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 49v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· EPISTULARUM ·</h5>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "firstletter">·C·</span>PLINIUS · CALUISIO SUO SALUTEM<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">N</span>ESCIO AN ULLUM IUCUNDIUS TEMPUS<br>
+EXEGERIM QUAM QUO NUPER APUD SPU<br>
+RINNAM FUI ADEO QUIDEM UT NEMINEM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+MAGIS IN SENECTUTE SI MODO SENESCE<br>
+RE DATUM EST AEMULARI UELIM NIHIL<br>
+EST ENIM ILLO UITAE GENERE DISTIN<br>
+CTIUS ME AUTEM UT CERTUS SIDERUM<br>
+CURSUS ITA UITA HOMINUM DISPOSITA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+DELECTAT SENUM PRAESERTIM NAM<br>
+IUUENES ADHUC CONFUSA QUAEDAM<br>
+ET QUASI TURBATA NON INDECENT SE<br>
+NIB<i>US</i> PLACIDA OMNIA ET OR<sup>DI</sup>NATA<sup>1</sup> CON
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+UENIUNT QUIB<i>US</i> INDUSTRIA SER<sup>U</sup>A<sup>1</sup>TURPIS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+AMBITIO EST HANC REGULAM SPURIN<br>
+NA CONSTANTISSIME SERUAT · QUIN ETIA<i>M</i><br>
+PARUA HAEC PARUA · SI NON COTIDIE FIANT<br>
+ORDINE QUODAM ET UELUT ORBE CIRCU<i>M</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. Letters above the line were added by first or contemporary hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+AGIT MANE LECTULO<sup>2</sup> CONTINETUR HORA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+SECUNDA CALCEOS POSCIT AMBULAT MI<br>
+LIA PASSUUM TRIA NEC MINUS ANIMUM<br>
+QUAM CORPUS EXERCET SI ADSUNT AMICI<br>
+HONESTISSIMI SERMONES EXPLICANTUR<br>
+SI NON LIBER LEGITUR INTERDUM ETIAM PRAE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+SENTIB<i>US</i> AMICIS SI TAMEN ILLI NON GRAUA<i>N</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. <i>u</i> corrected to <i>e</i>.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+TUR DEINDE CONSIDIT<sup>3</sup> ET LIBER RURSUS<br>
+AUT SERMO LIBRO POTIOR · MOX UEHICULU<i>M</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. Second <i>i</i> corrected to <i>e</i> (not the regular uncial form)
+apparently by the first or contemporary hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">27</span>
+<a name = "page_27"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_50r"><span class = "folionum">50<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 50r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· LIBER · III ·</h5>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "firstletter">A</span>SCENDIT ADSUMIT UXOREM SINGU<br>
+LARIS EXEMPLI UEL ALIQUEM AMICORUM<br>
+UT ME PROXIME QUAM PULCHRUM ILLUD<br>
+QUAM DULCE SECRETUM QUANTUM IBI A<i>N</i><br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+TIQUITATIS QUAE FACTA QUOS UIROS AU<br>
+DIAS QUIB<i>US</i> PRAECEPTIS IMBUARE QUAMUIS<br>
+ILLE HOC TEMPERAMENTUM MODESTIAE<br>
+SUAE INDIXERIT NE PRAECIPE REUIDEATUR<br>
+PERACTIS SEPTEM MILIB<i>US</i> PASSUUM ITE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+RUM AMBULAT MILLE ITERUM RESIDIT<br>
+UEL SE CUBICULO AC STILO REDDIT SCRI<br>
+BIT ENIM ET QUIDEM UTRAQ<i>UE</i> LINGUA LY<br>
+RICA DOCTISSIMA MIRA ILLIS DULCEDO
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+MIRA SUAUITAS MIRA HILARITAṪİS<sup>1</sup> CUIUS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+GRATIAM CUMULAT SANCTITAṪİS<sup>2</sup> SCRI<br>
+BENTIS UBI HORA BALNEI NUNTIATA EST<br>
+EST AUTEM HIEME NONA · AESTATE OCTA<br>
+UA IN SOLE SI CARET UENTO AMBULAT<br>
+NUDUS DEINDE MOUETUR PILA UEHE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+MENTER ET DIU NAM HOC QUOQ<i>UE</i> EXER<br>
+CITATIONIS GENERE PUGNAT CUM SE<br>
+NECTUTE LOTUS ACCUBAT ET PAULIS<br>
+PER CIBUM DIFFERT INTERIM AUDIT LE<br>
+GENTEM REMISSIUS ALIQUID ET DULCIUS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+PER HOC OMNE TEMPUS LIBERUM EST<br>
+AMICIS UEL EADEM FACERE UEL ALIA
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. The scribe first wrote <i>hilaritatis</i>. To correct the error he or
+a contemporary hand placed dots above the <i>t</i> and <i>i</i> and drew
+a horizontal line through them to indicate that they should be omitted.
+This is the usual method in very old manuscripts.
+<br>
+2. <i>sanctitatis</i> is corrected to <i>sanctitas</i> in the manner
+described in the preceding note.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+SI MALINT ADPON<sup>I</sup>TUR<sup>3</sup> CENA NON MINUS
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. <i>i</i> added above the line, apparently by first hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">28</span>
+<a name = "page_28"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_50v"><span class = "folionum">50<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 50v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· EPISTULARUM ·</h5>
+<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">N</span>ITIDA QUAM FRUGI IN ARGENTO PURO ET
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+ANTIQUO SUNT IN USU ET C<sup>H</sup>ORINTHIA<sup>1</sup> QUIB<i>US</i>
+DE<br>
+LECTATUR ET ADFICITUR FREQUENTER CO<br>
+MOEDIS CENA DISTINGUITUR UT UOLUPTA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+TES QUOQ<i>UE</i> STUDIIS CONDIANTUR SUMIT ALI<br>
+QUID DE NOCTE ET AESTATE NEMI<sup>NI</sup><sup>1</sup> HOC
+LO<i>N</i><br>
+GUM EST TANTA COMITATE CONUIUIUM<br>
+TRAHITUR INDE ILLI POST SEPTIMUM ET<br>
+SEPTUAGENSIMUM ANNUM AURIUM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+OCULORUM UIGOR INTEGER INDE AGILE<br>
+ET UIUIDUM CORPUS SOLAQ<i>UE</i> EX SENEC<br>
+TUTE PRUDENTIA HANC EGO UITAM UO<br>
+TO ET COGITATIONE PRAESUMO INGRES<br>
+SURUS AUIDISSIME UT PRIMUM RATIO AE
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. The letters above the line are additions by the first, or by another
+contemporary, hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+TATIS RECEPTUI CANERE PERMISERIT<sup>2</sup> IN<br>
+TERIM MILLE LABORIB<i>US</i> CONTEROR QUI HO<br>
+RUM MIHI ET SOLACIUM ET EXEMPLUM<br>
+EST IDEM SPURINNA NAM ILLE QUOQ<i>UE</i><br>
+QUOAD HONESTUM FUIT OB<sup>I</sup>IT<sup>1</sup> OFFICIA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+GESSIT MAGISTRATUS PROVINCIAS RE<br>
+XIT MULTOQ<sup><i>UE</i></sup> LABORE HOC OTIUM ME<br>
+RUIT IGITUR EUNDEM MIHI CURSUM EU<i>N</i><br>
+DEM TERMINUM STATUO IDQ<i>UE</i> IAM NUNC<br>
+APUD TE SUBSIGNO UT SI ME LONGIUS SE
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. <i>permiserit</i>: <i>t</i> stands over an erasure, and original
+<i>it</i> seems to be corrected to <i>et</i>, with <i>e</i> having the
+rustic form.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+EUEHI<sup>3</sup> UIDERIS IN IUS UOCES AD HANC EPIS<br>
+TULAM MEAM ET QUIESCERE IUBEAS CUM<br>
+INERTIAE CRIMEN EFFUGERO UAL<i>E</i>·<sup>4</sup>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. The scribe first wrote <i>longius se uehi</i>. The <i>e</i> which
+precedes <i>uehi</i> was added by him when he later corrected the page
+and deleted <i>se</i>.
+<br>
+4. <i>uale</i>: The abbreviation is marked by a stroke above as well as
+by a dot after the word.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">29</span>
+<a name = "page_29"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_51r"><span class = "folionum">51<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 51r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· LIBER · III ·</h5>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td colspan = "2">
+<div class = "verse">
+A tout ceulz qui ces presentes lettres verront et orront</div>
+<div class = "verse">
+Jehan de sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de</div>
+<div class = "verse">
+Meaulx &amp; francois Beloy clerc Jure de par le Roy</div>
+<div class = "verse">
+nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que par.<sup>1</sup></div>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "firstletter">·C̅·</span>PLINIUS · MAXIMO SUO
+SALUT<i>EM</i><br>
+QUOD IPSE AMICIS TUIS OPTULISSEM · SI MI<br>
+HI EADEM MATERIA SUPPETERET ID NUNC<br>
+IURE UIDEOR A TE MEIS PETITURUS ARRIA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+NUS MATURUS ALTINATIUM EST PRINCEPS<br>
+CUM DICO PRINCEPS NON DE FACULTATI<br>
+BUS LOQUOR QUAE ILLI LARGE SUPER<br>
+SUNT SED DE CASTITATE IUSTITIA GRA<br>
+UITATE PRUDENTIA HUIOS EGO CONSI<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+LIO IN NEGOTIIS IUDICIO IN STUDIIS UT<br>
+OR NAM PLURIMUM FIDE PLURIMUM<br>
+VERITATE PLURIMUM INTELLEGENTIA<br>
+PRAESTAT AMAT ME NIHIL POSSUM AR
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. A fifteenth-century addition, see above,
+<a href = "#page_21">p. 21</a>.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+DENTIUS DICERE UT TU KARET AMBITUI<sup>2</sup><br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+IDEO SE IN EQUESTRI GRADU TENUIT CUM<br>
+FACILE POSSIT<sup>3</sup> ASCENDERE ALTISSIMU<i>M</i><br>
+MIHI TAMEN ORNANDUS EXCOLENDUS<br>
+QUE EST ITAQ<i>UE</i> MAGNI AESTIMO DIGNITATI<br>
+EIUS ALIQUID ADSTRUERE INOPINANTIS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+NESCIENTIS IMMO ETIAM FORTASSE<br>
+NOLENTIS ADSTRUERE AUTEM QUOD SIT<br>
+SPLENDIDUM NEC MOLESTUM CUIUS<br>
+GENERIS QUAE PRIMA OCCASIO TIBI CO<i>N</i><br>
+FERAS IN EUM ROGO HABEBIS ME HABE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+BIS IPSUM GRATISSIMUM DEBITOREM<br>
+QUAMUIS ENIM ISTA NON ADPETAT TAM<br>
+GRATE TAMEN EXCIPIT QUAM SI CONCU
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. The scribe originally divided <i>i-deo</i> between two lines. On
+correcting the page he (or a contemporary corrector) cancelled the
+<i>i</i> at the end of the line and added it before the next.
+<br>
+3. <i>i</i> changed to <i>e</i> (not the uncial form) possibly by the
+original hand in correcting.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">30</span>
+<a name = "page_30"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_51v"><span class = "folionum">51<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 51v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· EPISTULARUM ·</h5>
+<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">P</span>ISCAT · UALE<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">·C̅·</span>PLINIUS · CORELLIAE · SALUTEM
+·<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">C</span>UM PATREM TUUM GRAUISSIMUM ET
+SAN<br>
+CTISSIMUM UIRUM SUSPEXERIM MAGIS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+AN AMAUERIM DUBITEM TEQ<i>UE</i> IN MEMO
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+RIAM EIUS ET IN HONOREM TUUM I<sup>U</sup>NU<sup>I</sup>ICE<sup>1</sup>
+DILIGAM CUPIAM NECESSE EST ATQ<i>UE</i> ETIA<i>M</i><br>
+QUANTUM IN ME FUERIT ENITAR UT FILIUS<br>
+TUUS AUO SIMILIS EXSISTAT EQUIDEM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+MALO MATERNO QUAMQ<sup>U</sup>AM<sup>2</sup> ILLI PATER<br>
+NUS ETIAM CLARUS SPECTATUS<sup>Q<i>UE</i></sup><sup>3</sup> CONTIGE<br>
+RIT PATER QUOQ<i>UE</i> ET PATRUUS INLUSTRI LAU<br>
+DE CONSPICUI QUIB<i>US</i> OMNIB<i>US</i> ITA DEMUM<br>
+SIMILIS ADOLESCET SIBI INBUTUS HONES
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. <i>inuice</i>: corrected to <i>unice</i> by cancelling <i>i</i> and
+<i>ui</i> (the cancellation stroke is barely visible) and writing
+<i>u</i> and <i>i</i> above the line. The correction is by a somewhat
+later hand.
+<br>
+2. <i>u</i> above the line is by the first hand.
+<br>
+3. <i>q·</i> above the line is added by a somewhat later hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+TIS ARTIBUS FUERIT QUAS PLURIMUM REFER<sup>4</sup><br>
+ṘȦT<sup>5</sup> A QUO POTISSIMUM ACCIPIAT ADHUC<br>
+ILLUM PUERITIAE RATIO INTRA CONTUBER<br>
+NIUM TUUM TENUIT PRAECEPTORES DOMI
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+4. Final <i>r</i> is added by a somewhat later hand.
+<br>
+5. The dots above <i>ra</i> indicate deletion. The cancellation stroke
+is oblique.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+HABUIT UBI EST ERRORIB<i>US</i> MODICA
+<sup>U</sup>E<sup>L</sup>ST<sup>6</sup> ETIA<i>M</i><br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+NULLA MATERIA IAM STUDIA EIUS EXTRA<br>
+LIMEN CONFERANDA SUNT IAM CIRCUMSPI<br>
+CIENDUS RHETOR LATINUS CUIUS SCHO<br>
+LAE SEUERITAS PUDOR INPRIMIS CASTITAS<br>
+CONSTET ADEST ENIM ADULESCENTI NOS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+TRO CUM CETERIS NATURAE FORTUNAEQ<i>UE</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+6. A somewhat later corrector, possibly contemporary, changed <i>est</i>
+to <i>uel</i> by adding <i>u</i> before <i>e</i> and <i>l</i> above
+<i>s</i> and cancelling both <i>s</i> and <i>t</i>.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+DOTIB<i>US</i> EXIMIA CORPORIS PULC<sup>H</sup>RITUDO<sup>7</sup>
+CUI IN HOC LUBRICO AETATIS NON PRAECEP
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+7. <i>h</i> added above the line by a hand which may be contemporary.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">31</span>
+<a name = "page_31"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_52r"><span class = "folionum">52<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 52r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· LIBER · III ·</h5>
+<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">T</span>OR MODO SED CUSTOS ETIAM
+RECTORQ<i>UE</i><br>
+QUAERENDUS EST UIDEOR ERGO DEMON
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+STRARE TIBI POSSE IULIUM GEN<sup>I</sup>TIOREM<sup>1</sup>
+AM<sup>N</sup>ATUR<sup>2</sup> A ME I<sup>U</sup>DICIO<sup>3</sup> TAMEN
+MEO NON<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+OBSTAT KARITAS HOMINIS QUAE <sup>EX</sup><sup>4</sup>IUDI<br>
+CIO NATA EST UIR EST EMENDATUS ET GRA<br>
+UIS PAULO ETIAM HORRIDIOR ET DURIOR<br>
+UT IN HAC LICENTIA TEMPORUM QUAN<br>
+TUM ELOQUENTIA UALEAT PLURIB<i>US</i> CRE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+DERE POTES NAM DICENDI FACULTAS<br>
+APERTA ET EXPOSITA · STATIM CERNITUR<br>
+UITA HOMINUM ALTOS RECESSUS MAG<br>
+NASQ<i>UE</i> LATEBRAS HABET CUIUS PRO GE<br>
+NITORE ME SPONSOREM ACCIPE NIHIL<br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+EX HOC UIRO FILIUS TUUS AUDIET NISI
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. The scribe wrote <i>gentiorem</i>: a somewhat later corrector changed
+it to <i>genitorem</i> by adding an <i>i</i> above the line between
+<i>n</i> and <i>t</i> and cancelled the <i>i</i> after <i>t</i>.
