Full text of "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"

See other formats

BINDING w$\ mai

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://archive.org/details/sixthcenturyfragOOIowe

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
o

E. A. LOWE

ASSOCIATE OF THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

SANDARS READER AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY ( 1 9 1 4)

LECTURER IN PALAEOGRAPHY AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY

E. K. RAND

PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

PUBLISHED BY THE X*

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 Visi-
gothic 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 manu-
script 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 De-
cember 1 910, 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 191 5. 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, Leip-
sic, 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.

iii

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 pub-
lish 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.

Page

Description of the Fragment 3~*3

Contents, size, vellum, binding 3

Ruling 3

Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the manuscript 3

Original size of the manuscript 5

Disposition 6

Ornamentation 7

Corrections 7

Syllabification 8

Orthography 9

Abbreviations 10

Authenticity of the six leaves 11

Archetype 12

The Date and Later History of the Manuscript 13-22

On the dating of uncial manuscripts 13

Dated uncial manuscripts 16

Oldest group of uncial manuscripts 17

Characteristics of the oldest uncial manuscripts 19

Date of the Morgan manuscript 20

Later history of the Morgan manuscript 21

Conclusion 21

Transcription 23~34

Part II. The Text of the Morgan Fragment. By E. K. Rand.

Page
The Morgan Fragment and Aldus's Ancient Codex Parisinus . . . 37-43

The Codex Parisinus 37

The Bodleian volume 39

The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost Parisinus 40

The script 40

Provenience and contents 41

The text closely related to that of Aldus 41

Editorial methods of Aldus 43

Page
Relation of the Morgan Fragment to the Other Manuscripts of the

Letters 44-57

Classes of the manuscripts 44

The early editions 46

77 a member of Class I .47

77 the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copy intervening 50

The probable stemma 53

Further consideration of the external history of P, 77, and B 53

Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of 77 54

Editorial Methods of Aldus 58-65

Aldus's methods; his basic text 58

The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume 59

Aldus and Budaeus compared 59

The latest criticism of Aldus 63

Aldus's methods in the newly discovered parts of Books VI 1 1, IX, and X ... 64

The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus 65

Conclusion 65

Description of Plates 67

Part I.

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN

FRAGMENT

E. A. LOWE

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN

FRAGMENT.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENT.

THE Morgan fragment of Pliny the Younger contains the end of Book II Contents
and the beginning of Book III of the Letters (II, xx. 13 — III, v. 4). size
The fragment consists of six vellum leaves, or twelve pages, which vellum
apparently formed part of a gathering or quire of the original volume. binding

The leaves measure iif^by 7 inches (286 x 180 millimeters); the written
space measures y% by \\i inches (175 x 1 14 millimeters); outer margin, 1% inches
(50 millimeters); inner, ^ inch (18 millimeters); upper margin, i^4 inches (45
millimeters); lower, 2^ 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.

There are twenty-seven horizontal lines to a page and two vertical bounding Ruling
lines. The lines were ruled with a hard point on the flesh side, each opened sheet
being ruled separately: 48v and 53r, 49/ and 52v, 5ov and 51'. 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 perpen-
dicular 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.

One might suppose that the six leaves once formed a complete gathering of Relation of the

the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios 48r and 53v, have a six leaves to

darker appearance, as though they had been the outside leaves of a gathering that the rest of the

had been affected by exposure. But this darker appearance is sufficiently accounted manuscript
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:

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 49/ and 52* likewise on the flesh side; and
folios 49v and 52% presenting the hair side, face folios 5or and 5 iv likewise on the
hair side. The inside pages 50" and 5 ir, 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

52 53 (54)

Flesh

1
t
1

Flesh

Hair
Hair

Flesh
Flesh

Hair
Hair

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

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.

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 Rend us de V Acad'emie 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.

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, more-
over, 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, reason-
able to assume that our fragment is not a complete unit, but formed part of a
quaternion, the outside sheet of which is missing.

In the fifteenth century, as the previous demonstration has made clear, our Original
fragment was preceded by 47 leaves that are missing to-day. With this clue in size of the
our possession it can be demonstrated that the manuscript began with the first manuscript
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.1 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.

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 191 2. 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 1 9 1 2 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

1 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.

Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviation of que and
6us, 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 theTeubner edition of 191 2, 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 (foil. 48"" and 53*) 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.

Disposition The pages in our manuscript are written in long lines,1 in scriptura contmua,

with hardly any punctuation.

Each page begins with a large letter, even though that letter occur in the
body of a word (cf. foil. 48% 51*, 52r).2

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.3 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.

To judge by our fragment, each book was preceded by an index of addresses

1 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.

2 This is an ear-mark of great antiquity. It is found, for example, in the Berlin and Vatican Schedae
Vergilianae in square capitals (Berlin lat. 2° 416 and Rome Vatic, lat. 3256 reproduced in Zangemeister and
Wattenbach's Exempla Codicum Latinorum, etc., pi. 14, and in Steffens, Lateinische Paldographie2,p\. 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.

3 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, pi. CXXXVI.

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.1

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,2 in the addresses in the Index, and in the addresses pre-
ceding each letter.

The original scribe made a number of corrections. The omitted line of the
Index on fol. 49 was added between the lines, probably by the scribe himself,
using a finer pen; likewise the omitted line on fol. 52% 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.3 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.

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.4 Presum-
ably 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 QR5 and
the roman numerals i, ii, iii under one another. These numerals, as Professor

Ornamenta-
tion

Corrections

1 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.

2 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.

3 The strokes over the two consecutive t's on fol. 53 v, 1. 23, were made by a hand that can hardly be older
than the thirteenth century.

4 I venture to read dominus mens . . . in te deus.

6 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.

Rand correctly saw, refer to the works of Pliny the Elder enumerated in the
text. Further activity by this hand, the date of which it is impossible to
determine, may be seen, for example, on fol. 49/, 11. 8, 10, 15; fol. 52, 11. 4, 10,
13, 21, 22; fol. 53, 11. 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27; fol. 53v, 11. 5, 10, 15.

Syllabification

Syllables are divided after a vowel or diphthong except where such a division
involves beginning the next syllable with a group of consonants.1 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 con-
tains 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 sanJctissimum and other examples found below.
The method followed by him is made amply clear by the examples which
occur in our twelve pages:2

fo. 48', line

fo. 49v, line

fo. 50', line

1, con — suleret

2, sescen — ties

3, ex — ta
7, fal — si

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
1, singu — laris

4, an — tiquitatis

5, au — dias
9, ite — rum

1 1, scri — bit

12, ly — rica

fo. 50', line 1 5, scri — bentis
17, octa — ua

19, uehe — menter

20, exer — citationis

21, se — nectute

22, paulis — per

23, le — gentem
fo. 5ov, line 2, de — lectatur

3, co — - moedis

4, uolupta — tes

5, ali — quid

6, Ion — 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

1 Such a division as ut\or on fol. 7, 1. 10, is due entirely to thoughtless copying. The scribe probably took
ut for a word.

2 For further details on syllabification in our oldest Latin manuscripts, see Th. Mommsen, "Livii Codex
Veronensis," in Abhandlungen der k. Akad. d. Wiss. %u Berlin, phil. hist. CI. (1868), p. 163, n. 2, and pp. 165-6;
Mommsen-Studemund, Analecta Liviana (Leipsic 1873), p. 3; Brandt, " Der St. Galler Palimpsest," in Sitzungs-
berichte der phil. hist. CI. der k. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien, CVIII (1885), pp. 245-6; L. Traube, " Palaeographischc
Forschungen IV," in Abhandlungen d. h t. CI. 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. 89sqq.;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.

fo. 50", line 22

25
fo. 51', line 2

4
6

7
8

fo. 5iv, line 3

5
10

1 1

17
21
22
24
27
fo. 52', line 2

5
6

9
12

13
16

eun — dem
epis — ■ tulam
mi — hi
arria — nus
facultati — bus
super — sunt
gra — uitate
consi — lio
ut — or
ar — dentius
con — feras
habe — bis
concu — piscat
san — ctissimum
memo — riam
pater — nus
contige — rit
lau — de
hones — tis
refe — rat
contuber — nium
circumspi — ciendus
scho — lae
nos — tro
praecep — tor
demon — strare
iudi — -cio
gra — uis
quan — turn
ere — dere
mag — nasque
ge — nitore
nes [cis] — - se
nomi — na
fauen — tibus
dis — citur

fo. 52", line 1

5
6

10
12

19
21

25
26

fo. 53 ', line 1

*5
16

17
18

23
fo. $y, line 2

3
5
7
8
10
1 1

14
20
22
26

uidean — tur
con — silium
concu — pisco
pecu — nia
excucuris — sem
se — natu
ne — cessitatibus
postulaue — runt
bae — bium
claris — sima
in — quam
excusa — tionis
com (or con) — pulit
ueni — ebat
iniu — rias
ex — secutos
prae — terea
aduoca — tione
con — seruandum
com — paratum
sub — uertas
cumu ■ — les
obliga — ti
tris — tissimum
facili — orem
si — quis
offi — ciorum
praepara — tur
super — est
sim — plicitas
compro — bands
diligen — ter
cog — nitio
milita — ret
exsol — uit

