diff options
Diffstat (limited to '16706.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 16706.txt | 4328 |
1 files changed, 4328 insertions, 0 deletions
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. 2º 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. 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; 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. 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, "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. 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 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. |