+<br>
+2. Above the <i>m</i> a somewhat later hand wrote <i>n</i>. It was
+cancelled by a crude modern hand using lead.
+<br>
+3. <i>u</i> added above the line by the later hand.
+<br>
+4. <i>ex</i> added above the line by the later corrector.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+PROFUTURUM NIHIL DISCET QUOD NESCIS<sup>5</sup>
+SE RECTIUS FUERIT NE<sup>C</sup><sup>6</sup> MINUS SAEPE AB<br>
+ILLO QUAM A TE MEQUE ADMONEBITUR<br>
+QUIB<i>US</i> IMAGINIB<i>US</i> ONERETUR QUAE NOMI<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+NA ET QUANTA SUSTINEAT PROINDE FAUE<i>N</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+5. <i>cis</i> is added in the margin by the later hand. The original
+scribe wrote <i>nes</i> | <i>se</i>.
+<br>
+6. <i>c</i> is added above the line by the later hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+TIBUS DIIS TRADE <sup>E</sup>UM<sup>7</sup> PRAECEPTORI A<br>
+QUO MORES PRIMUM MOX ELOQUENTIA<i>M</i><br>
+DISCAT QUAE MALE SINE MORIBUS DIS<br>
+CITUR UALE<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+<span class = "firstletter">·C·</span> PLINIUS MACRINO SALUTEM<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">Q</span>UAMUIS ET AMICI QUOS PRAESENTES<br>
+HABEBAM ET SERMONES HOMINUM
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+7. <i>e</i> added above the line.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">32</span>
+<a name = "page_32"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_52v"><span class = "folionum">52<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 52v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· EPISTULARUM ·</h5>
+<br>
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "firstletter">F</span>ACTUM MEUM COMPROUASSE UIDEAN<br>
+TUR MAGNI TAMEN AESTIMO SCIRE QUID<br>
+SENTIAS TU NAM CUIUS INTEGRA RE CON
+SILIUM EXQUIRERE O<sup>P</sup>TASSEM<sup>1</sup> HUIUS ETIA<i>M</i><br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+PERACTA IUDICIȦUM<sup>2</sup> NOSSE MIRE CONCU<br>
+PISCO CUM PUBLICUM OPUS MEA PECU
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. <i>p</i> added above the line by the scribe.
+<br>
+2. The superfluous <i>a</i> is cancelled by means of a dot above the
+letter.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript" colspan = "2">
+NIA INCHOATURUS IN TUSCOS EXCUCURIS<span class = "smallcaps">se<i>m</i>
+ac</span>
+<div class = "erasure">
+<span class = "smallcaps">aefectus aerari</span></div>
+<span class = "smallcaps">cepto ut pr</span> COMMEATU<sup>3</sup> LEGATI
+PROVINCIAE
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+BAETICAE QUESTURI DE PROCONSULATUṠ<sup>4</sup><br>
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+CAECILII CLASSICI ADVOCATUM ME A SE<br>
+NATU PETIERUNT COLLEGAE OPTIMI MEIQ<i>UE</i><br>
+AMANTISSIMI DE COMMUNIS OFFICII NE<br>
+CESSITATIB<i>US</i> PRAELOCUTI EXCUSARE<br>
+ME ET EXIMERE TEMPTARUNT FACTUM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+ṪU̇Ṁ<sup>5</sup> EST SENATUS CONSULTUM PERQUAM<br>
+HONORIFICUM UT DARE<sup>R</sup><sup>6</sup> PROVINCIALIB<i>US</i><br>
+PATRONUS SI AB IPSO ME IMPETRASSENT<br>
+LEGATI RURSUS INDUCTI ITERUM ME IA<i>M</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. The scribe originally wrote <i>excucuris | sem commeatu</i>, omitting
+<i>accepto ut praefectus aerari</i>. Noticing his error, he erased
+<i>sem</i> and wrote it at the end of the preceding line, and added the
+omitted words over the erasure and the word <i>commeatu</i>.
+<br>
+4. The dot over <i>s</i> indicates deletion.
+<br>
+5. <i>tum</i>: error due to diplography. The correction is made by means
+of dots and crossing out.
+<br>
+6. <i>r</i> added by the scribe.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+PRAESENTEM ADUOCATUM POST<sup>U</sup>LAUE<sup>7</sup>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+RUNT INPLORANTES FIDEM MEAM<br>
+QUAM ESSENT CONTRA MASSAM BAE
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+7. <i>u</i> added apparently by a contemporary hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+BIUM EXPERTI ADLEGANTES PATRO<sup>C</sup>INII<sup>8</sup>
+FOEDUS SECUTA EST SENATUS CLARIS<br>
+SIMA ADSENSIO QUAE SOLET DECRETA<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+PRAECURRERE TUM EGO DESINO IN<br>
+QUAM P. C. PUTARE ME IUSTAS EXCUSA<br>
+TIONIS CAUSAS ADTULISSE PLACUIT ET
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+8. <i>c</i> added above the line, apparently by a contemporary hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">33</span>
+<a name = "page_33"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_53r"><span class = "folionum">53<sup>r</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 53r">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· LIBER · III ·</h5>
+<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">M</span>ODESTIA SERMONIS ET RATIO
+CO<i>M</i><br>
+PULIT AUTEM ME AD HOC CONSILIUM NO<i>N</i><br>
+SOLUM CONSENSUS SENATUS QUAMQUA<i>M</i><br>
+HIC MAXIME UERUM ET ALII QUIDEM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+MINORIS SED TAMEN NUMERI UENI<br>
+EBAT IN MENTEM PRIORES NOSTROS
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+ETIAM SINGULORUM HOSPİTIUM<sup>1</sup> INIU<br>
+RIAS ACCUSATIONIB<i>US</i> UOLUNTARIIS EX<br>
+SECUTOS QUO DEFORMIUS ARBITRABAR
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. Deletion of <i>i</i> before <i>u</i> is marked by a dot above the
+letter and a slanting stroke through it.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+PUBLICI <sup>H</sup>OSPITII <sup>I</sup>URA<sup>2</sup> NEGLEGERE
+PRAE<br>
+TEREA CUM RECORDARER QUANTA<br>
+PRO IISDEM BAETICIS PRIORE ADUOCA<br>
+TIONE ETIAM PERICULA SUBISSEM CO<i>N</i><br>
+SERVANDUM UETERIS OFFICII MERITU<i>M</i><br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+NOVO VIDEBATUR EST ENIM ITA COM<br>
+PARATUM UT ANTIQUIORA BENEFICIA SUB<br>
+UERTAS NISI ILLA POSTERIORIB<i>US</i> CUMU
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. <i>h</i> and <i>i</i> above the line are apparently by the first
+hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+LES NAM QUAMLIBET SAEPE OBLIGA(N)<sup>3</sup>
+TI SIQUID<sup>4</sup> UNUM NEGES HOC SOLUM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+MEMINERUNT QUOD NEGATUM EST<br>
+DUCEBAR ETIAM QUOD DECESSERAT<br>
+CLASSICUS AMOTUMQ<i>UE</i> ERAT QUOD<br>
+I<sup>5</sup>N EIUSMODI CAUSIS SOLET ESSE TRIS
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+3. <i>n</i> (in brackets) is a later addition.
+<br>
+4. The letters <i>uid</i> are plainly retraced by a later hand. The same
+hand retouched <i>neges h</i> in the same line.
+<br>
+5. <i>i</i> before <i>n</i> added by a later corrector who erased the
+<i>i</i> which the scribe wrote after <i>quod</i>, in the line above.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+ṪİTISSIMUM<sup>6</sup> PERICULUM SENATORIS<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+UIDEBAM ERGO ADUOCATIONI MEAE<br>
+NON MINOREM GRATIAM QUAM SI<br>
+UIUERET ILLE PROPOSITAM INUIDIAM<br>
+<br>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+6. Superfluous <i>ti</i> cancelled by means of dots and oblique stroke.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>
+<i>Uir erat in terra</i><sup>7</sup>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+7. Added by a Caroline hand of the ninth century.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">34</span>
+<a name = "page_34"> </a>
+<a name = "trans_53v"><span class = "folionum">53<sup>v</sup></span></a>
+<table summary = "transcription of folio 53v">
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<h5>· EPISTULARUM ·</h5>
+<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">N</span>ULLAM IN SUMMA COMPUTABAM
+</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+SI MUNERE HOC TERTIO FUNGERE<sup>R</sup><sup>1</sup> FACILI<br>
+OREM MIHI EXCUSATIONEM FORE SI<br>
+QUIS INCIDISSET QUEM NON DEBEREM<br>
+<span class = "linenum">5</span>
+ACCUSARE NAM CUM EST OMNIUM OFFI<br>
+CIORUM FINIS ALIQUIS TUM OPTIME<br>
+LIBERTATI UENIA OBSEQUIO PRAEPARA<br>
+TUR AUDISTI CONSILII MEI MOTUS SUPER<br>
+EST ALTERUTRA EX PARTE IUDICIUM TUUM
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+1. <i>r</i> added above the line by the scribe or by a contemporary
+hand.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+<span class = "linenum">10</span>
+IN QUO MIHI AEQ<i>UE</i> IUCU<sup>I</sup>NDA<sup>2</sup> ERIT SIM<br>
+PLICITAS DISSI<sup>N</sup>TIENTIS<sup>3</sup> QUAM COMPRO<br>
+BANTIS AUCTORITAS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;UALE<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">·C̅·</span>PLINIUS MACRO · SUO · SALUTEM<br>
+<span class = "firstletter">P</span>ERGRATUM EST MIHI QUOD TAM
+DILIGE<i>N</i><br>
+<span class = "linenum">15</span>
+TER LIBROS AUONCULI MEI LECTITAS UT<br>
+HABERE OMNES UELIS QUAERASQ<i>UE</i> QUI<br>
+SINT OMNES ḊĖFUNGAR<sup>4</sup> INDICIS PARTIBUS<br>
+ATQUE ETIAM QUO SINT ORDINE SCRIPTI<br>
+NOTUM TIBI FACIAM EST ENIM HAEC<br>
+<span class = "linenum">20</span>
+QUOQ<i>UE</i> STUDIOSIS NON INIUCUNDA COG<br>
+NITIO DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI UNUS ·<br>
+HUNC CUM PRAEFECTUS ALAE MILITA
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+2. <i>i</i> added above the second <i>u</i> by the scribe or by a
+contemporary hand.
+<br>
+3. The scribe wrote <i>dissitientis</i>. A contemporary hand changed the
+second <i>i</i> to <i>e</i> and wrote an <i>n</i> above the <i>t</i>.
+<br>
+4. <i>de</i> is cancelled by means of dots above the <i>d</i> and
+<i>e</i> and oblique strokes drawn through them.
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "manuscript">
+RET· PARI<sup>5</sup> INGENIO CURAQ<i>UE</i> COMPOSUIT·<br>
+DE UITA POMPONI SECUNDI DUO A QUO<br>
+<span class = "linenum">25</span>
+SINGULARITER AMATUS HOC MEMORIAE<br>
+AMICI QUASI DEBITUM MUNUS EXSOL<br>
+UIT · BELLORUM GERMANIAE UIGINTI QUIB<i>US</i>
+</td>
+<td class = "footnote">
+5. The strokes over the <i>i</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.
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">35</span>
+<a name = "page_35"> </a>
+<h2><a name = "part_II">Part II.</a></h2>
+
+<h2>THE TEXT OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT</h2>
+
+<h3>BY</h3>
+
+<h3>E. K. RAND</h3>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">37</span>
+<a name = "page_37"> </a>
+<h3><a name = "parisinus">THE MORGAN FRAGMENT AND ALDUS’S ANCIENT
+CODEX PARISINUS.</a><a name = "tagII_1"
+href = "#noteII_1"><sup>1</sup></a></h3>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_1">The Codex Parisinus</a>
+</span>
+<span class = "textletter">A</span>
+LDUS MANUTIUS, in the preface to his edition of Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>,
+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 <i>Letters</i>; the book had been found not long
+before at or near Paris by the architect Fra Giocondo of Verona. The
+<i>editio princeps</i>, 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.<a name = "tagII_2" href =
+"#noteII_2"><sup>2</sup></a> 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:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+<p>So now the ancient manuscript itself had come. Aldus emphasizes its
+value in supplying the defects of previous editions. The <i>Letters</i>
+will now include, he declares:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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, &amp; mirae,
+ac uenerandae Vetustatis.”</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">38</span>
+<a name = "page_38"> </a>
+<p>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:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“Est enim uolumen ipsum non solum correctissimum, sed etiam ita
+antiquum, ut putem scriptum Plinii temporibus.”</p>
+
+<p>This is enthusiastic language. In the days of Italian humanism, a
+scholar might call almost any book a <i>codex pervetustus</i> if it
+supplied new readings for his edition and its script seemed unusual. As
+Professor Merrill remarks:<a name = "tagII_3" href =
+"#noteII_3"><sup>3</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+<p>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.<a name = "tagII_4" href =
+"#noteII_4"><sup>4</sup></a> A contemporary and rival editor, Catanaeus,
+disputed Aldus’s claims. In his second edition of the <i>Letters</i>
+(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.<a name = "tagII_5" href = "#noteII_5"><sup>5</sup></a> 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,<a name = "tagII_6" href = "#noteII_6"><sup>6</sup></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">39</span>
+<a name = "page_39"> </a>
+Since Aldus’s time the Parisinus has disappeared. To quote Merrill
+again:<a name = "tagII_7" href = "#noteII_7"><sup>7</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_2">The Bodleian volume</a>
+</span>
+In 1708 Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, bought at auction a peculiar
+volume of Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>. 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.<a name = "tagII_8" href = "#noteII_8"><sup>8</sup></a> 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
+<i>Letters</i> (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 <i>Plinii Vita</i>. Upon
+Hearne’s death, this valuable volume was acquired by the Bodleian
+Library in Oxford, but lay unnoticed until Mr. E.&nbsp;G. Hardy,
+in 1888,<a name = "tagII_9" href = "#noteII_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
+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:<a name =
+"tagII_10" href = "#noteII_10"><sup>10</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“hae plinii iunioris epistolae ex uetustissimo exemplari parisiensi et
+restitutae et emendatae sunt opera et industria ioannis iucundi
+prestantissimi architecti hominis imprimis antiquarii.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">40</span>
+<a name = "page_40"> </a>
+Merrill, in a brilliant and searching article,<a name = "tagII_11" href
+= "#noteII_11"><sup>11</sup></a> 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<a name = "tagII_12" href
+= "#noteII_12"><sup>12</sup></a> that Budaeus must have used the
+readings of the Parisinus; indeed, it is from his own statement in
+<i>Annotationes in Pandectas</i> that we learn of the discovery of the
+ancient manuscript by Giocondo:<a name = "tagII_13" href =
+"#noteII_13"><sup>13</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Letters</i>,
+Merrill eventually was able to compare the handwriting with the
+acknowledged script of Budaeus and to find that the two are identical.<a
+name = "tagII_14" href = "#noteII_14"><sup>14</sup></a> 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.<a name = "tagII_15" href =
+"#noteII_15"><sup>15</sup></a></p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_3">The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost
+Parisinus</a><br>
+<br>
+<a name = "paris_4">The script</a>
+</span>
+Perhaps we may now say the Bodleian volume <i>has been hitherto</i> 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+First of all, we are impressed with the script. It is an uncial of about
+the year 500 A.D.&mdash;certainly <i>venerandae vetustatis</i>. 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&mdash;indeed
+<i>diversis a nostris characteribus</i>. Instead of thinking him arrant
+knave or fool enough to
+<span class = "pagenum">41</span>
+<a name = "page_41"> </a>
+bring down “antiquity” to the thirteenth century, we might charitably
+push back his definition of “<i>nostri characteres</i>” 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_5">Provenience and contents</a>
+</span>
+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&mdash;and was resting there in the fifteenth century, as is
+proved by the French note of that period on fol. 51<sup>r</sup>. 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;<a name = "tagII_16" href =
+"#noteII_16"><sup>16</sup></a> I will postpone the question of what
+probably did follow. Moreover, if the <i>probatio pennae</i> on
+fol.53<sup>r</sup> is Carolingian,<a name = "tagII_17" href =
+"#noteII_17"><sup>17</sup></a> 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_6">The text closely related to that of Aldus</a>
+</span>
+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
+<i>Π</i>, using <i>P</i> for Aldus’s Parisinus and <i>a</i> for his
+edition.</p>
+
+<p>We may begin by excluding two probable misprints in Aldus, 64, 1
+<i>contu</i>r<i>bernium</i> and 65, 17 <i>sub</i>e<i>uertas</i>. Then
+there are various spellings in which Aldus adheres to the fashion of his
+day, as <i>se</i>x<i>centies</i>, <i>mi</i>ll<i>ies</i>,
+<i>mi</i>ll<i>ia</i>, <i>te</i>n<i>tarunt</i>, <i>cau</i>ss<i>as</i>,
+<i>au</i>t<i>oritas</i>, <i>qua</i>n<i>quam</i>, <i>s</i>y<i>derum</i>,
+<i>h</i>y<i>eme</i>, <i>c</i>oe<i>na</i>, <i>o</i>c<i>ium</i>,
+<i>hospi</i>c<i>ii</i>, <i>nego</i>c<i>iis</i>, <i>sola</i>t<i>ium</i>,
+<i>ad</i>u<i>lescet</i>,
+<span class = "pagenum">42</span>
+<a name = "page_42"> </a>
+<i>e</i>x<i>oluit</i>, <i></i>Th<i>uscos</i>; there are other spellings
+which modern editors might not disdain, <i>i.e.</i>,
+<i>aerar</i>ii<i></i> and <i>i</i>ll<i>ustri</i>, and some that they
+have accepted, namely <i>a</i>pp<i>onitur</i>, <i>e</i>x<i>istat</i>,
+<i>i</i>m<i>pleturus</i>, <i>i</i>m<i>plorantes</i>,
+<i>o</i>b<i>tulissem</i>, <i>bal</i>i<i>nei</i>, <i></i>c<i>aret</i>
+(not <i></i>k<i>aret</i>), <i></i>c<i>aritas</i> (not
+<i></i>k<i>aritas</i>).<a name = "tagII_18" href =
+"#noteII_18"><sup>18</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of
+correction in <i>Π</i> 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] <i>Πa</i> <span class =
+"smallcaps">serua</span> <i>Π<sup>2</sup></i> 61, 21 considit] <i>Π</i>
+<span class = "smallcaps">considet</span> <i>Π<sup>2</sup>a</i>. The
+original reading of <i>Π</i> is clearly <span class =
+"smallcaps">considit</span>. The second <span class =
+"smallcaps">i</span> has been altered to a capital <span class =
+"smallcaps">e</span>, which of course is not the proper form for uncial.