The spelling found in our six leaves is remarkably correct. It compares Orthography
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, 0 and u, so common in later manuscripts, is
rare here: the confusion between b and u occurs once (comprouasse, fo. 52 v, 1. 1);
the omission of h occurs once (pulcritudo, fo. 5 iv, 1. 26); the use of k for c occurs
twice {karet, fo. 5 ir, 1. 14, and kariras, fo. 521, 1. 5). The scribe uses the correct
forms in adolescet (fo. 5 iv, 1. 14) and adulescenti (fo. 5 iv, 1. 24); he writes auonculi
(fo. 53v, 1. 15), exsistat (fo. 51% 1. 9), and exsecutos (fo. 53r, 1. 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. 48', line

improbissimur

49r>

13a, adnotasse
19, adsumo

48',
So',

23>
1,

composuisse
ascendit

5°r>

1, adsumit

imbuare

27, adponitur

22,

accubat

5°v>

3, adficitur
19, adstruere
21, adstruere

5*r>

3>
16,

optulissem
suppeteret
ascendere

26, adpetat

S*v>

16,

accipiat

5*v>

9, exsistat
12, inlustri

5*v,

comprouasse
collegae

5*',

14, inbutus

18, admonebitur

53r>

17.

impetrassent
accusationibus

5*v>

20, inplorantes
22, adlegantes

53%

15.
1,

comparatum
computabam

24, adsensio

accusare

27, adtulisse

11,

comprobantis

S3'>

8, exsecutos

23.

composuit

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.1 The
abbreviations found in our fragment may conveniently be grouped as follows:

1. Suspensions which might occur in any ancient manuscript or inscrip-
tion, e.g.: B. = BUS

Q- - QUE2
■C- = GAIUS3
P- C- = PATRES CONSCRIPTI

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-

VALE4

1 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 abbrevia-
tions not found in contemporary manuscripts containing purely literary or religious texts. Cf. W. Studemund,
Gait Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor, etc., Leipsic 1874; and F. StefFens, Lateinische Palaographie1,
pi. 18 (pi. 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 191 5, pp. 1-2.

2 Found only at the end of words in our fragment. Its use in the body of a word is, however, very ancient.

3 The C invariably has the two dots as well as the superior horizontal stroke.

4 The abbreviation is indicated by a stroke above the letters as well as by a dot after them.

1 1

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,1 uestric spurinn-

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.2 This
omission may occur in the middle of a word but only at the end of a line.

The sudden appearance in America of a portion of a very ancient classical Authenticity
manuscript unknown to modern editors may easily arouse suspicion in the minds of the six
of some scholars. Our experience with the " Anonymus Cortesianus" has taught leaves
us to be wary,3 and it is natural to demand proof establishing the genuineness of the
new fragment.4 As to the six leaves of the Morgan Pliny, it may be said unhesitat-
ingly 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.

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.5 As a matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellum showed

1 An ancestor of our manuscript must have had tranq-, which was wrongly expanded to tranque.

2 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.

3 The fraudulent character of the alleged discovery was exposed in masterly fashion by Ludwig Traube
in his "Palaeographische Forschungen IV," published in the Abha?idlungen der K. Bayerischen Akademie
der JVissenschaften, III Klasse, XXIV Band, I Abteilung, Munich 1904.

4 Cf. E.T. Merrill, "On the use by Aldus of his manuscripts of Pliny's Letters," in Classical Philology, XIV

(I9*9)i P- 34-

6 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.

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.1 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.

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 " Anony-
mus 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.

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. $2V goes to show that the manuscript from which our scribe
copied was written in lines of 25 letters or thereabout.2 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

1 That the ink could scale off the flesh side of the vellum in less than three centuries is proved by the con-
dition 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 foil. 102, 103 in the facsimile
edition in the Leyden series mentioned in the previous note.

2 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 191 8.

account for the omission, it is almost certain that it was caused by the inadvertent
skipping of a line.1 The omitted letters number 25.

A glance at the abbreviations used in the index of addresses on foil. 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, 1. 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 prob-
ably 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 manu-
scripts, and yet decidedly older than that of the Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F)
written in or before a.d. 546.

In dating uncial manuscripts we must proceed warily, since the data on On the dating
which our judgments are based are meagre in the extreme and rather difficult of uncial
to formulate. manuscripts

The history of uncial writing still remains to be written. The chief value of
excellent works like Chatelain's Uncia/is Scriptura or Zangemeister and Watten-
bach'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

1 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.

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 classi-
fication 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. ' 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 quern
or post quern, 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.

The Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels, mentioned above, is our first landmark
of importance.2 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

1 See below, p. 16. ' See below, p. 16.

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 quern.

The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragment con-
taining a computation for finding the correct date for Easter Sunday.1 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 con-
siderations, that is, considerations of style and form of letters, will go to show.

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 L 1 Jca.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 manu-
scripts. 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 writ-
ing, since a comparison with the Berlin fragment of about a.d. 447 convinces

1 See below, p. 16.

Dated uncial
manuscripts

one that the Bodleian manuscript can not have been written much after the
date of its archetype, which is a.d. 442.

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 tabu-
late them in the following order:1

1. Codex Vercellensis of the Gospels (a). ca. a. 371

Traube, 1. c, No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XX.

2. Bodleian Manuscript (Auct. T. 2. 16) of Jerome's translation of the

Chronicle of Eusebius (older portion).

post a. 442

Traube, 1. c, No. 164; J. K.. Fotheringham, The Bodleian manuscript of Jerome' '1 -version of the Chronicle of
Eutebius reproduced in collotype, Oxford 1905, pp. 25-6; Steffens2, pi. 17; also Schwartz in Berliner Phi/o-
logiscbt IVochcnschrift, XXVI (1906), c. 746.

3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 40. 298). ca. a. 447

Traube, 1. c, No. 13; Th. Mommsen, " Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre 447 " in zAbhandl. der Berliner Akad. aus
dem Jahre 1862, Berlin 1863, pp. 539 sqq.; " Liber Paschalis Codicis Cicensis A. CCCCXLVII " in Monu-
menta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, IX, I, pp. 502 sqq.; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XXIII.

4. Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F), Fulda MS. Bonifat. i, read by

Bishop Victor of Capua. ante a. 546

Traube, 1. c, No. 47; E. Ranke, Codex Fuldensis, No-vum Testamentum Ratine interprete Hieronymo ex manu-
script Victoris Capuani, Marburg and Leipsic I 868; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XXXIV; Steffens2, pi. 21 a.

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, 1. c, No. 311 ; idem, " Enarratio tabularum " in Tbeodosiani libri XVI edited by Th. Mommsen and
P. M. Meyer, Berlin 1905; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pis. XXV-XXVIII ; C. Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi,
pis. VII, VIII. See also Oxyrh. Papyri XV (1922), No. 1813, pi. 1.

6. The Toulouse Manuscript (No. 364) and Paris MS. lat. 8901, containing

Canons, written at Albi. a. 600—666

Traube, 1. c, No. 304; F. Schulte, "Iter Gallicum " in Sit-zungsberichte 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, 1. c, No. 307; L. Delisle, "Notice sur un manuscrit de l'abbaye de Luxeuil copie en 625 " in Notices ct
Extraits des manuscrits de la bibliotheque nationale, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149 sqq. ; J. Havet, "Questions me-
rovingiennes: III. La dated'un manuscrit de Luxeuil" in Bibliotheque de V hole des chartes, XLVI (1885), pp.
429 sqq.

8. The Berne Manuscript (No. 2 1 9 B) of Jerome's translation of the Chronicle

of Eusebius, written in France, possibly at Fleury. a. 699

Traube, 1. c, No. 16; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. 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.

1 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. Ill, Munich 1920.
The chief works of facsimiles referred to below are: Zangemeister and Wattenbach, Exempla codicum latino-
rum 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 Palaographie 2, Treves 1907. (Second edition in French appeared in 1910.)

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, 1. C. , No. 27; L. Delisle, " Notice sur un manuscrit merovingien de Saint-Medard de Soissons" in Re-vue
archiologique, Nouv. scr. XLI (1881), pp. 257 sqq. and pi. IX; idem, " Notice sur un manuscrit merovingien de
la Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique Nr. 9850-52" in Notices et extraits des manuscrits, etc., XXXI. I (1884),
pp. 33-47, pis. I, 2, 4; J. Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique, II
(1902), pp. 224-6.

10. Codex Amiatinus of the Bible (Florence Laur. Am. i) written in England, ante a. 716

Traube, 1. c, No. 44; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XXXV; Steffens2, pi. 21b; E. H. Zimmermann,
Vorkaroimgische Miniaturcn (Berlin 1916), pi. 222; but particularly G. B. de Rossi, La biblia offerta
da Ceolfrido abbate al sepolcro di S. Pietro, codice antichissimo tra i super stiti delle biblioteche dclla sede apostolica
— Al Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII, omaggio giubilare delta biblioteca Vaticana, Rome 1888, No. v.

11. The Treves Prosper (MS. ^6, olim S. Matthaei). a. 719

Traube, 1. c, No. 306; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XLIX; M. Keuffer, Beschreibendes ferzeichnis der
Handscbriftcn der Stadtbibliothek %u 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, 1. c, No. 102; Palaeograpbical Society, pi. 121 ; E. H. Zimmermann, Vorkarolingische Miniaturcn
(Berlin 1916), pi. 14-16, Text, pp. IO, 41, 152; A. ReifTerscheid, Bibliotheca patrum latinorum italica,
II,'38Sq.

13. The Bodleian Acts of the Apostles (MS. Selden supra 30) written in the

Isle of Thanet. ante a. 752

Traube, 1. 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, 1. c, No. 3; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. LXI; Steffens2, pi. 37.