+62, 5 residit] <i>Π</i> residet <i>a</i>. Here <i>Π</i> is not
+corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case of <span
+class = "smallcaps">considet</span> (<i>m. 2</i>) supported what he
+supposed the better form <i>residet</i>. 63, 11 posset] <i>a</i> <span
+class = "smallcaps">possit</span> (in <i>posset m. 1</i>?) <i>Π</i>.
+Again the corrected <span class = "smallcaps">e</span> is capital, not
+uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in adopting the reading
+of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] <i>a</i> <span class =
+"smallcaps">modica est etiam</span> (<i>corr. m. 2</i>) <i>Π</i>. 64, 28
+excurrissem accepto, ut praefectus aerari, commeatu] <i>a</i>. Here
+<i>Π</i> omitted <i>accepto ut praefectus aerari</i>,&mdash;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] <i>a
+
+ex</i> <span class = "smallcaps">dissitientis</span> <i>m. 1</i> (?)
+<i>Π</i>.</p>
+
+<p>There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected,
+in <i>Π</i>, which Aldus himself might easily have corrected or have
+found the right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conteror
+quorum] <i>a</i> <span class = "smallcaps">conteror qui horum</span>
+<i>Π B F</i> 63, 28 si] <i>a</i> <span class = "smallcaps">sibi</span>
+<i>Π</i> 64, 24 conprobasse] <span class =
+"smallcaps">comprouasse</span> <i>Π</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In view of these certain errors of the first hand of <i>Π</i>, 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
+<i>Π</i> might well have seemed to him wrong; in
+<span class = "pagenum">43</span>
+<a name = "page_43"> </a>
+one of them (64,3) modern editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium
+oculorum vigor] Π aurium oculorumque uigor <i>a</i> 64, 3 proferenda]
+<i>a</i> <span class = "smallcaps">conferanda</span> Π 65, 11 et alii] Π
+etiam alii <i>a</i>.</p>
+
+<p>There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29
+questuri] Π quaesturi <i>MVa</i>. 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,
+<i>quaesturi</i> 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 <i>agere</i> for <i>facere</i>.
+So he does in his second edition; but here he has <i>facere</i> 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 <i>agere</i> for <i>facere</i>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "paris_7">Editorial methods of Aldus</a>
+</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">44</span>
+<a name = "page_44"> </a>
+<h3><a name = "other">RELATION OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT TO THE OTHER
+MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LETTERS.</a></h3>
+
+<p><span class = "textletter">B</span>
+UT, 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 <i>Letters</i> in the Middle
+Ages. A convenient summary is given by Merrill on the basis of his
+abundant researches.<a name = "tagII_19" href =
+"#noteII_19"><sup>19</sup></a></p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_1">Classes of the manuscripts</a>
+</span>
+Manuscripts of the <i>Letters</i> may be divided into three classes,
+distinguished by the number of books that each contains.</p>
+
+<p>Class I, the ten-book family, consists of <i>B</i> (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 “<i>Saec.</i> IX.”<a
+name = "tagII_20" href = "#noteII_20"><sup>20</sup></a> The latter seems
+the more probable date. The free use of a flat-topped <i>a</i>, 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.<a name = "tagII_21" href =
+"#noteII_21"><sup>21</sup></a> <i>F</i> (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<a name = "tagII_22" href =
+"#noteII_22"><sup>22</sup></a> that it may be the book mentioned as
+<i>liber epistolarum Gaii Plinii</i> in a tenth-century catalogue of the
+manuscripts at
+<span class = "pagenum">45</span>
+Lorsch may be perfectly correct; though not written at Lorsch, it might
+have been presented to the monastery by that time.<a name = "tagII_23"
+href = "#noteII_23"><sup>23</sup></a> These two manuscripts agree in
+containing, by the first hand, only Books I-V, vi (<i>F</i> having all
+and <i>B</i> only a part of the sixth letter). However, as the initial
+title in <i>B</i> is <span class = "smallcaps">plini · secundi ·
+epistularum · libri · decem</span>, we may infer that some ancestor, if
+not the immediate ancestor, of <i>B</i> and <i>F</i> had all ten
+books.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<i>Annals</i> of Tacitus.<a name = "tagII_24" href =
+"#noteII_24"><sup>24</sup></a> The other chief manuscript of this class
+is <i>V</i> (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.<a name = "tagII_25" href =
+"#noteII_25"><sup>25</sup></a> If Ullman is right in seeing a reference
+to Pliny’s <i>Letters</i> in a notice in a mediaeval catalogue of
+Corbie,<a name = "tagII_26" href = "#noteII_26"><sup>26</sup></a> it may
+be that the codex is a Corbeiensis. But it is also possible that a
+volume of the <i>Letters</i> at Corbie was twice copied, once at Corvey
+(<i>M</i>) and once in the neighborhood of Tours (<i>V</i>). At any
+rate, with the help of <i>V</i>, 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) <i>saec.</i> IX, and Leidensis Vossianus 98 <i>saec.</i>
+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.<a name = "tagII_27" href =
+"#noteII_27"><sup>27</sup></a> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">46</span>
+<a name = "page_46"> </a>
+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.<a name = "tagII_28"
+href = "#noteII_28"><sup>28</sup></a> 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.<a name = "tagII_29" href = "#noteII_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
+Except, therefore, for <i>M</i> and the Munich fragment, there is no
+evidence furnished by the chief manuscripts which connects the tradition
+of the <i>Letters</i> 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, <i>B</i> and <i>F</i> of Class I
+and <i>V</i> of Class II are sure signs that the propagation of the text
+started from one or more centres&mdash;Fleury and Corbie seem the most
+probable&mdash;in France.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>D</i>, a Dresden codex, while almost all
+other manuscripts of this class descend from a free recension made by
+Guarino and conflated with <i>F</i>; <i>o</i>, <i>u</i>, and <i>x</i>
+are the representatives of this recension (<i>G</i>) 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.<a name =
+"tagII_30" href = "#noteII_30"><sup>30</sup></a></p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_2">The early editions</a>
+</span>
+As is often the case, the leading manuscript authorities are only
+inadequately represented in the early editions. The Editio Princeps
+(<i>p</i>) of 1471 was based on
+<span class = "pagenum">47</span>
+<a name = "page_47"> </a>
+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&mdash;Pomponius Laetus 1490, Beroaldus
+1498, and Catanaeus 1506&mdash;took <i>r</i> as a basis; but Laetus had
+another and a better representative of the same type of text as that
+from which <i>r</i> had drawn, and he likewise made use of <i>V</i>.
+With the help of these new sources the ς editors polished away a large
+number of the gross blunders of <i>p</i> and <i>r</i>, 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 <i>F</i> and <i>V</i>, 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. <i>B</i> and
+<i>M</i> were not accessible.<a name = "tagII_31" href =
+"#noteII_31"><sup>31</sup></a> 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 <i>B</i>, which indicates descent from some codex
+containing ten books.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_3">Π a member of Class I</a>
+</span>
+Now nothing is plainer than that <i>Π</i> is a member of Class I, as it
+agrees with <i>BF</i> in the following errors, or what are regarded by
+Keil as errors. I consider the text of the <i>Letters</i> and not their
+superscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] <i>MVD</i> duplicata <i>ΠBFGa</i>; 61,
+12 confusa adhuc] <i>MV</i> adhuc confusa <i>ΠBFGa</i>; 62, 6
+doctissime] <i>MV</i> doctissima <i>ΠBFDa</i> et doctissima <i>G</i>;
+62, 16 nec adficitur] <i>MVD</i> et adficitur <i>ΠBFGa</i>; 62, 23
+quorum] <i>MVDGa</i> qui horum <i>ΠBF</i>; 63, 22 teque et] <i>MVDG</i>
+teque <i>ΠBFa</i>; 64, 3 proferenda] <i>Doxa</i> conferenda <i>BFu</i>
+<span class = "smallcaps">conferanda</span> <i>Π</i> (<i>MV</i> lack an
+extensive passage here); 65, 11 alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri]
+<i>DG</i> alii quidam minores sed tam innumeri <i>MV</i> alii quidem
+minoris sed tamen numeri <i>ΠBFa</i>; 65, 12 voluntariis
+accusationibus] <i>M</i> (uoluntaris) <i>D</i> voluntariis <i>om. V</i>
+accusationibus uoluntariis <i>ΠBFGa</i>; 65, 15 superiore] <i>MVD</i>
+priore <i>ΠBFGa</i>; 65, 24 iam] <i>MVDG</i> <i>om. ΠBFa.</i></p>
+
+<p>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;
+<span class = "pagenum">48</span>
+<a name = "page_48"> </a>
+65, 12; 65, 15). Personally I could be reconciled to them all with the
+exception of the very two which Aldus could not admit&mdash;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 <i>alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri</i>; if this is the
+right reading, <i>ΠBF</i> agree in the easy error of <i>quidem</i> for
+<i>quidam</i>, and <i>MVD</i> in another easy error, <i>minores</i> for
+<i>minoris</i>&mdash;the parent manuscript of <i>MV</i> further changed
+<i>tamen numeri</i> to <i>tam innumeri</i>. 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&mdash;surely, then,
+<i>Π</i> is not of the latter class. There are six other significant
+errors of <i>MV</i> in the whole passage, no one of which appears in
+<i>Π</i>: 61, 15 si non] sint <i>MV</i>; 62, 6 mira illis] mirabilis
+<i>MV</i>; 62, 11 lotus] illic <i>MV</i>; cibum] cibos <i>MV</i>; 62,
+25 fuit&mdash;64, 12 potes] <i>om. MV</i>; 66, 12 amatus] est amatus
+<i>MV</i>. Once the first hand in <i>Π</i> agrees with <i>V</i> in an
+error easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] <span class =
+"smallcaps">ordinata, di</span> ss. <i>m. 2</i> <i>Π</i> ornata
+<i>V</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>Π</i>, then, and <i>MV</i> have descended from the archetype by
+different routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II,
+<i>Π</i> clearly has no close association.</p>
+
+<p>But the evidence for allying <i>Π</i> with <i>B</i> and <i>F</i>, the
+manuscripts of Class I, is by no means exhausted. In 61, 14, <i>BFux</i>
+have the erroneous emendation, which Budaeus includes among his
+variants, of <i>serua</i> for <i>sera</i>. A glance at <i>Π</i> shows
+its apparent origin. The first hand has <span class =
+"smallcaps">sera</span> correctly; the second hand writes <span class =
+"smallcaps">u</span> above the line.<a name = "tagII_32" href =
+"#noteII_32"><sup>32</sup></a> If the second hand is solely responsible
+for the attempt at improvement here, and is not reproducing a variant in
+the parent manuscript of <i>Π</i>, then <i>BF</i> must descend directly
+from <i>Π</i>. The following instances point in the same direction: 61,
+21 considit] considet <i>BF</i>. <i>Π</i> has <span class =
+"smallcaps">considit</span> by the first hand, the second hand changing
+the second <span class = "smallcaps">i</span> to a capital <span class =
+"smallcaps">e</span>.<a name = "tagII_33" href =
+"#noteII_33"><sup>33</sup></a> In 65, 5, however, <span class =
+"smallcaps">residit</span> is not thus changed in <i>Π</i>, and perhaps
+for this very reason is retained by the careful scribe of <i>B</i>;
+<i>F</i>, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with <i>G</i>,
+<i>residet</i>. 63, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me <i>B</i>. Here
+the letters of the <i>scriptura continua</i> in <i>Π</i> are faded and
+blurred; the error of <i>B</i> would therefore be peculiarly easy if
+this manuscript derived directly from <i>Π</i>. 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.<a
+name = "tagII_34" href = "#noteII_34"><sup>34</sup></a> In any case, the
+error of <i>praestatam ad me</i> seems natural enough to one who reads
+the line for the first time in <i>Π</i>. <i>B</i> did not, as we shall
+see, copy directly from <i>Π</i>; a copy intervened, in which the error
+was made and then, I should infer, corrected above the line, whence
+<i>F</i> drew the right reading, <i>B</i> taking the original but
+incorrect text.</p>
+
+<p><span class = "pagenum">49</span>
+<a name = "page_49"> </a>
+There are cases in plenty elsewhere in the <i>Letters</i> to show that
+<i>B</i> is not many removes from the <i>scriptura continua</i> of some
+majuscule hand. In the section included in <i>Π</i>, apart from the
+general tightness of the writing, which led to the later insertion of
+strokes between many of the words,<a name = "tagII_35" href =
+"#noteII_35"><sup>35</sup></a> we note these special indications of a
+parent manuscript in majuscules. In 61, 10 me autem], <i>B</i> started
+to write <i>mea</i> and then corrected it. 64, 19 praeceptori a quo]
+praeceptoria quo <i>B</i>, (<i>m. 1</i>) <i>F</i>. If <i>B</i> or its
+parent manuscript copied <i>Π</i> directly, the mistake would be
+especially easy, for <span class = "smallcaps">praeceptoria</span> ends
+the line in <i>Π</i>. 64, 25 integra re]. After <i>integra</i>, a letter
+is erased in <i>B</i>; the copyist, it would seem, first mistook
+<i>integra re</i> for one word.</p>
+
+<p>Other instances showing a close connection between <i>B</i> and
+<i>Π</i> are as follows: 62, 23 unice] <i>Π</i> has by the first hand
+<span class = "smallcaps">inuice</span>, the second hand writing <span
+class = "smallcaps">u</span> above <span class = "smallcaps">i</span>,
+and a vertical stroke above <span class = "smallcaps">u</span>. In
+<i>BF</i>, <i>uince</i>, the reading of the first hand, is changed by
+the second to <i>unice</i>; this second hand, Professor Merrill informs
+me, seems to be that of a writer in the same scriptorium as the first.