15. Codex Beneventanus of the Gospels (London Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 5463)

written at Benevento. a. 739-760

Traube, 1. c, No. 88; Palaeograpbical Society, pi. 236; Catalogue of the Ancient Manuscript! in tbt British
Museum, II, pi. 7.

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

Traube, 1. c., No. 92; J. D. Mansi, " De insigni codice Caroli Magni aetate scripto" in Raccolta di opuscoli tdenti-
fcie filologici, T. XLV (Venice 1751), ed. A. Calogiera, pp. 78-80; Th. Mommsen, Gesta pontificum
romanorum, I (1899) in Monumenta Germaniae Historical Steftens2, pi. 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.

Our oldest group would naturally be composed of those uncial manuscripts Oldest group

which bear the closest resemblance to the above-mentioned manuscripts of the of uncial

fourth and fifth centuries, and I should include in that group such manuscripts manuscripts
as these :

A. Of Classical Authors.

i. Rome, Vatic, lat. 5757. — Cicero, De Re Publica, palimpsest.

Traube, I.e., No. 269-70; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XVII; E. Chatelain, Paliographie des classiques latins, pi. XXXIX,2;
Palaeographical Society, pi. 160; Steffens2, pi. 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 (Bonni9i2), pi. 4.

2. Rome, Vatic, lat. 5750 + Milan, Ambros. E. 147 sup. — Scholia Bobiensia in

Ciceronem, palimpsest.

Traube, 1. c, No. 265-68; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XXXI; Palaeographical Society, pi. 112; complete facsimile edition
in Codices e Vaticanis selecti, etc., Vol. VII, Milan 1906; Ehrle-Liebaert, Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum, pi. 5 a,

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

Traube, 1. c. , No. 359; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XVIII; E. Chatelain, Paliographie des classiques latins, pi. CXX;
complete facsimile edition in Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti, Tom. IX, Leyden 1907.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 183; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XIX; Palaeographical Society, pis. 31 and 32; E. Chatelain, Palio-
graphie des classiques latins, pi. CXVI; Reproductions des manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliothioue Nationale, ed. H. Omont,
Vol. I, Paris 1907.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 349-50. Th. Mommsen, Analecta Li-viana, Leipsic 1873; E. Chatelain, Paliographie des classiques latins,
pi. CVI.

6. Rome, Vatic, lat. 10696. — Livy, fourth decade, Lateran fragments.

Traube, 1. 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, pi. 5 b.

7. Bamberg, Class. 35^. — Livy, fourth decade, fragments.

Traube, 1. c, No. 7; idem, " Palaeographische Forschungen IV, Bamberger Fragmente der vierten Delcade des Livius " in Abhand-
lungen der Koniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, III Klasse, XXIV Band, I Abteilung, Munich 1904.

8. Vienna, lat. \a. — Pliny, Historia'Naturalis, fragments.

Traube, 1. c, No. 357; E. Chatelain, Paliographie des classiques latins, pi. CXXXVII, 1.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 231; E. Chatelain, ibid. pi. CXXXVI. Chatelain cites the manuscript under the press-mark XXV 2/67.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 311; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XXV; Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi, pi. VII.

B. Of Christian Authors.

1. Vercelli, Cathedral Library. — Gospels (a) ascribed to Bishop Eusebius (t37i).

Traube, 1. c, No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. XX.

2. Paris, lat. 17225. — Corbie Gospels (ffi).

Traube, 1. c, No. 214; Palaeographical Society, pi. 87; E. Chatelain, Uncialis scriptura, pi. II; Reusens, Elements de palio-
graphie, pi. Ill, Louvain 1899.

3. Constance -Weingarten Biblical fragments. — Prophets, fragments scattered in the

libraries of Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Fulda, and St. Paul in Carinthia.

Traube, 1. c, No. 302; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pi. 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. 40. 298. — Computus Paschalis of ca. a. 447.

Traube, 1. c, No. 13; see above, p. 1 6, no. 3.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 324; Old Latin Biblical Texts, vol. II, Oxford 1886; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, C. Frati, Monumenta Palaeo-
graphica sacra, pi. V, 2 ; R. Beer, " liber den altesten Handschriftenbestand des Klosters Bobbio" in Anzeiger der Kais.
Akad.der fViss. in JVien, 1911, No. XI, pp. 91 sqq.; C. Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi, pis. XIV-XV; complete facsimile reproduc-
tion of the manuscript, with preface by C. Cipolla: // codice E-vangelico k delta Biblioteca Uni-versitaria Nazionale di Torino,
Turin 19 1 3 .

6. Turin, F. IV. 27 + Milan, D. 519. inf. + Rome, Vatic, lat. 10959. — Cyprian,

Epistolae, fragments.

Traube, 1. c, No. 320; E. Chatelain, Uncialis scriptura, pi. IV, 2; C. Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi, pi. XIII; Ehrle-Liebaert,
Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum, pi. 5 d.

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

Traube, 1. c, No. 323; Carta, Cipolla e Frati, Monumenta palaeographica sacra, pi. V, I; Cipolla, Codici Bobbiesi, pi. XII.

8. Oxford, Bodleian Auct.T. i. 16. — Eusebius-Hieronymus, Chronicle, post a. 442.

Traube, 1. c, No. 164; see above, p. 16, no. 2.

9. Petrograd Q.v. I. 3 (Corbie). — Varia of St. Augustine.

Traube, 1. c, No. 440; E. Chatelain, Uncialis scriptura, pi. Ill; A. Staerk, Les manuicriti latint du Vi au XIII' tiitli <««-
str-vit a la bibliothiqut impcriale dt Saint Pttertbourg (St. Petersburg 1910), Vol. II. pi. a.

10. St. Gall, 1394. — Gospels (n).

Traube, 1. c, No. 60; Old Latin Biblical Textt, Vol. II, Oxford 1886; Palaeographical Society, II. pi. 50; Steffensl, pi. 15;
E. Chatelain, Uncialis scriptura, pi. I, I; A. Chroutt, Monumcnta Palacographica, XVII, pi. 3.

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

1 . General effect of compactness. This is the result of scriptura continua, which oldest uncial
knows no separation of words and no punctuation. See the facsimiles cited above. manuscripts

1. 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 450, 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.1

3. Absence of long ascending or descending strokes. The letters lie virtually be-
tween two lines (instead of between four as in later uncials), the upper and lower shafts
of letters like \y {, f 4 projecting but slightly beyond the head and base lines.

4. The broadness of the letters H*> P4 C4

5. The relative narrowness of the letters } If S T

6. The manner of forming Jj^l mNpit

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.

1 In later uncials the fore-stroke is often a horizontal hair-line.

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, /'. 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 yfo in the text where an omission has occurred, and K3 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
ftemicST 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.

T)ateofthe Inasmuch as these palaeographical differences mark a tendency which

Morgan reaches fuller development in later uncial manuscripts, it is clear that their

manuscript 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.

The vicissitudes of a manuscript often throw light upon the history of the Later history
text contained in the manuscript. And the palaeographer knows that any scratch of the Morgan
or scribbling, any probatio pennae or casual entry, may become important in tracing manuscript
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.1

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. 5ir and doubtless represents a
probatio pennae on the part of a notary. It runs thus:

"A tous ceulz qui ces pr^ntes \ettrts verront et orront
jehan de Sannemeres garde du seel de la provoste de
Meaulx & Francois Beloy clerc Jure de par le Roy
nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que par.'7

The above note is made in the regular French notarial hand of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries.2 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.3

Our manuscript, then, was written in Italy about the year 500. It is quite Conclusion
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,

1 This supposition will be strengthened by Professor Rand; see p. 53.

2 Compare, for example, the facsimile of a French deed of sale at Roye, November 24, 1433, reproduced
in Receuil de Facsimiles a I 'usage de I'ecole des chartes. Premier fascicule (Paris 1880), No. I.

3 No mention of either of these is to be found in Dom Toussaints du Plessis' Histoire de I'eglise de Meaux.
For documents with similar opening formulas, see ibid. vol. ii (Paris 173 1), pp. 191, 258, 269, 273.

for modern times. To mediaeval France we are, in fact, indebted for the preser-
vation 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 T/ieodosianus. 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,
Cassar, 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.

23
[TRANSCRIPTION]*

LIBER • II

■ESSIT UT IPSE MIHI DIXERIT CUM COW
SULERET QUAM CITO SESTERTIUM SESCEA^
TIES INPLETURUS ESSET INUENISSE SE EX
TA DUPLICATA QUIBt/S PORTENDI MILLIESl 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 • EX? LICIT • LIBER • II .

mCIPIT- LIBER • III • FELICITER2

* The original manuscript is in scriptura continua. For the reader's convenience, words have been separated and
punctuation added in the transcription.

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.

2-3 The colophon is written in rustic capitals, the middle line being in red.

AD CALUISIUM RUFUM1
5 NESCIO AN ULLUM

AD UIBIUM-MAXIMUM

QUOD-IPSE AMICIS TUIS
AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE2

CUM PATREM TUUM
(o AD CAECILIUM3 MACRINUM

QUAMUIS ET AMICI
AD BAEBIUM MACRUM

PERGRATUM EST MIHI
4ADANNIUM4 SEUERUM
15 4EX HEREDITATE4 QUAE

AD CANINIUM RUFUM

MODO NUNTIATUS EST
AD SUETON6 TRANQUE

FACIS AD PRO CETERA
20 AD CORNELIUM6 MINICIANUM

POSSUM IAM PERSCRIB
AD UESTRIC SPURINN-

COMPOSUISSE ME QUAED

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

2 The h seems written over an erasure.

3 ci above the line by first hand.
4-4 Over an erasure apparently.

6 / over an erasure.
6 c over an erasure.

AD IULIUM GENITOR-
5 EST OMNINO ARTEMIDORI

AD CATILINUM SEUER-

UENIAM AD CENAM
AD UOCONIUM ROMANUM

LIBRUM QUO NUPER
10 AD PATILIUM

REM ATROCEM
AD SILIUM PROCUL-

PETIS UT LIBELLOS TUOS

AD NEPOTEM ADNOTASSE UIDEOR FATA DICTAjJ t/E- 1

AD IULIUM SERUIAN-2
15 RECTE OMNIA

AD UIRIUM SEUERUM

OFFICIU CONSULATUS
AD CALUISIUM RUFUM-

ADSUMO TE IN CONSILIUM
20 AD MAESIUM MAXIMUM

MEMINISTINE TE
AD CORNELIUM PRISCUM

AUDIO UALERIUM MARTIAL-

1 Added interlineally, in black, by first hand using a finer pen.

2 This is followed by an erasure of the letters urn in red.

EPISTVLARVM

'C'PLINIUS-CALUISIO SUO SALUTEM
Nescio AN ULLUM IUCUNDIUS TEMPUS
EXEGERIM QUAM QUO NUPER APUD SPU
RINNAM FUI ADEO QUIDEM UT NEMINEM
5 MAGIS IN SENECTUTE SI MODO SENESCE

RE DATUM EST AEMULARI UELIM NIHIL
EST ENIM ILLO UITAE GENERE DISTIN
CTIUS ME AUTEM UT CERTUS SIDERUM
CURSUS ITA UITA HOMINUM DISPOSITA

IO DELECTAT SENUM PRAESERTIM NAM

IUUENES ADHUC CONFUSA QUAEDAM
ET QUASI TURBATA NON INDECENT SE
NIBKS PLACIDA OMNIA ET OR^NATA1 CON
UENIUNT QUIBLtt INDUSTRIA SER^1 TURPIS

15 AMBITIO EST HANC REGULAM SPURIN

NA CONSTANTISSIME SERUAT-QUIN ETIAM
PARUA HAEC PARUA-SI NON COTIDIE FIANT
ORDINE QUODAM ET UELUT ORBE CIRCUM
AGIT MANE LECTULO2 CONTINETUR HORA

20 SECUNDA CALCEOS POSCIT AMBULAT MI

LIA PASSUUM TRIA NEC MINUS ANIMUM
QUAM CORPUS EXERCET SI ADSUNT AMICI
HONESTISSIMI SERMONES EXPLICANTUR
SI NON LIBER LEGITUR INTERDUM ETIAM PRAE

25 SENTIBW AMICIS SI TAMEN ILLI NON GRAUAJV

TUR DEINDE CONSIDIT 3 ET LIBER RURSUS
AUT SERMO LIBRO POTIOR -MOX UEHICULUM

1 Letters above the line were added by first or contemporary hand.

2 u corrected to e.

3 Second i corrected to e (not the regular uncial form) apparently by the first or contemporary hand.

LIBER ■ III

AsCENDIT ADSUMIT UXOREM SINGU
LARIS EXEMPLI UEL ALIQUEM AMICORUM
UT ME PROXIME QUAM PULCHRUM ILLUD
QUAM DULCE SECRETUM QUANTUM IBI AN
5 TIQUITATIS QUAE FACTA QUOS UIROS AU

DIAS QUIBt/S PRAECEPTIS IMBUARE QUAMUIS
ILLE HOC TEMPERAMENTUM MODESTIAE
SUAE INDIXERIT NE PRAECIPE REUIDEATUR
PERACTIS SEPTEM MILIBC/S PASSUUM ITE

10 RUM AMBULAT MILLE ITERUM RESIDIT

UEL SE CUBICULO AC STILO REDDIT SCRI
BIT ENIM ET QUIDEM UTRAQ[/£ LINGUA LY
RICA DOCTISSIMA MIRA ILLIS DULCEDO
MIRA SUAUITAS MIRA HILARITATIS 1 CUIUS

15 GRATIAM CUMULAT SANCTITAT IS 2 SCRI

BENTIS UBI HORA BALNEI NUNTIATA EST
EST AUTEM HIEME NONA'AESTATE OCTA
UA IN SOLE SI CARET UENTO AMBULAT
NUDUS DEINDE MOUETUR PILA UEHE

2o MENTER ET DIU NAM HOC QUOQt/£ EXER

CITATIONIS GENERE PUGNAT CUM SE
NECTUTE LOTUS ACCUBAT ET PAULIS
PER CIBUM DIFFERT INTERIM AUDIT LE
GENTEM REMISSIUS ALIQUID ET DULCIUS

2? PER HOC OMNE TEMPUS LIBERUM EST

AMICIS UEL EADEM FACERE UEL ALIA
SI MALINT ADPOn'tUR 3 CENA NON MINUS

1 The scribe fir-st wrote hilaritatis. To correct the error he or a contemporary hand placed dots above the
t and 1 and drew a horizontal line through them to indicate that they should be omitted. This is the usual
method in very old manuscripts.

2 sanctitatis is corrected to sanctitas in the manner described in the preceding note.
' i added above the line, apparently by first hand.

EPISTVLARVM

NlTIDA QUAM FRUGI IN ARGENTO PURO ET
ANTIQUO SUNT IN USU ET CHORINTHIAX QUIBi/i1 DE
LECTATUR ET ADFICITUR FREQUENTER CO
MOEDIS CENA DISTINGUITUR UT UOLUPTA
5 TES QUOQ£/£ STUDIIS CONDIANTUR SUMIT ALI

QUID DE NOCTE ET AESTATE NEMIml HOC LON
GUM EST TANTA COMITATE CONUIUIUM
TRAHITUR INDE.ILLI POST SEPTIMUM ET
SEPTUAGENSIMUM ANNUM AURIUM

io OCULORUM UIGOR INTEGER INDE AGILE

ET UIUIDUM CORPUS SOLAQUE EX SENEC
TUTE PRUDENTIA HANC EGO UITAM UO
TO ET COGITATIONE PRAESUMO INGRES
SURUS AUIDISSIME UT PRIMUM RATIO AE

15 TATIS RECEPTUI CANERE PERMISERIT2 IN

TERIM MILLE LABORIBLtf CONTEROR QUI HO
RUM MIHI ET SOLACIUM ET EXEMPLUM
EST IDEM SPURINNA NAM ILLE QUOQ£/£
QUOAD HONESTUM FUIT OB'lT1 OFFICIA

zo GESSIT MAGISTRATUS PROVINCIAS RE

XIT MULTOQ^ LABORE HOC OTIUM ME
RUIT IGITUR EUNDEM MIHI CURSUM EUJV
DEM TERMINUM STATUO IDQt/£ IAM NUNC
APUD TE SUBSIGNO UT SI ME LONGIUS SE

25 EUEHI3 UIDERIS IN IUS UOCES AD HANC EPIS

TULAM MEAM ET QUIESCERE IUBEAS CUM
INERTIAE CRIMEN EFFUGERO UAL£.4

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

2 permiserit : t stands over an erasure, and original it seems to be corrected to et, with e having the rustic
form.

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.

4 uale: The abbreviation is marked by a stroke above as well as by a dot after the word.

•LIBER ■ III •

A tous ceu/z qui ces presenKS letlrer ■verront el orront
jfehan de sannemeres garde du seel de la prcvosre dt
Meaulx & francois Beloy clerc "Jure de par le Roy
nostrc sire a ce /aire Sa/ut sachient tuit que par.1

C'PLINIUS -MAXIMO SUO SALUTfM

'UOD IPSE AM1CIS TUIS OPTULISSEM- SI MI
HI EADEM MATERIA SUPPETERET ID NUNC
IURE UIDEOR A TE MEIS PETITURUS ARRIA
5 NUS MATURUS ALTINATIUM EST PRINCEPS

CUM DICO PRINCEPS NON DE FACULTATI
BUS LOQUOR QUAE ILLI LARGE SUPER
SUNT SED DE CASTITATE IUSTITIA GRA
UITATE PRUDENTIA HUIUS EGO CONSI

io LIO IN NEGOTIIS IUDICIO IN STUDIIS UT

OR NAM PLURIMUM FIDE PLURIMUM
VERITATE PLURIMUM INTELLEGENTIA
PRAESTAT AMAT ME NIHIL POSSUM AR
DENTIUS DICERE UT TU KARET AMBITUI2

15 IDEO SE IN EQUESTRI GRADU TENUIT CUM

FACILE POSSIT 3 ASCENDERE ALTISSIMUM
MIHI TAMEN ORNANDUS EXCOLENDUS
QUE EST YTAQUE MAGNI AESTIMO DIGNITATI
EIUS ALIQUID ADSTRUERE INOPINANTIS

20 NESCIENTIS IMMO ETIAM FORTASSE

NOLENTIS ADSTRUERE AUTEM QUOD SIT
SPLENDIDUM NEC MOLESTUM CUIUS
GENERIS QUAE PRIMA OCCASIO TIBI CON
FERAS IN EUM ROGO HABEBIS ME HABE

25 BIS IPSUM GRATISSIMUM DEBITOREM

QUAMUIS ENIM ISTA NON ADPETAT TAM
GRATE TAMEN EXCIPIT QUAM SI CONCU

1 A fifteenth-century addition, see above, p. 21.

2 The scribe originally divided i-deo between two lines. On correcting the page he (or a contemporary cor-
rector) cancelled the i at the end of the line and added it before the next.