+The error in <i>BF</i> might, of course, be due to copying an original
+in minuscules, but it might also be due to the curious state of affairs
+in <i>Π</i>. 65, 24 fungerer]. In <i>Π</i> the final <span class =
+"smallcaps">r</span> is written, somewhat indistinctly, above the line.
+<i>B</i> has <i>fungerer</i> corrected by the second hand from
+<i>fungeret</i> (?), which may be due to a misunderstanding of <i>Π</i>.
+66, 2 avunculi] <span class = "smallcaps">auonculi</span> <i>Π</i>
+(<span class = "smallcaps">o</span> <i>in ras.</i>) <i>B</i>. This form
+might perhaps be read; <i>F</i> has emended it out, and no other
+manuscript has it. 65, 7 desino, inquam, patres conscripti, putare].
+Here the relation of <i>BF</i> to <i>Π</i> seems particularly close.
+<i>Π</i>, like <i>MVDoxa</i>, has the abbreviation <span class =
+"smallcaps">p.c.</span> On a clearly written page, the error of
+<i>reputare</i> (<i>BF</i>) for <span class = "smallcaps">p.c.
+putare</span> is not a specially likely one to make. But in the blur at
+the bottom of fol. 52<sup>v</sup>, a page on the flesh side of the
+parchment, the combination might readily be mistaken for <span class =
+"smallcaps">reputare</span>.</p>
+
+<p>Another curious bit of testimony appears at the beginning of the
+third book. The scribe of <i>B</i><a name = "tagII_36" href =
+"#noteII_36"><sup>36</sup></a> wrote the words <span class =
+"smallcaps">nescio&mdash;apud</span> 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 <i>Π</i>, which has the same amount of text,
+plus the first three letters of <span class =
+"smallcaps">spurinnam</span>, in the first two lines. If <i>B</i> had
+<i>Π</i> before him, there is nothing to explain his most unusual
+procedure. His original, therefore, is not <i>Π</i> 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 <i>B</i>’s work throughout, is perhaps nowhere more
+strikingly exhibited than here.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">50</span>
+<a name = "page_50"> </a>
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_4">Π the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copy
+intervening</a>
+</span>
+If <i>Π</i> is the direct ancestor of <i>BF</i>, these manuscripts
+should contain no good readings not found in <i>Π</i>, 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 <i>BF</i> 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 <i>BF</i> <span class =
+"smallcaps">conferanda</span> <i>Π</i>; 64, 4 conprobasse] (comp.)
+<i>BF</i> <span class = "smallcaps">comprouasse</span> <i>Π</i>. These
+are simple slips, which a scribe might almost unconsciously correct as
+he wrote. The remaining error (63, 28 <span class =
+"smallcaps">sibi</span> to <i>si</i>) is not difficult to emend when one
+considers the entire sentence: <i>quibus omnibus ita demum similis
+adolescet</i>, si <i>imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas</i>, etc. It
+is less probable, however, that <i>B</i> with <i>Π</i> before him should
+correct it as he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a
+minuscule copy intervened between <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i>, in which the
+letters <i>bi</i> were deleted by some careful reviser. Two other
+passages tend to confirm this assumption of an intermediate copy. In 65,
+6 (<i>tum optime libertati venia obsequio praeparatur</i>), <i>B</i> has
+<i>optimae</i>, a false alteration induced perhaps by the following
+<i>libertati</i>. In <i>Π</i>, <span class = "smallcaps">optime</span>
+stands at the end of the line. The scribe of <i>B</i>, had he not found
+<i>libertati</i> immediately adjacent, would not so readily be tempted
+to emend; still, we should not make too much of this instance, as
+<i>B</i> has a rather pronounced tendency to write <i>ae</i> for
+<i>e</i>. A more certain case is 66, 7 fungar indicis] fungarindicis
+<i>ex</i> fungari dicis <i>B</i>; here the error is easier to derive
+from an original in minuscules in which <i>in</i> was abbreviated with a
+stroke above the <i>i</i>. There is abundant evidence elsewhere in the
+<i>Letters</i> that the immediate ancestor of <i>BF</i> 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 <i>B</i> or <i>F</i> in the
+portion of text contained in <i>Π</i> that may not be found, by either
+the first or the second hand, in <i>Π</i>.<a name = "tagII_37" href =
+"#noteII_37"><sup>37</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the close
+connection existing between <i>BF</i> and <i>Π</i>. <i>B</i> alone of
+all manuscripts hitherto known is provided with indices of the
+<i>Letters</i>, one for each book, which give the names of the
+correspondents and the opening words of each letter. Now <i>Π</i>, by
+good luck, preserves the end of Book II, the beginning of Book III, and
+between them the index for Book III. Dr. F.&nbsp;E. Robbins,
+in a careful article on <i>B</i> and <i>F</i>, and one
+<span class = "pagenum">51</span>
+<a name = "page_51"> </a>
+on the tables of contents in <i>B</i>,<a name = "tagII_38" href =
+"#noteII_38"><sup>38</sup></a> concluded that <i>P</i> did not contain
+the indices which are preserved in <i>B</i>, and that these were
+compiled in some ancestor of <i>B</i>, 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 <i>Π</i> shows
+indubitably a close kinship with <i>B</i>. A glance at plates
+<a href = "images/plate13.jpg">XIII</a> and
+<a href = "images/plate14.jpg">XIV</a> indicates,
+first of all, that the copy <i>B</i>, here as in the text
+of the <i>Letters</i>, is not many removes from <i>scriptura
+continua</i>. Moreover, the lists are drawn up on the same principle;
+the <i>nomen</i> and <i>cognomen</i> but not the <i>praenomen</i> of the
+correspondent being given, and exactly the same amount of text quoted at
+the beginning of each letter. The incipit of III, xvi (<span class =
+"smallcaps">ad nepotem&mdash;adnotasse uideor fatadictaq·</span>) is an
+addition in <i>Π</i>, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the
+original title had been omitted in the manuscript which <i>Π</i> was
+copying and the corrector of <i>Π</i> had substituted a title of his own
+making.<a name = "tagII_39" href = "#noteII_39"><sup>39</sup></a> It
+reappears in <i>B</i>, with the easy emendation of <i>facta</i> from
+<i>fata</i>. The only other case in the indices of a right reading in
+<i>B</i> that is not in <i>Π</i> is in the title of III, viii: <span
+class = "smallcaps">ad sueton tranque</span> <i>Π</i> Adsu&amp;on
+tranqui. <i>B</i>. In both these instances the scribe of <i>B</i> needed
+no external help in correcting the simple error. Far more significant is
+the coincidence of <i>B</i> and <i>Π</i> in very curious mistakes, as
+the address of III, iii (<span class = "smallcaps">ad caerelliae
+hispullae</span> for <span class = "smallcaps">ad corelliam
+hispullam</span>) and the lemma of III, viii (<span class =
+"smallcaps">facis adprocetera</span> for <span class = "smallcaps">facis
+pro cetera</span>). <i>ΠBF</i> agree in omitting <span class =
+"smallcaps">suae</span> (III, iii) and <span class =
+"smallcaps">suo</span> (III, iv), but in retaining the pronominal
+adjectives in the other addresses preserved in <i>Π</i>. The same
+unusual suspensions occur in <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i>, as <span class =
+"smallcaps">ad sueton tranque</span> (tranqui <i>B</i>); <span class =
+"smallcaps">ad uestric spurinn·</span>; <span class = "smallcaps">ad
+silium procul</span>.<a name = "tagII_40" href =
+"#noteII_40"><sup>40</sup></a> In the first of these cases, the parent
+of <i>Π</i> evidently had <span class = "smallcaps">tranq·</span>, which
+<i>Π</i> falsely enlarges to <span class = "smallcaps">tranque</span>;
+this form and not <span class = "smallcaps">tranq·</span> is the basis
+of <i>B</i>’s correction&mdash;a semi-successful correction&mdash;<span
+class = "smallcaps">tranqui</span>. This, then, is another sign that
+<i>B</i> depends directly on <i>Π</i>. Further, <i>B</i> omits one
+symbol of abbreviation which <i>Π</i> has (<span class =
+"smallcaps">possum iam perscri{-b}</span>), the lemma of the ninth
+letter), and in the lemma of the tenth neither manuscript preserves the
+symbol (<span class = "smallcaps">composuisse me quaed</span>). In the
+first of these cases, it will be observed, <i>B</i> has a very long
+<i>i</i> in <i>perscrib</i>.<a name = "tagII_41" href =
+"#noteII_41"><sup>41</sup></a> This long <i>i</i> is not a feature of
+the script of <i>B</i>, nor is there any provocation for it in the way
+in which the word is written in <i>Π</i>. This detail, therefore, may be
+added to the indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between
+<i>B</i> and <i>Π</i>; the curious <i>i</i>, faithfully reproduced, as
+usual, by <i>B</i>, may have occurred in such a copy.</p>
+
+<p>These details prove an intimate relation between <i>Π</i> and
+<i>BF</i>, and fit the supposition that <i>B</i> and <i>F</i> are direct
+descendants of <i>Π</i>. This may be strengthened
+<span class = "pagenum">52</span>
+<a name = "page_52"> </a>
+by another consideration. If <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i> independently copy
+the same source, they inevitably make independent errors, however
+careful their work. <i>Π</i> should contain, then, a certain number of
+errors not in <i>B</i>. As we have found only three such cases in 12
+pages, or 324 lines, and as in all these three the right reading in
+<i>B</i> could readily have been due to emendation on the part of the
+scribe of <i>B</i> or of a copy between <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i>, 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 <i>Π</i> not in <i>B</i>, and
+we will accept the existence of that common source; otherwise the
+appropriate supposition is that <i>B</i> descends directly from its
+elder relative <i>Π</i>. It is not necessary to prove by an examination
+of readings that <i>Π</i> is not copied from <i>B</i>; the dates of the
+two scripts settle that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the
+moment, that <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i> were of the same age, we could
+readily prove that the former is not copied from the latter. For
+<i>B</i> contains a significant collection of errors which are not
+present in <i>Π</i>. 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 <i>B</i> might emend on his own initiative, or perhaps by
+a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26 iudicium] indicium <i>B</i>; 64, 29
+Caecili] caecilii <i>B</i>; 65, 13 neglegere] neglere <i>B</i>. But
+intelligent pondering must precede the emendation of <i>praeceptoria
+quo</i> into <i>praeceptori a quo</i> (64, 19), of <i>beaticis</i> into
+<i>Baeticis</i> (65, 15), and of <i>optimae</i> into <i>optime</i> (65,
+26), while it would take a Madvig to remedy the corruptions in 63, 9
+(<i>praestatam ad me</i>) and 65,7 (<i>reputare</i> into <i>patres
+conscripti putare</i>). These are the sort of errors which if found in
+<i>Π</i> would furnish incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not
+containing them was independent of <i>Π</i>; but there is no such
+evidence of independence in the case of <i>B</i>. Our case is
+strengthened by the consideration that various of the errors in <i>B</i>
+may well be traced to idiosyncrasies of <i>Π</i>, not merely to its
+<i>scriptura continua</i>, a source of misunderstanding that any
+majuscule would present, but to the fading of the writing on the flesh
+side of the pages in <i>Π</i>, and to the possibility that some of the
+corrections of the second hand may be the private inventions of that
+hand.<a name = "tagII_42" href = "#noteII_42"><sup>42</sup></a> We are
+hampered, of course, by the comparatively small amount of matter in
+<i>Π</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">53</span>
+<a name = "page_53"> </a>
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_5">The probable stemma</a>
+</span>
+Our tentative stemma thus far, then, is No. 1 below, not No. 2 and not
+No. 3.</p>
+
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/fig_53.png" width = "400" height = "191"
+alt = "three stemmata" title = "three stemmata">
+</p>
+
+<p>Robbins put <i>P</i> in the position of <i>Π</i> in this last stemma,
+but on the assumption that it did not contain the indices. That is not
+true of <i>Π</i>.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_6">Further consideration of the external history
+of P, Π, and B</a>
+</span>
+Still further evidence is supplied by the external history of our
+manuscripts. <i>B</i> was at Beauvais at the end of the twelfth or the
+beginning of the thirteenth century, as we have seen.<a name =
+"tagII_43" href = "#noteII_43"><sup>43</sup></a> 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 <i>F</i>, its sister manuscript. The presumption is that
+<i>Π</i><sup>1</sup>, the copy intervening between <i>Π</i> and
+<i>B</i>, was also French, and that <i>Π</i> was in France when the copy
+was made from it. Merrill, for what reason I fail to see, suggested that
+the original of <i>BF</i> might be “Lombardic,” written in North
+Italy.<a name = "tagII_44" href = "#noteII_44"><sup>44</sup></a> 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 <i>BF</i>. If no such signs can be adduced, it is natural to
+suppose that <i>Π</i><sup>1</sup> was of the same nationality and
+general tendencies as its copies <i>B</i> and <i>F</i>. This
+consideration helps out the possible evidence furnished by the
+scribbling in a hand of the Carolingian variety on fol.
+53<sup>v</sup>;<a name = "tagII_45" href =
+"#noteII_45"><sup>45</sup></a> 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&mdash;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, <i>X</i>, from which <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i> descend, being
+earlier than <i>Π</i>, must have been a manuscript in majuscules,
+written in Italy, since that is unquestionably the provenience of
+<i>Π</i>. There were, then, by this supposition, <i>two</i> ancient
+majuscule manuscripts of the <i>Letters</i>, most closely related in
+text&mdash;veritable twins, indeed&mdash;that travelled from Italy to
+France. One (X<sup>1</sup>) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is
+the parent of
+<span class = "pagenum">54</span>
+<a name = "page_54"> </a>
+<i>B</i> and <i>F</i>; the other (<i>Π</i>) 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 <i>melius est per unum
+fieri quam per plura</i>, 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.<a name = "tagII_46" href =
+"#noteII_46"><sup>46</sup></a> Not many books of the age and quality of
+<i>Π</i> were floating about in France in the ninth century. There is
+nothing in the evidence presented by <i>Π</i> and <i>B</i> 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 <i>BF</i>
+descend directly from <i>Π</i>. The burden of proof would appear to rest
+on those who assert the contrary. <i>Π</i>, therefore, if the ancestor
+of <i>B</i>, contained at least as much as we find today in <i>B</i>.