3 x changed to e (not the uncial form) possibly by the original hand in correcting.

3°

EPISTVLARVM

PlSCAT'UALE

•c'plinius-corelliae'salutem'
Cum patrem tuum grauissimum et san
ctissimum uirum suspexerim magis
5 an amauerim dubitem teql/£ in memo

riam eius et in honorem tuum inu'lce1
diligam cupiam necesse est atq.ue etiam
quantum in me fuerit enitar ut filius
tuus auo similis exsistat equidem

io malo materno quamqam2 illi pater

nus etiam clarus spectatus^*3 contige
rit pater quoqt/£ et patruus inlustri lau
de conspicui quibt/s omnibt/s ita demum
similis adolescet sibi inbutus hones

is tis artibus fuerit quas plurimum refer4

rat5 a quo potissimum accipiat adhuc
illum pueritiae ratio intra contuber
nium tuum tenuit praeceptores domi
habuit ubi est erroribw modica uelst6 etiam

20 nulla materia iam studia eius extra

limen conferanda sunt iam circumspi
ciendus rhetor latinus cuius scho
lae seueritas pudor inprimis castitas
constet adest enim adulescenti nos

25 tro cum ceteris naturae fortunaeqt/£

dotibt/.? eximia corporis pulchritudo 7
cui in hoc lubrico aetatis non praecep

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.

2 m above the line is by the first hand.

3 q- above the line is added by a somewhat later hand.

4 Final r is added by a somewhat later hand.

6 The dots above ra indicate deletion. The cancellation stroke is oblique.

6 A somewhat later corrector, possibly contemporary, changed est to uel by adding u before e and / above
j and cancelling both s and t.

1 h added above the line by a hand which may be contemporary.

■LIBER ■ III'

Tor modo sed custos etiam rectorqi/£
quaerendus est uideor ergo demon
strare tibi posse iulium gen'tiorem1
amnatur2 a me iudici03 tamen meo non
s obstat karitas hominis quae ex4iudi

cio nata est uir est emendatus et gra
uis paulo etiam horridior et durior
ut in hac licentia temporum quan
tum eloquentia ualeat pluribl/s cre

io dere potes nam dicendi facultas

aperta et exposita ' statim cernitur
uita hominum altos recessus mag
nasqt/£ latebras habet cuius pro ge
nitore me sponsorem accipe nihil

15 ex hoc uiro filius tuus audiet nisi

profuturum nihil discet quod nescis5
se rectius fuerit nec6 minus saepe ab
illo quam a te meque admonebitur
quibta? imaginiblw oneretur quae nomi

20 na et quanta sustineat proinde fauen

tibus diis trade eum7 praeceptori a
•quo mores primum mox eloquentiam
discat quae male sine moribus dis
citur uale

25 'c'plinius macrino salutem

uamuis et amici quos praesentes
habebam et sermones hominum

1 The scribe wrote gentiorem : a somewhat later corrector changed it to genitorem by adding an i above the line
between n and / and cancelled the i after t.

2 Above the m a somewhat later hand wrote n. It was cancelled by a crude modern hand using lead.

3 u added above the line by the later hand.

4 ex added above the line by the later corrector.

6 cis is added in the margin by the later hand. The original scribe wrote ties \ se.

6 c is added above the line by the later hand.

7 e added above the line.

EPISTVLARVM

Factum meum comprouasse uidean
tur magni tamen aestimo scire quid
sentias tu nam cuius integra re con
silium exquirere o^tassem1 huius etiam
s peracta iudiciaum2 nosse mire concu

pisco cum publicum opus mea pecu

NIA INCHOATURUS IN TUSCOS EXCUCURISseji/ ac

AEFECTUS AERARI

cepto ut pr COMMEATU3 LEGATI PROVINCIAE
BAETICAE QUESTURI DE PROCONSULATUS4

IO CAECILII CLASSICI ADVOCATUM ME A SE

NATU PETIERUNT COLLEGAE OPTIMI MEIQ.UE
AMANTISSIMI DE COMMUNIS OFFICII NE
CESSITATIBW PRAELOCUTI EXCUSARE
ME ET EXIMERE TEMPTARUNT FACTUM

IS TUM5 EST SENATUS CONSULTUM PERQUAM

HONORIFICUM UT DARER6 PROVINCIALIB US
PATRONUS SI AB IPSO ME IMPETRASSENT
LEGATI RURSUS INDUCTI ITERUM ME IAAf
PRAESENTEM ADUOCATUM POSTuLAUE 7

2o RUNT INPLORANTES FIDEM MEAM

QUAM ESSENT CONTRA MASSAM BAE
BIUM EXPERTI ADLEGANTES PATROcINII 8
FOEDUS SECUTA EST SENATUS CLARIS
SIMA ADSENSIO QUAE SOLET DECRETA

25 PRAECURRERE TUM EGO DESINO IN

QUAM P. C. PUTARE ME IUSTAS EXCUSA
TIONIS CAUSAS ADTULISSE PLACUIT ET

1 p added above the line by the scribe.

2 The superfluous a is cancelled by means of a dot above the letter.

3 The scribe originally wrote excucuris \ sent 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 era-
sure and the word commeatu.

4 The dot over s indicates deletion.

6 turn: error due to diplography. The correction is made by means of dots and crossing out.

6 r added by the scribe.

7 u added apparently by a contemporary hand.

8 c added above the line, apparently by a contemporary hand.

LIBER • III

MoDESTIA SERMONIS ET RATIO COM
PULIT AUTEM ME AD HOC CONSILIUM NON
SOLUM CONSENSUS SENATUS QUAMQUAM
HIC MAXIME UERUM ET ALII QUIDEM
5 MINORIS SED TAMEN NUMERI UENI

EBAT IN MENTEM PRIORES NOSTROS
ETIAM SINGULORUM HOSPITIUM1 INIU ,
RIAS ACCUSATIONIBt/S UOLUNTARIIS EX
SECUTOS QUO DEFORMIUS ARBITRABAR

IO PUBLICI "OSPITII JURA2 NEGLEGERE PRAE

TEREA CUM RECORDARER QUANTA
PRO IISDEM BAETICIS PRIORE ADUOCA
TIONE ETIAM PERICULA SUBISSEM CON
SERVANDUM UETERIS OFFICII MERITUM

15 NOVO VIDEBATUR EST ENIM ITA COM

PARATUM UT ANTIQUIORA BENEFICIA SUB
UERTAS NISI ILLA POSTERIORIBt/5 CUMU
LES NAM QUAMLIBET SAEPE OBLIGa(n)3
TI SIQUID4 UNUM NEGES HOC SOLUM

20 MEMINERUNT QUOD NEGATUM EST

DUCEBAR ETIAM QUOD DECESSERAT
CLASSICUS AMOTUMQL/£ ERAT QUOD
I5N EIUSMODI CAUSIS SOLET ESSE TRIS
TITISSIMUM6 PERICULUM SENATORIS

25 UIDEBAM ERGO ADUOCATIONI MEAE

NON MINOREM GRATIAM QUAM SI
UIUERET ILLE PROPOSITAM INUIDIAM

Uir erat in terra"1

1 Deletion of i before u is marked by a dot above the letter and a slanting stroke through it.

2 h and i above the line are apparently by the first hand.

3 n (in brackets) is a later addition.

4 The letters uid are plainly retraced by a later hand. The same hand retouched negesh in the same line.

6 1 before n added by a later corrector who erased the i which the scribe wrote after quod, in the line above.

6 Superfluous ti cancelled by means of dots and oblique stroke.

7 Added by a Caroline hand of the ninth century.

BPISTVLARVM

NuLLAM IN SUMMA COMPUTABAM
SI MUNERE HOC TERTIO FUNGERER1 FACILI
OREM MIHI EXCUSATIONEM FORE SI
QUIS INCIDISSET QUEM NON DEBEREM
5 ACCUSARE NAM CUM EST OMNIUM OFFI

CIORUM FINIS ALIQUIS TUM OPTIME
LIBERTATI UENIA OBSEQUIO PRAEPARA
TUR AUDISTI CONSILII MEI MOTUS SUPER
EST ALTERUTRA EX PARTE IUDICIUM TUUM

IO IN QUO MIHI AEQ[/£ IUCu'nDA 2 ERIT SIM

PLICITAS DISSlflENTIS 3 QUAM COMPRO
BANTIS AUCTORITAS UALE

'C'PLINIUS MACRO -SUO'SaLUTEM

PeRGRATUM EST MIHI QUOD TAM DILIGEJV

IS TER LIBROS AUONCULI MEI LECTITAS UT

HABERE OMNES UELIS QUAERASQt/£ QUI
SINT OMNES DEFUNGAR 4 INDICIS PARTIBUS
ATQUE ETIAM QUO SINT ORDINE SCRIPTI
NOTUM TIBI FACIAM EST ENIM HAEC

20 QUOQ[/£ STUDIOSIS NON INIUCUNDA COG

NITIO DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI UNUS-
HUNC CUM PRAEFECTUS ALAE MILITA
RET* PARI 5 INGENIO CURAQ(/£ COMPOSUIT«
DE UITA POMPONI SECUNDI DUO A QUO

25 SINGULARITER AMATUS HOC MEMORIAE

AMICI QUASI DEBITUM MUNUS EXSOL
UIT-BELLORUM GERMANIAE UIGINTI QUIBUS

1 r added above the line by the scribe or by a contemporary hand.