+Some ancestor of <i>B</i> had all ten books. Aldus, whose text is
+closely related to <i>BF</i>, 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 <i>Π</i> is a fragment of the lost Parisinus
+which contained all the books of Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Our stemma, then, becomes,</p>
+
+<p class = "image">
+<i>P</i> (the whole manuscript), of which <i>Π</i> is a part.</p>
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/fig_54.png" width = "135" height = "136"
+alt = "stemma of MS P" title = "stemma of MS P">
+</p>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "other_7">Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of
+Π</a>
+</span>
+We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions of
+<i>BF</i> outside the text of <i>Π</i>. We note, above all, a number of
+omissions in <i>BF</i> that indicate the length of line in some
+manuscript from which they descend. This length of line is precisely
+what we find in <i>Π</i>. 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.&nbsp;C. Clark<a name = "tagII_47" href =
+"#noteII_47"><sup>47</sup></a> for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex
+not far removed in
+<span class = "pagenum">55</span>
+<a name = "page_55"> </a>
+date from <i>Π</i>. Supposing that <i>Π</i> is a typical section of
+<i>P</i>&mdash;and after Professor Clark’s studies<a name = "tagII_48"
+href = "#noteII_48"><sup>48</sup></a> we may more confidently assume
+that it is&mdash;<i>P</i> had the same length of line. The important
+cases of omission are as follows:</p>
+
+<p>32, 19 atque etiam invisus virtutibus fuerat evasit, reliquit
+incolumen optimum atque] etiam&mdash;atque <i>om. BF</i>. <i>P</i> would
+have the abbreviation for <i>bus</i> in <i>virtutibus</i> and for
+<i>que</i> in <i>atque</i>. There would thus be in all 61 letters and
+dots, or two lines, arranged about as follows:</p>
+
+<table summary = "transcription of earlier MS">
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters" align = "right">
+ATQ·</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+ETIAMINUISUSUIRTUTIB·FUERATEUA</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(30)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+SITRELIQUITINCOLUMEMOPTIMUMATQ·</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(31)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>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&mdash;aegrotabat <i>om. BF</i>), the omitted portion comprises
+34 letters&mdash;a bit too long, perhaps, for a line of <i>P</i>. The
+following instances, however, can not be thus disposed of.</p>
+
+<p>94, 10 alia quamquam dignitate propemodum paria] quamquam&mdash;paria
+(32 letters) <i>om. BF</i>. <i>Cetera</i> and <i>paria</i>, to be sure,
+offer a mild case of <i>homoioteleuta</i>, 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 <i>P</i>. As the line occurs near
+the beginning of a letter, we may verify our conjecture by plotting the
+opening lines. The address, as in <i>Π</i>, would occupy a line. Then,
+allowing for contractions in <i>rebus</i> (18) and <i>quoque</i> (19)
+and reading <i>cum</i> (Class I) for <i>quod</i> (18), <i>cetera</i>
+(Class I) for <i>alia</i> (20), we can arrange the 236 letters in 8
+lines, with an average of 29.5 letters in a line.</p>
+
+<p>123, 10 sentiebant. interrogati a Nepote praetore quem docuissent,
+responderunt quem prius: interrogati an tunc gratis adfuisset,
+responderunt sex milibus] interrogati a Nepote&mdash;docuissent
+responderunt <i>om. BF</i>. Here are two good chances for omissions due
+to similar endings, as <i>interrogati</i> and <i>responderunt</i> are
+both repeated, but neither chance is taken by <i>BF</i>. Instead, a far
+less striking case (<i>sentiebant&mdash;responderunt</i>) leads to the
+omission. The arrangement in <i>P</i> might be</p>
+
+<table summary = "transcription of earlier MS">
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters" align = "right">
+SENTIEBANT</td><td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+INTERROGATIANEPOTEPRAETORE</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(26)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+QUEMDOCUISSENTRESPONDERUNT</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(26)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+QUEMPRIUSINTERROGATIANTUNCGRA</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(29)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+TISADFUISSETRESPONDERUNTSEXMI</td>
+<td class = "linelength">(29)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Here the dangerous words <span class = "smallcaps">interrogati</span>
+and <span class = "smallcaps">responderunt</span> are in safe
+places.</p>
+<span class = "pagenum">56</span>
+<a name = "page_56"> </a>
+<span class = "smallcaps">sentiebant</span> and <span class =
+"smallcaps">responderunt</span>, ordinarily a safe enough pair, become
+dangerous by their position at the end of lines; indeed, in the
+<i>scriptura continua</i> the danger of confusing <i>homoioteleuta</i>,
+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.
+
+<p>We may add two omissions of <i>F</i> in passages now missing
+altogether in <i>B</i>. 69, 28 quod minorem ex liberis duobus amisit
+sed maiorem] minorem&mdash;sed <i>om.</i> <i>F</i>. Here again an
+omission is imminent from the similar endings
+<i>minorem&mdash;maiorem</i>; that made by <i>F</i> (29 letters and one
+dot) seems to be that of a line of <i>P</i> where the arrangement would
+be:</p>
+
+<table summary = "transcription of earlier MS">
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters" align = "right">
+QUOD</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td class = "lineletters">
+MINOREMEXLIBERISDUOB·AMISITSED<br>
+MAIOREM</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>There may have been a copy (<i>P</i><sup>2</sup>) intervening between
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup> and <i>F</i>, but doubtless neither that nor
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup> itself had lines so short as those in <i>P</i>; the
+error of <i>F</i>, therefore, may be most naturally ascribed to
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup>, who omitted a line of <i>P</i>.</p>
+
+<p>130, 16 percolui. in summa (cur enim non aperiam tibi vel iudicium
+meum vel errorem?) primum ego] in summa&mdash;primum (59 letters) <i>om.
+F</i>. As there are no <i>homoioteleuta</i> here at all, we surely are
+concerned with the omission of a line or lines. Perhaps 59 letters would
+make up a line in <i>P</i><sup>1</sup> or <i>P</i><sup>2</sup>. Perhaps
+two lines of <i>P</i> were dropped.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly we may note two omissions in <i>B</i>, though not in
+<i>F</i>, which may be due originally to the error of
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup> in copying <i>P</i>.</p>
+
+<p>68, 5 electorumque commentarios centum sexaginta mihi reliquit,
+opisthographos] -torumque&mdash;opisthographos <i>om. B</i>. Allowing
+the abbreviation of <span class = "smallcaps">que</span>, we have 59
+letters and one dot here. The omitted words are written by the first
+hand of <i>B</i> at the foot of the page. Of course the omission may
+correspond to a line of <i>P</i><sup>1</sup> dropped by <i>B</i> in
+copying, but it is equally possible that <i>P</i><sup>1</sup> committed
+the error and corrected it by the marginal supplement, <i>F</i> noting
+the correction in time to include the omitted words in his text,
+<i>B</i> copying them in the margin as he found them in
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup>.</p>
+
+<p>87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. nam quoto cuique eadem
+honestatis] suffragiis&mdash;honestatis <i>om. m. 1, add. in mg. m.
+2</i> <i>B</i> (54 letters, with <span class = "smallcaps">que</span>
+abbreviated). This may be like the preceding, except that the correction
+was done not by the original scribe of <i>B</i>, but by a scribe in the
+same monastery. The presence of <i>homoioteleuta</i>, we must admit,
+adds an element of uncertainty.</p>
+
+<p>So, of the passages here brought forward, 94, 20; 123, 10 and 69, 28
+are best explained by supposing that <i>B</i> and <i>F</i> descend from
+a manuscript that like <i>Π</i> had
+<span class = "pagenum">57</span>
+<a name = "page_57"> </a>
+from 24 to 32 letters in a line, while 32, 19 and 130, 16 fit this
+supposition as well as they do any other.</p>
+
+<p>One orthographic peculiarity is perhaps worth noting: we saw that
+<i>B</i> did not agree with <i>Π</i> in the spellings <i>karet</i> and
+<i>karitas</i>.<a name = "tagII_49" href =
+"#noteII_49"><sup>49</sup></a> We do, however, find <i>karitate</i>
+elsewhere in <i>B</i> (109, 8), and the curious reading
+<i>Kl</i>∴<i>facere</i>, mg. <i>calfacere</i>, for <i>calfacere</i> (56,
+12). This is an additional bit of evidence for supposing that a copy
+(<i>P</i><sup>1</sup>) intervened between <i>P</i> and <i>B</i>;
+<i>P</i> had the spelling <i>Karitas</i> consistently,
+<i>P</i><sup>1</sup> altered it to the usual form, and <i>B</i>
+reproduced the corrections in <i>P</i><sup>1</sup>, failing to take them
+all, unless, as may well be, <i>P</i><sup>1</sup> had failed to correct
+all the cases.</p>
+
+<p>Thus the evidence contained in the portion of <i>BF</i> outside the
+text of <i>Π</i> 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.</p>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">58</span>
+<a name = "page_58"> </a>
+<h3><a name = "aldus">EDITORIAL METHODS OF ALDUS.</a></h3>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_1">Aldus’s methods; his basic text</a>
+</span>
+<span class = "textletter">W</span>
+E may now return to Aldus and imagine, if we can, his method of critical
+procedure. Finding his agreement with <i>Π</i> 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 <i>P</i>, but the pages of some
+edition corrected from <i>P</i>&mdash;which Aldus surely tells us that
+he used&mdash;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
+<i>Π</i>, <i>P</i> has thirty-two readings which Aldus avoids. In most
+of these cases <i>p</i> commits an error, sometimes a ridiculous error,
+like <i>offam</i> for <i>officia</i> (62, 25); the manuscript on which
+<i>p</i> was based apparently made free use of abbreviations. Keil’s
+damning estimate of <i>r</i><a name = "tagII_50" href =
+"#noteII_50"><sup>50</sup></a> is amply borne out in this section of the
+text; Aldus differs from <i>r</i> in sixty-five cases, most of these
+being errors in <i>r</i>. He agrees with <i>ς</i> in all but twenty-six
+readings.<a name = "tagII_51" href = "#noteII_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
+Aldus would have had fewest changes to make, then, if his basic text was
+ς. This is apparently the view of Keil,<a name = "tagII_52" href =
+"#noteII_52"><sup>52</sup></a> who would agree at any rate that Aldus
+made special use of the ς editions and who also declares that <i>p</i>
+is the <i>fundamentum</i> of <i>r</i> as <i>r</i> is of the edition of
+Pomponius Laetus.<a name = "tagII_53" href =
+"#noteII_53"><sup>53</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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
+<i>P</i> 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,<a name = "tagII_54" href =
+"#noteII_54"><sup>54</sup></a> is sufficient, he declares,<a name =
+"tagII_55" href = "#noteII_55"><sup>55</sup></a> “<i>ad fidem Aldinae
+editionis constituendam</i>,” 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.</p>
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "pagenum">59</span>
+<a name = "page_59"> </a>
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_2">The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>Π</i>,
+their number is disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus
+(=&nbsp;<i>i</i>) to the text of Beroaldus are: 61, 14 sera]
+<i>MVDoa</i>, (<i>m. 1</i>) <i>Π</i> serua <i>BFuxi</i>, (<i>m. 2</i>)
+<i>Π</i>; 62, 4 ambulat] <i>i cum plerisque</i> ambulabat <i>r Ber.</i>
+(ab <i>del.</i>) <i>M</i>; 62, 25 quoque] <i>i cum ceteris</i> p̷ouq
+(ue) <i>Ber.</i>; 64, 23 Quamvis] q Vmuis <i>Ber.</i> <i>corr.
+i.</i></p>
+
+<p>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&mdash;with or without the help of the
+ancient book&mdash;and introduced from that book one unfortunate reading
+which we find in the second hand of <i>Π</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>obelus</i> and the <i>obelus cum puncto</i>. These
+signs as used by Probus<a name = "tagII_56" href =
+"#noteII_56"><sup>56</sup></a> 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&mdash;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<a name = "tagII_57" href =
+"#noteII_57"><sup>57</sup></a> to <i>Ambulatio</i>, <i>Gestatio</i>,
+<i>Hora balnei</i>, <i>pilae ludus</i>, <i>Coena</i>, and
+<i>Comoedi</i>. 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, “<i>Beneficia beneficiis aliis cumulanda</i>,” while 227, 5 is
+decorated with the moral ejaculation, “<i>o hominem in diuitiis
+miserum</i>.” 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<a name = "tagII_58" href =
+"#noteII_58"><sup>58</sup></a> is so marked. This passage likewise
+called forth various marginal notes from Budaeus,<a name = "tagII_59"
+href = "#noteII_59"><sup>59</sup></a> and other coincidences exist
+between the markings in <i>Π</i> 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 <i>Π</i>.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_3">Aldus and Budaeus compared</a>
+</span>
+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,
+<span class = "pagenum">60</span>
+<a name = "page_60"> </a>
+its readings with the help of <i>B</i>, <i>F</i>, and Aldus show what
+was in that ancient book. I have enumerated above<a name = "tagII_60"
+href = "#noteII_60"><sup>60</sup></a> eleven readings of <i>ΠBF</i>
+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 <i>P</i>. In two more (62, 16 and 65, 12), Beroaldus
+already has the reading of <i>P</i>. 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<a name =
+"tagII_61" href = "#noteII_61"><sup>61</sup></a> for these twenty-six
+places, as they will illustrate the radical difference between Aldus and
+Budaeus in their use of the Parisinus.</p>
+
+<table summary = "apparatus">
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">60, 15</td>
+<td class = "appright">duplicia] <i>MVDrς</i><br>
+duplicata <i>ΠBFGpa</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">61, 12</td>
+<td class = "appright">confusa adhuc] <i>MVς</i><br>
+adhuc confusa <i>ΠBFGpra</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">18</td>
+<td class = "appright">milia passuum tria nec]
+<i>ΠBFMV</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+milia passum tria et nec <i>D</i><br>
+mille pastria nec <i>r</i><br>
+mille pas. nec <i>ς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">62, 6</td>
+<td class = "appright">doctissime] <i>MVς</i><br>
+et doctissime <i>r</i><br>
+doctissima <i>ΠBFDa</i><br>
+et doctissima <i>p</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">26</td>
+<td class = "appright">igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem]
+<i>ΠBFD</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+igitur et eundem mihi cursum et eundem <i>rς</i><br>
+fuit (25)&mdash;potes (64, 12) <i>om. MV</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">63, 2</td>
+<td class = "appright"><span class = "smallcaps">maximo</span>]
+<i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>pr?</i>)<i>a</i><br>
+Valerio Max. <i>ς</i><br>
+Gauio Maximo <i>Catanaeus</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">4</td>
+<td class = "appright">Arrianus Maturus] <i>ΠBFDra</i><br>
+arianus maturus <i>Gp</i><br>
+Arrianus Maturius <i>ς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">5</td>
+<td class = "appright">est] <i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+<i>om. r Ber.</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">9</td>
+<td class = "appright">ardentibus dicere]
+<i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>r</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+dicere ardentius <i>pς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">12</td>
+<td class = "appright">excolendusque] <i>ΠBFD</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+extollendusque <i>Grς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">15</td>
+<td class = "appright">conferas in eum]
+<i>ΠBFD</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+in eum conferas <i>Grς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">17</td>
+<td class = "appright">excipit] <i>ΠBFD</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+accipit <i>rς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft"></td>
+<td class = "appright">quam si] <i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+quasi si <i>r</i><br>
+quasi <i>Laet.</i>, <i>Ber.</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">20</td>
+<td class = "appright"><span class = "smallcaps">corelliae hispullae
+suae</span>]<br>
+<span class = "smallcaps">corelliae</span> <i>ΠB</i><br>
+<span class = "smallcaps">ad caerelliae hispullae</span> <i>ind.
+ΠB</i><br>
+<span class = "smallcaps">corellie ispullae</span> <i>F</i><br>
+<span class = "smallcaps">corelliae hispullae</span> <i>a</i><br>
+corneliae (Coreliae <i>Catanaeus</i>) hispullae (suae <i>add. Do</i>)
+<i>DGprς</i>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">22</td>
+<td class = "appright">teque et] <i>DG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>[sigma]</i><br>
+teque <i>ΠBFra</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">23</td>
+<td class = "appright">et in] <i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+et <i>rς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft"></td>
+<td class = "appright">diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam]
+<i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+diligam et cupiam necesse est etiam <i>r</i><br>
+diligam atque etiam cupiam nececesse (<i>sic</i>) est etiam
+<i>Ber.</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">64, 2</td>
+<td class = "appright">erroribus modica vel etiam nulla]
+<i>BFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+(<i>ex</i> <span class = "smallcaps">errorib·modicaestetiamnulla</span>
+<i>m. 2</i>)<i>Π</i><br>
+erroribus uel modica uel nulla <i>r</i><br>
+erroribus modica uel nulla <i>Ber.</i><br>
+uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla <i>vulgo</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">5</td>
+<td class = "appright">fortunaeque] <i>ΠBFDG</i>(<i>p</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+form(a)eque <i>r</i> <i>Ber.</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">65, 11</td>
+<td class = "appright">alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali
+<i>D</i>) <i>DGp</i><br>
+alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri <i>ΠBFa</i><br>
+alii quidam (quidem <i>Catanaeus</i>) minores sed tam (tamen
+<i>rς</i>)<br>
+innumeri <i>MVrς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">
+<span class = "pagenum">61</span>
+<a name = "page_61"> </a>
+15</td>
+<td class = "appright">superiore] <i>MVDς</i><br>
+priore <i>ΠBFGra</i><br>
+prior <i>p</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">24</td>
+<td class = "appright">iam] <i>MVDG</i>(<i>pr</i>?)<i>ς</i><br>
+<i>om.</i> <i>ΠBFa</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">66, 7</td>
+<td class = "appright">sint omnes]
+<i>ΠBFMVDG</i>(<i>pr</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+sint <i>ς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">9</td>
+<td class = "appright">haec quoque] <i>ΠBFDVGra</i><br>
+hoc quoque <i>M</i><br>
+hic quoque <i>p</i><br>
+haec <i>ς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">11</td>
+<td class = "appright">Pomponi] <i>ΠBMVo</i><br>
+Pomponii <i>FDpra</i><br>
+Q. Pomponii <i>ς</i></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "appleft">12</td>
+<td class = "appright">amatus] <i>ΠFDG</i>(<i>pr</i>?)<i>a</i><br>
+est amatus <i>MVς</i><br>
+amatus est <i>corr. m. 1</i> <i>B</i></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>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., <i>ς</i>) in these
+twenty-six readings. In one sure case (60, 15) and eleven possible<a
+name = "tagII_62" href = "#noteII_62"><sup>62</sup></a> cases (61, 18;
+62, 26; 63, 5, 12, 15, 17 <i>bis</i>, 23 <i>bis</i>; 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 <i>p</i> and <i>r</i>. Once he breaks away from all
+editions reported by Keil and agrees with <i>D</i> (62, 6). At the same
+time, all these readings are attested by <i>ΠFB</i> and hence were
+presumably in the Parisinus. In two cases (65, 11, 24), we know of no
+source other than <i>P</i> 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 <span class = "smallcaps">corneliae</span>, universally
+accepted before him, but again it is only <i>P</i> that could give him
+the correct spelling <span class = "smallcaps">corelliae</span>.<a name
+= "tagII_63" href = "#noteII_63"><sup>63</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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,<a name
+= "tagII_64" href = "#noteII_64"><sup>64</sup></a> 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.<a name = "tagII_65" href =
+"#noteII_65"><sup>65</sup></a> Aldus was collating. He carefully noted
+minutiae, such as the omission of <i>et</i> and <i>iam</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>Budaeus, on the other hand, is not an editor. He is a vastly
+interested reader
+<span class = "pagenum">62</span>
+<a name = "page_62"> </a>
+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.<a name = "tagII_66" href = "#noteII_66"><sup>66</sup></a> In
+the present section, occupying 251 lines in <i>Π</i>, there is only one
+reading of the Parisinus&mdash;a false reading, it happens&mdash;that
+seems to Budaeus worth recording. Compared with what Aldus gleaned from
+<i>Π</i>, 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.<a name = "tagII_67" href
+= "#noteII_67"><sup>67</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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;
+<i>suos quoique mos</i>. 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 <i>B</i> and
+<i>F</i>, shows that as a witness to the ancient manuscript Aldus is
+overwhelmingly superior to either Budaeus or any of the ancient
+editors.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Π</i> is
+most intimately connected with manuscripts <i>BF</i> 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
+<span class = "pagenum">63</span>
+<a name = "page_63"> </a>
+with <i>Π</i> shows him, for this much of the <i>Letters</i> at least,
+to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor. His method is to follow
+<i>Π</i> throughout, save when, confronted by its obvious blunders, he
+has recourse to the editions of his day.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_4">The latest criticism of Aldus</a>
+</span>
+Since the publication of Otto’s article in 1886,<a name = "tagII_68"
+href = "#noteII_68"><sup>68</sup></a> in which the author defended the
+<i>F</i> branch against that of <i>MV</i>, to which, as the elder
+representative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred,
+critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearance of
+<i>B</i> greatly helped, as it corroborates the testimony of <i>F</i>.
+<i>B</i> and <i>F</i> head the list of the manuscripts used by Kukula in
+his edition of 1912,<a name = "tagII_69" href =
+"#noteII_69"><sup>69</sup></a> and <i>B</i> and <i>F</i> 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
+<i>BF</i> 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 <i>BF</i> branch has naturally resulted
+in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seen in the portion
+included in <i>Π</i> that of the eleven readings which Keil regarded as
+errors of the <i>F</i> branch, three are accepted by Kukula and five by
+Merrill.<a name = "tagII_70" href = "#noteII_70"><sup>70</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>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 <i>supina ignorantia</i> and adds:<a
+name = "tagII_71" href = "#noteII_71"><sup>71</sup></a></p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+“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.”</p>
+
+<p>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,<a name = "tagII_72" href =
+"#noteII_72"><sup>72</sup></a> Professor Merrill declares that Keil’s
+remarks<a name = "tagII_73" href = "#noteII_73"><sup>73</sup></a> 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 <i>Letters</i>. 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
+<span class = "pagenum">64</span>
+<a name = "page_64"> </a>
+volume, which are apparently transcripts from the Parisinus
+(=&nbsp;<i>I</i>);<a name = "tagII_74" href =
+"#noteII_74"><sup>74</sup></a> in them Budaeus with his own hand
+(=&nbsp;<i>i</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
+<i>M</i>, not utilized till after Aldus’s edition. As this manuscript
+represents Class II, concurrences between <i>M</i> and <i>Ii</i> against
+<i>a</i> 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 <i>quas
+obvias</i>&mdash;xviii, II <i>amplissimos hortos</i>) 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.”<a name = "tagII_75" href = "#noteII_75"><sup>75</sup></a> Letter
+IX xvi, a very short affair, added by Budaeus in the margin, contains no
+indictment against Aldus.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_5">Aldus’s methods in the newly discovered parts
+of Books VIII, IX, and X</a>
+</span>
+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
+<i>Letters</i>.”<a name = "tagII_76" href =
+"#noteII_76"><sup>76</sup></a> “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.”<a
+name = "tagII_77" href = "#noteII_77"><sup>77</sup></a> 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 <i>P</i> 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 <i>P</i> while
+<i>I</i> emends (221, 11), and several cases in which Aldus and <i>I</i>
+or <i>i</i> emend in different ways an error of <i>P</i> (222, 14; 226,
+5; 272, 4&mdash;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 <i>M</i> (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 <i>only</i>
+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 <i>P</i>. 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
+<span class = "pagenum">65</span>
+<a name = "page_65"> </a>
+apparent case of interpolation (224, 8) Keil thought might have been a
+conjecture of Giocondo’s. Further, if the general character of <i>P</i>
+is represented in <i>Π</i>, 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.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_6">The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>Letters</i>&mdash;in some cases
+unhappily&mdash;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, <i>B</i> and <i>F</i>, the
+manuscripts of this class, appear to have descended from the very
+manuscript of which <i>Π</i> was a part. We see still more clearly than
+before that <i>BF</i> can be used elsewhere in the <i>Letters</i> 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 <i>BF</i> do not contain.</p>
+
+
+<p class = "section">
+<span class = "sidenote">
+<a name = "aldus_7">Conclusion</a>
+</span>
+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 <i>Letters</i>. 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 <i>Letters</i> in the early Middle Ages, and a surer
+method of editing their text.</p>
+
+<hr class = "tiny">
+
+<h4><a name = "notes_II">Notes to Part II</a></h4>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">37</span>
+<a name = "page_37_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_1" href = "#tagII_1">1.</a>
+I would acknowledge most gratefully the help given me in the preparation
+of this part of our discussion by Professor E.&nbsp;T. Merrill, of the
+University of Chicago. Professor Merrill, whose edition of the
+<i>Letters</i> 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 <i>apparatus criticus</i> for the entire text
+of the <i>Letters</i>, and a card-catalogue of the readings of <i>B</i>
+and <i>F</i>. 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_2" href = "#tagII_2">2.</a>
+On Petrus Leander, see Merrill in <i>Classical Philology</i> V (1910),
+pp. 451 f.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">38</span>
+<a name = "page_38_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_3" href = "#tagII_3">3.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> II (1907), pp. 134 f.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_4" href = "#tagII_4">4.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> X (1915), pp. 18 f.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_5" href = "#tagII_5">5.</a>
+By Merrill, <i>C.P.</i> V (1910), pp. 455 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_6" href = "#tagII_6">6.</a>
+Sandys, <i>A History of Classical Studies</i> II (1908), pp. 99 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">39</span>
+<a name = "page_39_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_7" href = "#tagII_7">7.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> II, p. 135.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_8" href = "#tagII_8">8.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate17.jpg">plate XVII</a>,
+which shows the insertion in Book VIII.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_9" href = "#tagII_9">9.</a>
+<i>Journal of Philology</i> XVII (1888), pp. 95 ff., and in the
+introduction to his edition of the <i>Tenth Book</i> (1889), pp. 75 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_10" href = "#tagII_10">10.</a>
+See Merrill <i>C.P.</i> II, p. 136.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">40</span>
+<a name = "page_40_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_11" href = "#tagII_11">11.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> II, pp. 129 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_12" href = "#tagII_12">12.</a>
+In his edition, pp. xxiii f.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_13" href = "#tagII_13">13.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> II, p. 152.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_14" href = "#tagII_14">14.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> V, p. 466.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_15" href = "#tagII_15">15.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> II, p. 156.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">41</span>
+<a name = "page_41_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_16" href = "#tagII_16">16.</a>
+See Dr. Lowe’s remarks, <a href = "#page_3">pp. 3-6</a> above.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_17" href = "#tagII_17">17.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_21">p. 21</a>, and below,
+<a href = "#page_53">p. 53</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">42</span>
+<a name = "page_42_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_18" href = "#tagII_18">18.</a>
+The spellings <i>Karet</i> and <i>Karitas</i>, 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 <i>k</i> for <i>c</i> when the vowel
+<i>a</i> followed. By the fourth century, theorists of the opposite
+tendency proposed the abandonment of <i>k</i> and <i>q</i> as
+superfluous letters, since their functions were performed by <i>c</i>.
+Donatus (p. 368, 7 K) and Diomedes, too, according to Keil (p. 423, 11),
+still believed in the rule of <i>ka</i> for <i>ca</i>, but these rigid
+critics had passed away in the time of Servius, who, in his commentary
+on Donatus (p. 422, 35 K), remarks <i>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.</i> See also Cledonius (p. 28, 5K); W. Brambach, <i>Latein.
+Orthog.</i> 1868, pp. 210 ff.; W.&nbsp;M. Lindsay,
+<i>The Latin Language</i>,
+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 <i>ka</i>
+for <i>ca</i> 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 <i>ca</i> in our
+text (<i>e.g.</i>, <i>calceos</i>, III, i, 4; <i>canere</i>, 11), but
+there we find the usual spelling. On traces of <i>ka</i> in the
+Bellovacensis, see below, <a href = "#page_57">p. 57</a>.
+I should not be surprised if Pliny
+himself employed the spelling <i>ka</i>, 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">44</span>
+<a name = "page_44_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_19" href = "#tagII_19">19.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> X (1915), pp. 8 ff. A classified list of the manuscripts of
+the <i>Letters</i> is given by Miss Dora Johnson in <i>C.P.</i> VII
+(1912), pp. 66 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_20" href = "#tagII_20">20.</a>
+<i>Pal. des Class. Lat.</i> pl. CXLIII.
+See our <a href = "images/plate13.jpg">plates XIII</a>
+and <a href = "images/plate14.jpg">XIV</a>. At
+least as early as the thirteenth century, the manuscript was at
+Beauvais. The ancient press-mark <i>S. Petri Beluacensis</i>, in writing
+perhaps of the twelfth century, may still be discerned on the recto of
+the first folio. See Merrill, <i>C.P.</i> X, p. 16. If the book was
+written at Beauvais, as Chatelain thinks (<i>Journal des Savants</i>,
+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 <i>saec.</i> IX (Chatelain, pl.
+LXXVIII), shows a certain similarity in the script to that of <i>B</i>.
+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 <i>B</i>, we need a study of all the books of Beauvais. For
+this, a valuable preliminary survey is given by Omont in <i>Mém. de
+l’Acad. des Ins. et Belles Lettres</i> XL (1914), pp. 1 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_21" href = "#tagII_21">21.</a>
+<i>Specimina Cod. Lat. Vatic.</i> 1912, pl. 30. See also H.&nbsp;M.
+Bannister, <i>Paleografia Musicale Vaticana</i> 1913, p. 30, No. 109.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_22" href = "#tagII_22">22.</a>
+See the preface to his edition, p. xi.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">45</span>
+<a name = "page_45_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_23" href = "#tagII_23">23.</a>
+For the script of <i>F</i>, see <a href = "images/plate15.jpg">plates
+XV</a> and <a href = "images/plate16.jpg">XVI</a>. Bern. 136, <i>s.</i>
+XIII (Merrill, <i>C.P.</i> X, p. 18) is a copy of <i>F</i>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_24" href = "#tagII_24">24.</a>
+Cod. Med. LXVIII, 1. See Rostagno in the preface to his edition of this
+manuscript in the Leyden series, and for the Pliny, Chatelain, <i>Pal.
+des Class. Lat.</i>, 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 <i>Abhandl. der Bayer. Akad. der Wiss. Philos.-philol. u.
+hist. Klasse</i>, XXX, 5 (1919), p. 38. He assigns it to the middle or
+the last half of the ninth century.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_25" href = "#tagII_25">25.</a>
+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 “<i>saec.</i> IX/X” (<i>Wiener Studien</i> 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_26" href = "#tagII_26">26.</a>
+See Merrill <i>C.P.</i> X, p. 23. The catalogue (G. Becker, <i>Catalogi
+bibliothecarum antiqui</i>, 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.&nbsp;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, <i>Philol.
+Quart.</i> 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_27" href = "#tagII_27">27.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> X, p. 23.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">46</span>
+<a name = "page_46_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_28" href = "#tagII_28">28.</a>
+See Paul Lehmann, “Aufgaben und Anregungen der lateinischen Philologie
+des Mittelalters,” in <i>Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad. der Wiss.
+Philos.-philol. u. hist. Klasse</i>, 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. 1-31<sup>v</sup> Briefe des
+Hierononymus u. Gregorius Magnus + fol. 46<sup>v</sup>-47<sup>v</sup>,
+Briefe des <ins class = "correction" title =
+"text reads 'Plinus'">Plinius</ins> an Tacitus u. Albinus, in
+kontinentaler, wohl Regensburger Minuskel etwa der Mitte des
+9<sup>ten</sup> Jahrhunderts, <i>unter starken insularen
+(angelsächsischen) Einfluss</i> in Buchstabenformen, Abkürzungen, etc.
+Fol. 32<sup>r</sup> <i>saec.</i> IX<sup><i>ex</i></sup> <i>vel</i>
+X<sup><i>in.</i></sup> fol. 32<sup>v</sup>-46<sup>r</sup> in der
+Hauptsache <i>direkt insular</i> mit historischen Notizen in
+festländischer Style. Fol. 48<sup>v</sup>-128 Ambrosius <i>saec.</i>
+X<sup><i>in</i></sup>.”