2 i added above the second u by the scribe or by a contemporary hand.

3 The scribe wrote dissitientis. A contemporary hand changed the second i to e and wrote an n above the t.

4 de is cancelled by means of dots above the d and e and oblique strokes drawn through them.

6 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

E. K. RAND

THE MORGAN FRAGMENT AND ALDUS'S
ANCIENT CODEX PARISINUS.1

A LDUS MANUTIUS, in the preface to his edition of Pliny's Letters > printed The Codex
I % at Venice in 1508, expresses his gratitude to Aloisio Mocenigo, Vene- Parisinus
■A- -^ tian 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 manu-
scripts. Aldus, addressing Mocenigo, thus describes his acquisition:

"Deinde Iucundo Veronensi Viro singulari ingenio, ac bonarum literarum studio-
sissimo, 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."

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. Turn 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 decern quoque epistolae interpositae, ac ex Nono libro Octauus factus, et ex Octauo
Nonus, Idque benencio exemplaris correctissimi, & mirae, ac uenerandae Vetustatis."

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 read-
ings 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.

2 On Petrus Leander, see Merrill in Classical Philology V (1910), pp. 451 f.

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 autori-
bus 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 charac-
teribus, 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: 1

"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."

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.2 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.3 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,4 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.

1 C. P. II (1907), pp. 134 f. 2 C. P. X (1915), pp. 18 f. 3 By Merrill, C. P. V (1910), pp. 455 ff.
4 Sandys, A History of Classical Studies II (1908), pp. 99 ff.

Since Aldus's time the Parisinus has disappeared. To quote Merrill again: 1

"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."

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.2 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 edi-
tion of Beroaldus. Hearne recognized the importance of this supplementary
matter, for he copied the variants into his own edition of the Letters (1703), in-
tending, apparently, to use them in a larger edition which he is said to have pub-
lished 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 1888,3
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 sup-
plements throughout the volume:4

"hae plinii iunioris epistolae ex uetustissimo exemplari parisiensi et restitutae et emen-
datae sunt opera et industria ioannis iucundi prestantissimi architect! hominis imprimis
antiquarii."

What more natural to conclude than that here is the very copy that Aldus pre-
pared 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.

The Bodleian
volume

1 C. P. II, p. 135. 2 See plate XVII, which shows the insertion in Book VIII.

3 Journal of Philology XVII (1888), pp. 95 ff., and in the introduction to his edition of the Tenth Book
(1889), pp. 75 ff.

4 See Merrill C. P. II, p. 136.

4°

Merrill, in a brilliant and searching article,1 entirely demolishes Hardy's argu-
ment. Unlike most destructive critics, he replaces the exploded theory by still
more interesting fact. For the rediscovery of the Bodleian book and a proper ap-
preciation 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 Keil2 that Budaeus must have
used the readings of the Parisinus; indeed, it is from his own statement in his An-
notationes in Pandectas that we learn of the discovery of the ancient manuscript
by Giocondo:3

"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."

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.4 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 manu-
script 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.8

The Morgan Perhaps we may now say the Bodleian volume has been hitherto our best

fragment possibly authority. For a fragment of the ancient book, if my conjecture is right, is

a part of the lost now, after various journeys, reposing in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New

Parisinus York City.

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

>CP. II, pp. 129 ff. i In his edition, pp. xxiii f. 3 C. P. II, p. 152. 4 C. P. V, p. 466. 6 C. P. II, p. 156.

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. More-
over, the flesh sides of the leaves are faded.

We next note that the fragment came to the Pierpont Morgan Library from Provenience
Aldus's country, where, as Dr. Lowe has amply shown, it was written; how it came and contents
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 fif-
teenth century, as is proved by the French note of that period on fol. 5ir. 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;1 I will postpone the question of what probably did follow. More-
over, if the probatio pennae on fol. §f is Carolingian,2 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.

But we must now subject our fragment to internal tests. If Aldus used the The text
entire manuscript of which this is a part, his text must show a general conformity closely related
to that of the fragment. An examination of the appended collation will establish 1° ™at oj
this fact beyond a doubt. The references are to Keil's critical edition of 1870, but Aldus
the readings are verified from Merrill's apparatus. I will designate the fragment
as 77, using P for Aldus's Parisinus and a for his edition.

We may begin by excluding two probable misprints in Aldus, 64,1 conturbernium
and 65, 17 subzuertas. 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,

1 See Dr. Lowe's remarks, pp. 3-6 above. 2 See above, p. 21, and below, p. 53.

exo/uit, Thuscos; there are other spellings which modern editors might not dis-
dain, i. e., aerar'n and i\\ustri> and some that they have accepted, namely apiponitur,
existat, imp/eturus, imp/orantes, obtu/issem, bahnei, caret (not karet), caritas (not
karitas).1

A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of correction in 77
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 pre-
ferred. The most important cases are: 61, 14 sera] 77 a serua IP 61, 21 considit]
77 considet 772#. The original reading of 77 is clearly considit. The second 1 has
been altered to a capital E, which of course is not the proper form for uncial.

62, 5 residit] 77 residet a. Here 77 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, n posset] a possit (in posset m. /?) 77. Again the corrected E
is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in adopting the read-
ing of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] a modica est etiam (corr. m. 2)
II. 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut praefectus aerari, commeatu] a. Here 77 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, 1 dissentientis] a ex dissitientis m. 1 (?) 77.

There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in 77, 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 TIBF

63, 28 si] a sibi 77 64, 24 conprobasse] comprouasse 77.

In view of these certain errors of the first hand of 77, 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 77 might well have seemed to him wrong; in

1 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 vera el q aliter nos utimur, aliter usi sunt maiores nostri. Namque Mi, quotienscumque a sequebatur, k prae-
ponebant in omni parte orationis, ut Kaput et similia; nos vero non usurpamus k litteram nisi in Kalendarum
nomine scribendo. See also Cledonius (p. 28, 5 K); 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, n), 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.

one of them (64,3) modern editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum
vigor] 77 aurium oculorumque uigor a 64, 3 proferenda] a conferanda 77
6$> 11 et alii] 77 etiam alii a.

There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri] 77
quaesturi MVa. Aldus's reading, as I learn from Professor Merrill, is in the anony-
mous 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 facer 'e. 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 mis-
prints. 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 imme-
diate concern.

The striking similarity, therefore, between Aldus's text and that of our frag-
ment 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 77 only in certain spellings, in the
correction, with the help of existing editions, of three obvious errors of 77 and of
three of its readings that to Aldus might well have seemed erroneous, in two mis-
prints, 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 con-
tradiction 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.

Further, if we are justified in our assumption that Aldus used the manuscript Editorial
of which 77 is a part, the fragment is instructive as to his editorial methods, methods of
If he proceeded elsewhere as carefully as here, he certainly did not perform Aldus
his task with the high-handedness of the traditional humanistic editor; rather,
he treated his ancient witness with respect, and abandoned it only when con-
fronted with what seemed its obvious mistakes. I will revert to this matter at
a later stage of the argument.

Classes of the
manuscripts

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

BUT, it will be asked, how do we know that Aldus used 77 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 77 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 sum-
mary is given by Merrill on the basis of his abundant researches.1

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 fac-
simile page " Saec. IX."2 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.3 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 suggestion4 that it may be the book mentioned as
liber epistolarum Gaii Plinii in a tenth-century catalogue of the manuscripts at

1 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.

2 Pal. des Class. Lat. pi. 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 Beau-
vais Horace, Leidensis lat. 28 saec. IX (Chatelain, pi. 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 V Acad, des Ins. et Belles Lettres XL (1914), pp. 1 ff.

8 Specimina Cod. Lat. Vatic. 1912, pi. 30. See also H. M. Bannister, Paleografia Musicale Vaticana 1913,
p. 30, No. 109.

* See the preface to his edition, p. xi.

Lorsch may be perfectly correct; though not written at Lorsch, it might have been
presented to the monastery by that time.1 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 imme-
diate ancestor, of B and F had all ten books.

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.2 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.3 If Ullman is right in seeing a reference to Pliny's Letters in a notice
in a mediaeval catalogue of Corbie,4 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.5 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

1 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.

2 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., pi. 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.

3 Chatelain calls the page of Pliny that he reproduces (pi. CXLIV) tenth century, but attributes the Sal-
lust portion of the manuscript, although this seems of a piece with the style of the Pliny, to the ninth; see pi. 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.

4 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 Uni-
versity, 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 evi-
dence, 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.

6 C.P.X, p. 23.

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 mon-
asteries, 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.1 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.2 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.

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.3

The early As is often the case, the leading manuscript authorities are only inadequately

editions represented in the early editions. The Editio Princeps (p) of 147 1 was based on

1 See Paul Lehmann, "Aufgaben und Anregungen der lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters," in Sitz-
ungsberichte 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—3 iv Briefe des Hierononymus u. Gregorius Mag-
nus + fol. 46v-47v, Briefe des Plinus an Tacitus u. Albinus, in kontinentaler, wohl Regensburger Minuskel etwa
der Mitte des c/en Jahrhunderts, unter starken insularen (angels achsischen) Einfluss in Buchstabenformen,
Abkiirzungen, etc. Fol. 32r saec. lXex vel Xin- fol. 32v-46r in der Hauptsache direkt insular mit historischen
Notizen in festlandischer Style. Fol. 48V-I28 Ambrosius saec. Xift."