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_29" href = "#tagII_29">29.</a>
+<i>Commentatiuncula de C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistularum fragmento
+Vossiano notis tironianis descripto</i> (in <i>Exercitationes Palaeog.
+in Bibl. Univ. Lugduno-Bat.</i>, 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
+<i>MV</i>, with which manuscripts it is undoubtedly associated. In one
+error it agrees with <i>V</i> against <i>M</i>. Chatelain
+(<i>Introduction à la Lecture des Notes Tironiennes</i>, 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_30" href = "#tagII_30">30.</a>
+See Merrill’s discussion of the different possibilities, <i>C.P.</i> X,
+p. 14.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">47</span>
+<a name = "page_47_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_31" href = "#tagII_31">31.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> X, p. 20.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">48</span>
+<a name = "page_48_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_32" href = "#tagII_32">32.</a>
+I have not always followed Dr. Lowe in distinguishing first and second
+hands in the various alterations discussed here
+(<a href = "#page_48">pp. 48-50</a>).
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_33" href = "#tagII_33">33.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_42">p. 42</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_34" href = "#tagII_34">34.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_11">pp. 11 f</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">49</span>
+<a name = "page_49_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_35" href = "#tagII_35">35.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate13.jpg">plates XIII</a>-<a href =
+"images/plate14.jpg">XIV</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_36" href = "#tagII_36">36.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate14.jpg">plate XIV</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">50</span>
+<a name = "page_50_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_37" href = "#tagII_37">37.</a>
+There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly worth mention. The
+most important are 63, 10 caret <i>B</i> KARET <i>Π</i>; caritas
+<i>B</i> KARITAS <i>Π</i>. Yet see below, <a href = "#page_57">p.
+57</a>, where it is shown that the ancient spelling is found in
+<i>B</i> elsewhere than in the portion of text included in <i>Π</i>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">51</span>
+<a name = "page_51_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_38" href = "#tagII_38">38.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> V, pp. 467 ff. and 476 ff., and for the supposed lack of
+indices in <i>P</i>, p. 485.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_39" href = "#tagII_39">39.</a>
+I venture to disagree with Dr. Lowe’s view (above,
+<a href = "#page_25">p. 25</a>) that the addition is by the first hand.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_40" href = "#tagII_40">40.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_11">p. 11</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_41" href = "#tagII_41">41.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate14.jpg">plate XIV</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">52</span>
+<a name = "page_52_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_42" href = "#tagII_42">42.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_48">pp. 48 f.</a>
+</div>
+
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">53</span>
+<a name = "page_53_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_43" href = "#tagII_43">43.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_44_note">p. 44, n. 2.</a>
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_44" href = "#tagII_44">44.</a>
+“Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius
+und Trajan,” in <i>Wiener Studien</i> XXXI (1909), p. 258.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_45" href = "#tagII_45">45.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_21">pp. 21</a>, <a href = "#page_41">41</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">54</span>
+<a name = "page_54_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_46" href = "#tagII_46">46.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_22">p. 22</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_47" href = "#tagII_47">47.</a>
+<i>The Descent of Manuscripts</i>, 1918, p. 16. Professor Clark counts
+on two pages chosen at random, 23-31 letters in the line. My count for
+<i>Π</i> includes the nine and a third pages on which full lines occur.
+If I had taken only foll. 52<sup>r</sup>, 52<sup>v</sup>, 53<sup>r</sup>
+and 53<sup>v</sup>, 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 (133<sup>v</sup>) has a line of 32 letters, and so has
+135<sup>v</sup>, while 136<sup>v</sup> has one of 33. The lines of
+<i>Π</i> are a shade longer than those of the Vindobonensis, but only a
+shade.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">55</span>
+<a name = "page_55_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_48" href = "#tagII_48">48.</a>
+<i>Ibidem</i>, 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 <i>Classical Journal</i> XIV (1919), pp. 395 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">57</span>
+<a name = "page_57_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_49" href = "#tagII_49">49.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_42_note">pp. 42, n. 1</a>,
+and <a href = "#page_50_note">50, n. 1</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">58</span>
+<a name = "page_58_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_50" href = "#tagII_50">50.</a>
+See the introduction to his edition, p. xviii.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_51" href = "#tagII_51">51.</a>
+See below, <a href = "#page_60">pp. 60 ff</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_52" href = "#tagII_52">52.</a>
+<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. xxv: illis potissimum Aldum usum esse vidi.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_53" href = "#tagII_53">53.</a>
+<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. xviii, xx.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_54" href = "#tagII_54">54.</a>
+<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 2: Ex ς pauca adscripta sunt.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_55" href = "#tagII_55">55.</a>
+<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. xxxii.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">59</span>
+<a name = "page_59_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_56" href = "#tagII_56">56.</a>
+See Ribbeck’s Virgil, <i>Prolegomena</i>, p. 152.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_57" href = "#tagII_57">57.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate18.jpg">plate XVIII</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_58" href = "#tagII_58">58.</a>
+<i>Epist.</i> III, i (<a href = "images/plate04.jpg">plate IV</a>).
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_59" href = "#tagII_59">59.</a>
+See <a href = "images/plate18.jpg">plate XVIII</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">60</span>
+<a name = "page_60_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_60" href = "#tagII_60">60.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_47">p. 47</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_61" href = "#tagII_61">61.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">61</span>
+<a name = "page_61_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_62" href = "#tagII_62">62.</a>
+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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_63" href = "#tagII_63">63.</a>
+I have purposely omitted to treat Aldus’s use of the superscriptions in
+<i>P</i>, as that matter is best reserved for a consideration of the
+superscriptions in general.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_64" href = "#tagII_64">64.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_58">p. 58</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_65" href = "#tagII_65">65.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_47">pp. 47 f</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">62</span>
+<a name = "page_62_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_66" href = "#tagII_66">66.</a>
+See Merrill, “Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels
+zwischen Plinius und Trajan,” in <i>Wiener Studien</i> XXXI (1909), p.
+257; <i>C.P.</i> II, p. 154; XIV, p. 30 f.
+Two examples (216, 23 and 227, 18) will be noted in
+<a href = "images/plate17.jpg">plate XVII a</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_67" href = "#tagII_67">67.</a>
+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 <a href = "images/plate17.jpg">plate XVII b</a>) we find
+him writing <i>Tamen</i> for <i>tum</i>, Budaeus correcting this error
+in the margin. A scribe is of course capable of anything, but with an
+uncial <i>tum</i> to start from, <i>tamen</i> is not a natural mistake
+to commit; it would rather appear that the scribe falsely resolved a
+minuscule abbreviation.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">63</span>
+<a name = "page_63_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_68" href = "#tagII_68">68.</a>
+“Die Ueberlieferung der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius,” in <i>Hermes</i>
+XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_69" href = "#tagII_69">69.</a>
+See <a href = "#page_iv">p. iv</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_70" href = "#tagII_70">70.</a>
+See above, <a href = "#page_47">pp. 47 f</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_71" href = "#tagII_71">71.</a>
+See the prefatory letter in his edition of 1518.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_72" href = "#tagII_72">72.</a>
+<i>C.P.</i> XIV (1919), pp. 29 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_73" href = "#tagII_73">73.</a>
+<i>Op. cit.</i>, 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.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<span class = "pagenum2">64</span>
+<a name = "page_64_note"> </a>
+<a name = "noteII_74" href = "#tagII_74">74.</a>
+But see above, <a href = "#page_62_note">p. 62, n. 2</a>.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_75" href = "#tagII_75">75.</a>
+Pp. 31 ff.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_76" href = "#tagII_76">76.</a>
+P. 33.
+</div>
+
+<div class = "footnote">
+<a name = "noteII_77" href = "#tagII_77">77.</a>
+P. 30.
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">67</span>
+<a name = "page_67"> </a>
+<h2><a name = "plates">DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.</a></h2>
+
+<div class = "mynote">
+Large plates are shown at about 3/4 original size.
+</div>
+
+<p>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 <i>Letters</i>, Book II, xx. 13&mdash;Book
+III, v. 4. For a detailed description, see above,
+<a href = "#page_3">pp. 3 ff</a>. The entire
+fragment is here given, very slightly reduced. The exact size of the
+script is shown in Plate XX.</p>
+
+<table class = "plates">
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb01.jpg" width = "134" height = "205" alt =
+"thumbnail I" title = "thumbnail I"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb02.jpg" width = "130" height = "204" alt =
+"thumbnail II" title = "thumbnail II"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb03.jpg" width = "129" height = "204" alt =
+"thumbnail III" title = "thumbnail III"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb04.jpg" width = "130" height = "206" alt =
+"thumbnail IV" title = "thumbnail IV"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate01.jpg">Plate I</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate02.jpg">Plate II</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate03.jpg">Plate III</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate04.jpg">Plate IV</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb05.jpg" width = "130" height = "205" alt =
+"thumbnail V" title = "thumbnail V"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb06.jpg" width = "130" height = "207" alt =
+"thumbnail VI" title = "thumbnail VI"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb07.jpg" width = "130" height = "205" alt =
+"thumbnail VII" title = "thumbnail VII"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb08.jpg" width = "129" height = "205" alt =
+"thumbnail VIII" title = "thumbnail VIII"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate05.jpg">Plate V</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate06.jpg">Plate VI</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate07.jpg">Plate VII</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate08.jpg">Plate VIII</a></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb09.jpg" width = "132" height = "205" alt =
+"thumbnail IX" title = "thumbnail IX"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb10.jpg" width = "129" height = "204" alt =
+"thumbnail X" title = "thumbnail X"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb11.jpg" width = "133" height = "207" alt =
+"thumbnail XI" title = "thumbnail XI"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb12.jpg" width = "131" height = "204" alt =
+"thumbnail XII" title = "thumbnail XII"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate09.jpg">Plate IX</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate10.jpg">Plate X</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate11.jpg">Plate XI</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate12.jpg">Plate XII</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>XIII-XIV. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. Ashburnham R 98, known as
+Codex Bellovacensis (<i>B</i>) or Riccardianus (<i>R</i>), written in
+Caroline minuscule of the ninth century.
+See above, <a href = "#page_44">p. 44</a>. Our plates
+reproduce fols. 9 and 9<sup>v</sup> (slightly reduced), containing the
+end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.</p>
+
+<table class = "plates">
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb13.jpg" width = "212" height = "284" alt =
+"thumbnail XIII" title = "thumbnail XIII"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb14.jpg" width = "206" height = "262" alt =
+"thumbnail XIV" title = "thumbnail XIV"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate13.jpg">Plate XIII</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate14.jpg">Plate XIV</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><ins class = "correction" title =
+"in the printed book, plates XV and XVI are reversed">XV-XVI.</ins>
+Florence, Laurentian Library MS. San Marco 284, written in Caroline
+minuscule of the tenth century. See above,
+<a href = "#page_44">pp. 44 f</a>. Our plates
+reproduce fols. 56<sup>v</sup> and 57<sup>r</sup>, containing the end of
+Book II and the beginning of Book III.</p>
+
+<table class = "plates">
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb15.jpg" width = "136" height = "196" alt =
+"thumbnail XV" title = "thumbnail XV"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb16.jpg" width = "133" height = "198" alt =
+"thumbnail XVI" title = "thumbnail XVI"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate15.jpg">Plate XV</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate16.jpg">Plate XVI</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>XVII-XVIII. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. L 4. 3. See above,
+<a href = "#page_39">pp. 39 f</a>.
+The lacuna in Book VIII (216, 27-227, 10 Keil) is indicated by a
+cross (+) on fol. 136<sup>v</sup> (plate XVII<sup>a</sup>). The missing
+text is supplied on added leaves by the hand shown on plate
+XVII<sup>b</sup> (=&nbsp;fol. 144). The variants are in the hand of
+Budaeus. Plate XVIII contains fols. 32<sup>v</sup> and 33, showing the
+end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.</p>
+
+<table class = "plates">
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb17.jpg" width = "212" height = "132" alt =
+"thumbnail XVII" title = "thumbnail XVII"></td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<img src = "images/thumb18.jpg" width = "210" height = "132" alt =
+"thumbnail XVIII" title = "thumbnail XVIII"></td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate17.jpg">Plate XVII</a></td>
+<td class = "plates"><a href = "images/plate18.jpg">Plate XVIII</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<table class = "plates">
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "vertplates">
+<p>XIX. Aldine edition of Pliny’s <i>Letters</i>, Venice 1508. Our plate
+reproduces the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.</p>
+</td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/thumb19.jpg" width = "149" height = "121" alt =
+"thumbnail XIX" title = "thumbnail XIX"></p>
+<p class = "image"><a href = "images/plate19.jpg">Plate XIX</a></p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td>
+<p>XX. Specimens of three uncial manuscripts:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">
+(<i>a</i>) Berlin, Königl. Bibl. Lat. 4º 298, <i>circa a.</i> 447.</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">(<i>b</i>) New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library,
+MS. M. 462, <i>circa a.</i> 500 (exact size).</p>
+
+<p class = "inset1">(<i>c</i>) Fulda, Codex Bonifatianus 1, <i>ante
+a.</i> 547.</p>
+</td>
+<td class = "plates">
+<p class = "image">
+<img src = "images/thumb20.jpg" width = "147" height = "212" alt =
+"thumbnail XX" title = "thumbnail XX"></p>
+<p class = "image"><a href = "images/plate20.jpg">Plate XX</a></p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+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-h.htm or 16706-h.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
+business@pglaf.org.  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
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+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.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/16706-h/images/carnegie.png b/16706-h/images/carnegie.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6335644
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/carnegie.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/fig_04.png b/16706-h/images/fig_04.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4f0f4ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/fig_04.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/fig_15.png b/16706-h/images/fig_15.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40b4708
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/fig_15.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/fig_53.png b/16706-h/images/fig_53.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f4ab691
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/fig_53.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/fig_54.png b/16706-h/images/fig_54.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5f15cb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/fig_54.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_19a.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_19a.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5554561
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_19a.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_19b.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_19b.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ad260e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_19b.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_19c.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_19c.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f266601
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_19c.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_19d.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_19d.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..beb0fe8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_19d.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_19e.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_19e.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0a517c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_19e.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/ltr_20a.png b/16706-h/images/ltr_20a.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8157d14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/ltr_20a.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/mark_20a.png b/16706-h/images/mark_20a.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..da3e95d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/mark_20a.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/mark_20b.png b/16706-h/images/mark_20b.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b760420
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/mark_20b.png
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate01.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate01.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba07d90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate01.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate02.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate02.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9c3da61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate02.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate03.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate03.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2bfcb07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate03.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate04.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate04.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f501364
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate04.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate05.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate05.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0e0c79a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate05.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate06.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate06.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f3abadb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate06.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate07.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate07.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..928da11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate07.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate08.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate08.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0accd93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate08.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate09.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate09.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d58264
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate09.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate10.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate10.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3bf0cae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate10.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate11.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate11.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..62b6c04
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate11.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate12.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate12.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6f1beeb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate12.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate13.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate13.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b2518a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate13.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate14.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate14.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a75f248
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate14.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate15.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate15.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b1828b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate15.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate16.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate16.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ab94da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate16.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate17.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate17.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2c76db9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate17.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate18.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate18.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f9db71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate18.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate19.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate19.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a0e6158
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate19.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/plate20.jpg b/16706-h/images/plate20.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a7c7263
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/plate20.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb01.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb01.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9164b90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb01.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb02.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb02.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fa07a45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb02.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb03.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb03.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..50085a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb03.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb04.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb04.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc3adb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb04.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb05.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb05.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..75cacee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb05.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb06.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb06.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db1d0c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb06.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb07.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb07.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..519c06b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb07.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb08.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb08.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad018cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb08.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb09.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb09.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..94d1d45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb09.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb10.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb10.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9877412
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb10.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb11.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb11.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f42130b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb11.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb12.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb12.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c83c80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb12.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb13.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb13.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ef74df7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb13.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb14.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb14.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4613a0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb14.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb15.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb15.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7ff6236
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb15.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb16.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb16.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..baff912
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb16.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb17.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb17.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a68db03
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb17.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb18.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb18.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7db6b44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb18.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb19.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb19.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a4e4664
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb19.jpg
diff --git a/16706-h/images/thumb20.jpg b/16706-h/images/thumb20.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8975064
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706-h/images/thumb20.jpg
diff --git a/16706.txt b/16706.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fa8008
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4328 @@
+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: ASCII
+
+*** 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}. Manuscripts identified
+by Greek letter are shown in the form {Pi}.