2 Commentaiiuncula de C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistularum jragmento Vossiano notis tironianis de-
scripto (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 DeVries'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.

3 See Merrill's discussion of the different possibilities, C. P. X, p. 14.

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 mate-
rial, 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 r 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 r editors polished away a large number of the
gross blunders of p and r, and added a sometimes unnecessary brilliance of emenda-
tion. 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 edi-
tions 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.1 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 indi-
cates descent from some codex containing ten books.

Now nothing is plainer than that U is a member of Class I, as it agrees with U a ?nember
BF in the following errors, or what are regarded by Keil as errors. I consider the of Class I
text of the Letters and not their superscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] MVD dupli-
cata TIBFGa; 61, 12 confusa adhuc] MV adhuc confusa IIBFGa; 62, 6 doctissime]
MV doctissima IIBFDa et doctissima G; 62, 16 nee adficitur] MVD et adficitur
IIBFGa; 62, 23 quorum] MVDGa qui horum IIBF; 63, 22 teque et] MVDG teque
UBFa; 64, 3 proferenda] Doxa conferenda BFu conferanda U (MV lack an
extensive passage here); 65, 11 alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri] DG alii
quidam minores sed tarn innumeri MV alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri
IIBF a; 6$, 12 voluntariis accusationibus] M (uoluntaris) D voluntariis om. V
accusationibus uoluntariis IIBFGa; 65, 15 superiore] MVD priore IIBFGa; 6$,
24 iam] MVDG om. UBFa.

Tastes differ, and not all these eleven readings of Class I may be errors.
Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (19 12), accepts three of them (60, 15;
62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcoming edition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6;

1 C. P. X, p. 20.

65, 12; 6$, 15). Personally I could be reconciled to them all with the exception
of the very two which Aldus could not admit — 62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places
he had the early editions to fall back on. However, I should concur with Merrill
and Kukula in preferring the reading of the other classes in 62, 16 and 65, 24.
In 6$, ill would emend to alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri; if this is the right
reading, UBF 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 tarn 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, 77 is not of the latter class. There are six other significant errors of MV
in the whole passage, no one of which appears in 77; 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 77
agrees with V in an error easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ordi-
nata, di ss. m.2 77 ornata V.

77, then, and MV have descended from the archetype by different routes.
With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, 77 clearly has no close association.

But the evidence for allying 77 with B and F, the manuscripts of Class I,
is by no means exhausted. In6i, \^,BFux have the erroneous emendation, which
Budaeus includes among his variants, of serua for sera. A glance at 77 shows its
apparent origin. The first hand has sera correctly; the second hand writes u
above the line.1 If the second hand is solely responsible for the attempt at improve-
ment here, and is not reproducing a variant in the parent manuscript of 77, then
BF must descend directly from 77. The following instances point in the same
direction: 6i, 21 considit] considet BF. 77 has considit by the first hand, the
second hand changing the second I to a capital e.2 In 6$, 5, however, residit is not
thus changed in 77, and perhaps for this very reason is retained by the care-
ful scribe of B; F, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with G, residet.
6^, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me B. Here the letters of the scriptura
continua in 77 are faded and blurred; the error of B would therefore be peculiarly
easy if this manuscript derived directly from 77. 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.3 In any case, the error of prae-
statam ad me seems natural enough to one who reads the line for the first time in
77. B did not, as we shall see, copy directly from 77; a copy intervened, in which

1 I have not always followed Dr. Lowe in distinguishing first and second hands in the various alterations
discussed here (pp. 48-50). 2 See above, p. 42. 3 See above, pp. nf.

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.

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 77, apart from the general tightness of the writing, which led to the
later insertion of strokes between many of the words,1 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.i) F. If B or its parent manuscript copied 77 directly, the mistake would be
especially easy, for praeceptoria ends the line in 77. 64, 25 integra re]. After
integra, a letter is erased in B; the copyist, it would seem, first mistook integra re
for one word.

Other instances showing a close connection between B and 77 are as follows:
61, 23 unice] 77 has by the first hand inuice, the second hand writing u above 1,
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 77. 6$, 24 fungerer]. In 77 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 77. 66, 2
avunculi] auonculi 77 (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 77 seems particularly close. 77,
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. 52% 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 2 wrote the words nescio — apud in rustic capitals, occupying
therewith the first line and about a third of the second. This is not effective callig-
raphy. 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 77, which has the same
amount of text, plus the first three letters of spurinnam, in the first two lines.
If B had 77 before him, there is nothing to explain his most unusual procedure. His
original, therefore, is not 77 but an intervening copy, which he is transcribing
with an utter indifference to aesthetic effect and with a laudable, if painful, desire

1 See plates XIII-XIV. * See plate XIV.

5°

for accuracy. This trait, obvious in B's work throughout, is perhaps nowhere more
strikingly exhibited than here.

77 the direct If 77 is the direct ancestor of BF, these manuscripts should contain no good

ancestor of readings not found in 77, unless their writers could arrive at such readings by
BF with prob- easy emendation or unless there is contamination with some other source. From
ably a copy what we know of the text of BF in general, the latter supposition may at once be
intervening ruled out. There are but three cases to consider, two of which may be readily
disposed of: 64, 3 proferenda] conferenda BF conferanda II; 64, 4 conpro-
basse] (comp.) BF comprouasse 77. 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: qui-
bus omnibus ita demum similis adolescet, si imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas,
etc. It is less probable, however, that B with 77 before him should correct it as
he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copy intervened
between 77 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 6$, 6 (turn optime libertati venia obsequio praeparatur), B has optimae, a false
alteration induced perhaps by the following libertati. In 77, 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 *". 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 77 that may not be found, by either the first or the
second hand, in 77.1

We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the close connec-
tion existing between BF and 77. 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 77, 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

1 There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly worth mention. The most important are 63, 10:
caret B KARET II; caritas B KARITAS 27. Yet see below, p. 57, where it is shown that the ancient spell-
ing is found in B elsewhere than in the portion of text included in 27.

on the tables of contents in B,1 concluded that P did not contain the indices
which are preserved in By 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
77 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 fata-
dictaq-) is an addition in 77, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though
the original title had been omitted in the manuscript which 77 was copying and
the corrector of 77 had substituted a title of his own making.2 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 77 is in the title of III, viii: ad sueton
tranque 77 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 77 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). IIBF agree in omitting suae (III,
iii) and suo (III, iv), but in retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other
addresses preserved in 77. The same unusual suspensions occur in 77 and By as ad
sueton tranque (tranqui B); ad uestric spurinn*; ad silium procul.3 In
the first of these cases, the parent of 77 evidently had tranq-, which 77 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 77. Further, B omits one symbol of abbreviation which
77 has (possum iam perscrib, 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 / in
perscrib? This long / is not a feature of the script of 7?, nor is there any provo-
cation for it in the way in which the word is written in 77. This detail, therefore,
may be added to the indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between
B and 77; the curious /, faithfully reproduced, as usual, by B, may have occurred
in such a copy.

These details prove an intimate relation between 77 and BF, and fit the
supposition that B and F are direct descendants of 77. This may be strengthened

1 C. P. V, pp. 467 ff. and 476 ff., and for the supposed lack of indices in P, p. 485.
1 I venture to disagree with Dr. Lowe's view (above, p. 25) that the addition is by the first hand.
3 See above, p. n. * See plate XIV.

by another consideration. If 77 and B independently copy the same source,
they inevitably make independent errors, however careful their work. 77 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 77 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 77 not in 7?, and we will accept
the existence of that common source; otherwise the appropriate supposition is
that B descends directly from its elder relative 77. It is not necessary to prove
by an examination of readings that 77 is not copied from B; the dates of the two
scripts settle that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment,
that 77 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 77. 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 in-
itiative, or perhaps by a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26 iudicium] indicium B; 64,
29 Caecili] caecilii B; 6$> 13 neglegere] neglere B. But intelligent pondering must
precede the emendation of praeceptoria quo into praeceptori a quo (64, 19), of beati-
cis 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 77
would furnish incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was
independent of 77; 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 77, 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 77, and to the possibility that some
of the corrections of the second hand may be the private inventions of that hand.1
We are hampered, of course, by the comparatively small amount of matter in 77,
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.

1 See above, pp. 48 f.

Our tentative stemma thus far, then, is No. i below, not No. 1 and not No. 3. The probable

stemma
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3

771

I
F

Robbins put P in the position of 77 in this last stemma, but on the assumption
that it did not contain the indices. That is not true of 77.

Still further evidence is supplied by the external history of our manuscripts. Further con-
B was at Beauvais at the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century, sideration of
as we have seen.1 Whatever the uncertainties as to its origin, any palaeographer the external
would agree that it could hardly have been written before the middle of the ninth history of P,
century or after the middle of the tenth. It was undoubtedly produced in France, as II, and B
was F, its sister manuscript. The presumption is that/71, the copy intervening be-
tween 77 and B, was also French, and that 77 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.2 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 771 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;3 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
77 and B descend, being earlier than 77, must have been a manuscript in majuscules,
written in Italy, since that is unquestionably the provenience of 77. There were,
then, by this supposition, two ancient majuscule manuscripts of the Letters, most
closely related in text — veritable twins, indeed — that travelled from Italy to
France. One (X1) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is the parent of

1 See above, p. 44, n. 2.

2 " Zur fruhen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan," in Wiener Studien
XXXI (1909), p. 258.