+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
+  _{Pi}_ a member of Class I
+  _{Pi}_ the direct ancestor of _BF_ with probably a copy intervening
+  The probable stemma
+  Further consideration of the external history of _P_, _{Pi}_, and _B_
+  Evidence from the portions of _BF_ outside the text of _{Pi}_
+
+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
+  Bibliotheque 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. 2� 416 and Rome Vatic. lat. 3256 reproduced in
+  Zangemeister and Wattenbach's _Exempla Codicum Latinorum_, etc., pl.
+  14, and in Steffens, _Lateinische Palaeographie_{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, _Paleographie 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 Palaeographie{2}_, 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]
+.{-C}. = 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, _Paleographie des classiques latins_, Paris 1884-1900,
+  and _Uncialis scriptura codicum latinorum novis exemplis illustrata_,
+  Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, _Lateinische Palaeographie{2}_, 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; Steffens{2}, pl. 17; also
+    Schwartz in _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, XXVI (1906),
+    c. 746.
+
+3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 4�. 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; Steffens{2}, 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 copie en 625" in _Notices et Extraits des
+    manuscrits de la bibliotheque nationale_, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149
+    sqq.; J. Havet, "Questions merovingiennes: III. La date d'un
+    manuscrit de Luxeuil" in _Bibliotheque de l'ecole 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
+    merovingien de Saint-Medard de Soissons" in _Revue archeologique_,
+    Nouv. ser. XLI (1881), pp. 257 sqq. and pl. IX; idem, "Notice sur
+    un manuscrit merovingien de la Bibliotheque 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 Bibliotheque 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;
+    Steffens{2}, 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;
+    Steffens{2}, 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_; Steffens{2}, 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, _Paleographie des classiques latins_, pl. XXXIX, 2;
+    _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 160; Steffens{2}, 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, _Paleographie 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,
+    _Paleographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXVI; _Reproductions des
+    manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliotheque 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, _Paleographie 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 Koeniglich 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, _Paleographie 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 (ff{2}).
+
+    Traube, l.c., No. 214; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 87;
+    E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. II; Reusens, _Elements
+    de paleographie_, 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. 4�. 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, "Ueber den Aeltesten 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 siecle
+    conserves a la bibliotheque imperiale 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; Steffens{1}, 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 deg., 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. {Further consideration of...}]
+
+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 _provoste_ of Meaux, and Francois
+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-similes a l'usage de l'ecole 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'eglise 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,
+Caesar, 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:
+Characters that could not be fully displayed are "unpacked" and shown
+within braces: {.T}. 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]
+
+.{-C}.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
+.{-C}.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
+{.R}{.A}T[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 IUDICI{.A}UM[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 PROCONSULATU{.S}[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
+{.T}{.U}{.M}[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 HOSP{.I}TIUM[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
+{.T}{.I}TISSIMUM[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
+
+.{-C}.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 {.D}{.E}FUNGAR[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 naive 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 Bude (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
+_{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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] _{Pi}a_ SERUA _{Pi}{2}_ 61, 21 considit] _{Pi}_
+CONSIDET _{Pi}{2}a_ The original reading of _{Pi}_ 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] _{Pi}_ residet _a_ Here _{Pi}_ 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_?) _{Pi}_ 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_) _{Pi}_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut
+praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _{Pi}_ 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_ (?) _{Pi}_.
+
+There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in
+_{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi} B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _{Pi}_ 64, 24
+conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _{Pi}_.
+
+In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_
+might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64,3) modern
+editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] {Pi} aurium
+oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA {Pi} 65, 11
+et alii] {Pi} etiam alii _a_.
+
+There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri]
+{Pi} 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 {Pi} only in certain spellings, in the correction, with the
+help of existing editions, of three obvious errors of {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 {Pi} 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 _Mem. 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 monastere 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 (angelsaechsischen) Einfluss_ in Buchstabenformen,
+  Abkuerzungen, etc. Fol. 32r _saec._ IX _ex_ _vel_ X _in._ fol.
+  32v-46r in der Hauptsache _direkt insular_ mit historischen Notizen
+  in festlaendischer 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 a 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 Orleans.]
+
+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 {sigma} 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 {sigma} 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: _{Pi} a member of Class I_]
+
+Now nothing is plainer than that _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}BFGa_; 61, 12
+confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _{Pi}BFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_
+doctissima _{Pi}BFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ et
+adficitur _{Pi}BFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _{Pi}BF_; 63, 22
+teque et] _MVDG_ teque _{Pi}BFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda
+_BFu_ CONFERANDA _{Pi}_ (_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 _{Pi}BFa_; 65, 12
+voluntariis accusationibus] _M_ (uoluntaris) _D_ voluntariis _om. V_
+accusationibus uoluntariis _{Pi}BFGa_; 65, 15 superiore] _MVD_ priore
+_{Pi}BFGa_; 65, 24 iam] _MVDG_ _om._ _{Pi}BFa._
+
+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, _{Pi}BF_ 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, _{Pi}_ is not of the latter
+class. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the whole
+passage, no one of which appears in _{Pi}_: 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 _{Pi}_ agrees with _V_ in an error
+easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2_
+_{Pi}_ ornata _V_.
+
+_{Pi}_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by different
+routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _{Pi}_ clearly
+has no close association.
+
+But the evidence for allying _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+then _BF_ must descend directly from _{Pi}_. The following instances
+point in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+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 _{Pi}_ are faded and blurred;
+the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscript
+derived directly from _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. _B_ did not, as we shall see,
+copy directly from _{Pi}_; 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ directly, the mistake
+would be especially easy, for PRAECEPTORIA ends the line in _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ are as
+follows: 62, 23 unice] _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 65, 24 fungerer]. In
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 66, 2 avunculi]
+AUONCULI _{Pi}_ (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 _{Pi}_
+seems particularly close. _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, which has the
+same amount of text, plus the first three letters of SPURINNAM, in the
+first two lines. If _B_ had _{Pi}_ before him, there is nothing to
+explain his most unusual procedure. His original, therefore, is not
+_{Pi}_ 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: _{Pi} the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copy
+intervening_]
+
+If _{Pi}_ is the direct ancestor of _BF_, these manuscripts should
+contain no good readings not found in _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_; 64, 4
+conprobasse] (comp.) _BF_ COMPROUASSE _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ before him should correct it as
+he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copy
+intervened between _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ that may not be found, by
+either the first or the second hand, in _{Pi}_.[37]
+
+  [Footnote 37: There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly
+  worth mention. The most important are 63, 10 caret _B_ KARET _{Pi}_;
+  caritas _B_ KARITAS _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_.]
+
+We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the close
+connection existing between _BF_ and _{Pi}_. _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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original title
+had been omitted in the manuscript which _{Pi}_ was copying and the
+corrector of _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_ is in the title of III, viii: AD SUETON TRANQUE _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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).
+_{Pi}BF_ agree in omitting SUAE (III, iii) and SUO (III, iv), but in
+retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in
+_{Pi}_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _{Pi}_ and _B_, as AD
+SUETON TRANQUE (tranqui _B_); AD UESTRIC SPURINN.; AD SILIUM PROCUL.[40]
+In the first of these cases, the parent of _{Pi}_ evidently had TRANQ.,
+which _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_.
+Further, _B_ omits one symbol of abbreviation which _{Pi}_ has (POSSUM
+IAM PERSCRI{-B}), 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 _{Pi}_. This detail, therefore, may be added to the
+indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _{Pi}_;
+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 _{Pi}_ and _BF_, and
+fit the supposition that _B_ and _F_ are direct descendants of _{Pi}_.
+This may be strengthened by another consideration. If _{Pi}_ and _B_
+independently copy the same source, they inevitably make independent
+errors, however careful their work. _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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
+_{Pi}_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readings
+that _{Pi}_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settle
+that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_ would furnish
+incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was
+independent of _{Pi}_; 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_, 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
+
+    _{Pi}_            _{Pi}_              _X_
+      |                 |                /   \
+      |                 |               /     \
+    _{Pi}{1}_         _{Pi}{1}_        /       \
+     / \                |            _X{1}_   _{Pi}_
+    /   \               |             / \
+  _B_    \             _B_           /   \
+         _F_            |          _B_    \
+                        |                 _F_
+                       _F_
+
+Robbins put _P_ in the position of _{Pi}_ in this last stemma, but on
+the assumption that it did not contain the indices. That is not true of
+_{Pi}_.
+
+
+[Sidenote: _Further consideration of the external history of P, {Pi},
+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 _{Pi}_{1}, the
+copy intervening between _{Pi}_ and _B_, was also French, and that
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_{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 _{Pi}_ and _B_ descend, being earlier than _{Pi}_, must
+have been a manuscript in majuscules, written in Italy, since that is
+unquestionably the provenience of _{Pi}_. 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 (X{1}) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is
+the parent of _B_ and _F_; the other (_{Pi}_) 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 _{Pi}_ were floating about in France in the ninth century. There is
+nothing in the evidence presented by _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_. The burden of proof would appear to rest on those
+who assert the contrary. _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_
+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 fruehen 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 _{Pi}_ is a part.
+            |
+            |
+           _P{1}_
+           / \
+          /   \
+        _B_    \
+               _F_
+
+
+[Sidenote: _Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of {Pi}_]
+
+We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions
+of _BF_ outside the text of _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. 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 _{Pi}_. Supposing that _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, 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 (_P{2}_) intervening between _P{1}_ and _F_,
+but doubtless neither that nor _P{1}_ itself had lines so short as those
+in _P_; the error of _F_, therefore, may be most naturally ascribed to
+_P{1}_, 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 _P{1}_ or _P{2}_. 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 _P{1}_ 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 _P{1}_ dropped by _B_ in
+copying, but it is equally possible that _P{1}_ 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 _P{1}_.
+
+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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 (_P{1}_)
+intervened between _P_ and _B_; _P_ had the spelling _Karitas_
+consistently, _P{1}_ altered it to the usual form, and _B_ reproduced
+the corrections in _P{1}_, failing to take them all, unless, as may well
+be, _P{1}_ 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
+_{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_, _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
+_{sigma}_ in all but twenty-six readings.[51] Aldus would have had
+fewest changes to make, then, if his basic text was {sigma}. This is
+apparently the view of Keil,[52] who would agree at any rate that Aldus
+made special use of the {sigma} 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 {sigma} 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 _{Pi}_,
+their number is disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus
+(=_i_) to the text of Beroaldus are: 61, 14 sera] _MVDoa_, (_m. 1_)
+_{Pi}_ serua _BFuxi_, (_m. 2_) _{Pi}_; 62, 4 ambulat] _i cum plerisque_
+ambulabat _r Ber._ (ab _del._) _M_; 62, 25 quoque] _i cum ceteris_
+{p_}ouq (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 _{Pi}_.
+
+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 _{Pi}_
+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 _{Pi}_.
+
+  [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 _{Pi}BF_ 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 {sigma} 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] _MVDr{sigma}_
+           duplicata _{Pi}BFGpa_
+
+    61, 12 confusa adhuc] _MV{sigma}_
+           adhuc confusa _{Pi}BFGpra_
+
+        18 milia passuum tria nec] _{Pi}BFMV_(_p_?)_a_
+           milia passum tria et nec _D_
+           mille pastria nec _r_
+           mille pas. nec _{sigma}_
+
+    62,  6 doctissime] _MV{sigma}_
+           et doctissime _r_
+           doctissima _{Pi}BFDa_
+           et doctissima _p_
+
+        26 igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           igitur et eundem mihi cursum et eundem _r{sigma}_
+
+           fuit (25)--potes (64, 12) _om. MV_
+
+    63,  2 MAXIMO] _{Pi}BFDG_(_pr?_)_a_
+           Valerio Max. _{sigma}_
+           Gauio Maximo _Catanaeus_
+
+         4 Arrianus Maturus] _{Pi}BFDra_
+           arianus maturus _Gp_
+           Arrianus Maturius _{sigma}_
+
+         5 est] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_ _om. r Ber._
+
+         9 ardentibus dicere] _{Pi}BFDG_(_r_?)_a_
+           dicere ardentius _p{sigma}_
+
+        12 excolendusque] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           extollendusque _Gr{sigma}_
+
+        15 conferas in eum] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           in eum conferas _Gr{sigma}_
+
+        17 excipit] _{Pi}BFD_(_p_?)_a_
+           accipit _r{sigma}_
+
+           quam si] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           quasi si _r_
+           quasi _Laet._, _Ber._
+
+        20 CORELLIAE HISPULLAE SUAE] CORELLIAE _{Pi}B_
+           AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE _ind. {Pi}B_
+           CORELLIE ISPULLAE _F_ CORELLIAE HISPULLAE _a_
+           corneliae (Coreliae _Catanaeus_) hispullae (suae _add. Do_)
+             _DGpr{sigma}_
+
+        22 teque et] _DG_(_p_?)_[sigma]_
+           teque _{Pi}BFra_
+
+        23 et in] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           et _r{sigma}_
+
+           diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] _{Pi}BFDG_(_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_)_{Pi}_
+           erroribus uel modica uel nulla _r_
+           erroribus modica uel nulla _Ber._
+           uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla _vulgo_
+
+         5 fortunaeque] _{Pi}BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
+           form(a)eque _r_ _Ber._
+
+    65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali _D_) _DGp_
+           alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _{Pi}BFa_
+           alii quidam (quidem _Catanaeus_) minores sed tam
+             (tamen _r{sigma}_) innumeri _MVr{sigma}_
+
+        15 superiore] _MVD{sigma}_
+           priore _{Pi}BFGra_ prior _p_
+
+        24 iam] _MVDG_(_pr_?)_{sigma}_ _om._ _{Pi}BFa_
+
+    66,  7 sint omnes] _{Pi}BFMVDG_(_pr_?)_a_
+           sint _{sigma}_
+
+         9 haec quoque] _{Pi}BFDVGra_
+           hoc quoque _M_
+           hic quoque _p_
+           haec _{sigma}_
+
+        11 Pomponi] _{Pi}BMVo_
+           Pomponii _FDpra_
+           Q. Pomponii _{sigma}_
+
+        12 amatus] _{Pi}FDG_(_pr_?)_a_
+           est amatus _MV{sigma}_
+           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., _{sigma}_) 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 _{Pi}FB_ 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 _{Pi}_,
+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 _{Pi}_, 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 fruehen 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 _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ shows him, for this much
+of the _Letters_ at least, to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor.
+His method is to follow _{Pi}_ 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 _{Pi}_ 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 juengeren 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 _{Pi}_, 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 _{Pi}_ 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, Koenigl. Bibl. Lat. 4� 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 Palaeographie{2}_
+    _text reads_ Palaographie
+
+_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.5
+  ...Ueber den Aeltesten...
+    _text reads_ uber den altesten
+
+_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.9
+  Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe siecle conserves...
+    _text reads_ conserves
+
+Footnote 32:
+  Recueil de Fac-similes
+    _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.txt or 16706.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
+business@pglaf.org.  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
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+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.
diff --git a/16706.zip b/16706.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c5b635
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16706.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a2b620
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #16706 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16706)