3 See above, pp. 21, 41.

B and F; the other (77) 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 p/ura, 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.1 Not many books of
the age and quality of 77 were floating about in France in the ninth century.
There is nothing in the evidence presented by 77 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 77. The burden
of proof would appear to rest on those who assert the contrary. 77, therefore,
if the ancestor of 75, contained at least as much as we find today in B. Some ances-
tor of B had all ten books. Aldus, whose text is closely related to BFi 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 77 is a
fragment of the lost Parisinus which contained all the books of Pliny's Letters.
Our stemma, then, becomes,

P (the whole manuscript), of which 77 is a part.

Evidence from We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions of

the portions of BF outside the text of 77. We note, above all, a number of omissions in BF that
BF outside the indicate the length of line in some manuscript from which they descend. This
text of "77 length of line is precisely what we find in 77. 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 Pro-
fessor A. C. Clark2 for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed in

1 See above, p. 22.

2 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 II includes the nine and a third pages on which full lines occur. If I had
taken only foil. 52% 52% S3r and 53", 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 (l33v) has a line of 32 letters, and so has 135",
while 136" has one of 33. The lines of II are a shade longer than those of the Vindobonensis, but only a shade.

date from II. Supposing that 77 is a typical section of P — and after Professor
Clark's studies1 we may more confidently assume that it is — P had the same
length of line. The important cases of omission are as follows:

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:

ETIAMINUISUSUIRTUTIB-FUERATEUA (30)

SITRELIQUITINCOLUMEMOPTIMUMATQ/ (3 I )

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 homoiote/euta,
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 77, 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 quern docuissent, responder-
unt quern prius : interrogati an tunc gratis adfuisset, responderunt sex milibus] inter-
rogati 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.

1 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.

sentiebant and responderunt, ordinarily a safe enough pair, become danger-
ous 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 dis-
tinctly 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 — maio-
rem; that made by F (29 letters and one dot) seems to be that of a line of P where
the arrangement would be: quod

MINOREMEXLIBERISDUOB • AMISITSED
MAIOREM

There may have been a copy (P2) intervening between P1 and F, but doubtless
neither that nor P1 itself had lines so short as those in P; the error of F, therefore,
may be most naturally ascribed to P1, who omitted a line of P.

130, 16 percolui. in summa (cur enim non aperiam tibi vel iudicium meum
vel errorem?) primum ego] in summa — primum (59 letters) om. F. As there are
no homoioteleuta here at all, we surely are concerned with the omission of a line
or lines. Perhaps 59 letters would make up a line in P1 or P2. Perhaps two lines
of P were dropped.

Similarly we may note two omissions in P, though not in P, which may be
due originally to the error of P1 in copying P.

68, 5 electorumque commentarios centum sexaginta mihi reliquit, opistho-
graphos] -torumque — opisthographos om. B. Allowing the abbreviation of que, we
have 59 letters and one dot here. The omitted words are written by the first hand
of B at the foot of the page. Of course the omission may correspond to a line of P1
dropped by B in copying, but it is equally possible that P1 committed the error
and corrected it by the marginal supplement, F noting the correction in time to
include the omitted words in his text, B copying them in the margin as he found
them in P1.

87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. nam quoto cuique eadem hones-
tatis] suffragiis — honestatis om. m. 1, add. in mg. m.i 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 II 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 77 in the spellings karet and karitas.1 We do, however, find kari-
tate elsewhere in B (109, 8), and the curious reading Kl .'. facere, mg. calfacere, for
calfacere ($6, 12). This is an additional bit of evidence for supposing that a copy
(P1) intervened between P and B; P had the spelling Karitas consistently, P1
altered it to the usual form, and B reproduced the corrections in P1, failing to
take them all, unless, as may well be, P1 had failed to correct all the cases.

Thus the evidence contained in the portion of BF outside the text of 77
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.

1 See above, pp. 42, n.i, and 50, n. I.

5«

EDITORIAL METHODS OF ALDUS.

Aldus 's ~W "*W TE may now return to Aldus and imagine, if we can, his method of critical

methods; his \/\/ procedure. Finding his agreement with 77 so close, even in what editors be-
basic text * * fore 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 77, P has
thirty-two readings which Aldus avoids. In most of these cases p commits an
error, sometimes a ridiculous error, like off am for officia (62, 25); the manuscript
on which p was based apparently made free use of abbreviations. Keil's damning
estimate of r1 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 r in all but
twenty-six readings.2 Aldus would have had fewest changes to make, then, if his
basic text was r. This is apparently the view of Keil,3 who would agree at any
rate that Aldus made special use of the r editions and who also declares that p is
the fundamentum of r as r is of the edition of Pomponius Laetus.4

It would certainly be natural for Aldus to start with his immediate predeces-
sors, 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,5 is sufficient, he declares,6 " ad fidem
Aldinae editionis constituendam," but, as I have found by comparing our photo-
graphs 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.

1 See the introduction to his edition, p. xviii. * Op. cit., pp. xviii, xx.

2 See below, pp. 60 ff. 6 Op. cit., p. 2: Ex r pauca adscripta sunt.

3 Op. cit., p. xxv : illis potissimum Aldum usum esse vicli. 6 Op. cit., p. xxxii.

We may now test Aldus by the evidence of the Bodleian volume with its The variants
variants in the hand of Budaeus. For the section included in 77, their number is ofBudaeus in
disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus ( = /') to the text of Bero- the Bodleian
aldus are: 61,14 sera] MVDoa, (m. 1) H serua BFuxi, (m. 2) II; 62, 4 ambulat] % cum volume
plerisque ambulabat r Ber. (ab del.) M; 62, 25 quoque] i cum ceteris .pouq (ue) Ber.;
64, 23 Quamvis] q Vmuis Ber. corr. i.

This is all. Budaeus, who, according to Merrill, had the Parisinus at his dis-
posal, 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 II.

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 1 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 2 to Ambu-
lation GestatiOy Hora balneiy 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, "Benejicia beneficiis aliis cumulanda" while 227, 5 is decorated with
the moral ejaculation, "0 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 day3 is so marked. This passage likewise called forth various
marginal notes from Budaeus,4 and other coincidences exist between the markings
in 77 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 77.

It is of some importance to consider what Budaeus might have done to the Aldus and
text of Beroaldus had he treated it to a systematic collation with the Parisinus. Budaeus
Our fragment allows us to test Budaeus; for even if it be not the Parisinus itself, compared

1 See Ribbeck's Virgil, Prolegomena, p. 152.
4 See plate XVIII.

2 See plate XVIII.

3 Epist. Ill, i (plate IV).

its readings with the help of By F, and Aldus show what was in that ancient book.
I have enumerated above1 eleven readings of IIBF which are called errors by
Keil, but of which nine were accepted by Aldus and five by the latest editor, Pro-
fessor Merrill. In two of these (62, 23 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 r editions, which Aldus corrected but Budaeus did not touch.
I give the complete apparatus 2 for these twenty-six places, as they will illustrate
the radical difference between Aldus and Budaeus in their use of the Parisinus.

60, 15 duplicia] MVDr r duplicata TJBFGpa

61, 12 confusa adhuc] MVr adhuc confusa IIBFGpra

18 milia passuum tria nee] TIBFMV {pi) a milia passum tria et nee D mil-
le pastria nee r mille pas. nee r

62, 6 doctissime] MVr et doctissime r doctissima TLBFDa et doctissima/>
26 igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem] TIBFD {pi) a igitur et eundem mihi

cursum et eundem re fuit (25) — potes (64, 12) om. MV

63, 2 maximo] IIBFDG {prl) a Valerio Max. r Gauio Maximo Catanaeus

4 Arrianus Maturus] JJBFDra arianus maturus Gp Arrianus Maturius r

5 est] IIBFDG {pi) a om. r Ber.

9 ardentibus dicere] IIBFDG (r?) a dicere ardentius pr
12 excolendusque] IIBFD (/>?) a extollendusque Grr
15 conferas in eum] IIBFD (/>?) a in eum conferas Gr<r
17 excipit] IIBFD (/>?) a accipit rr

quam si] IIBFDG {pi) a quasi si r quasi Laet., Ber.

20 CORELLIAE HISPULLAE SUAE] CORELLIAE II B AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE

ind. TIB corellie ispullae F corelliae hispullae a corneliae (Co-
reliae Catanaeus) hispullae (suae add. Do) DGprr

22 teque et] DG (p?)r teque IIBFra

23 et in] IIBFDG (/>?) a et rr

diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] IIBFDG {pi) a diligam et cu-
piam necesse est etiam r diligam atque etiam cupiam nececesse (sic) est
etiam Ber.

64, 2 erroribus modica vel etiam nulla] BFDG (/>?) a {ex errorib -modicaesteti-

amnulla m.2) H erroribus uel modica uel nulla r erroribus modica
uel nulla Ber. uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla vulgo
5 fortunaeque] IIBFDG {pi) a form(a)eque r Ber.

65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali D) DGp alii quidem minoris

sed tamen numeri IIBF a alii quidam (quidem Catanaeus) minores sed
tam(tamen rr) innumeri MVrr

1 See above, p. 47.

2 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.

65, 15 superiore] MVD? priore IIBFGra prior/)
24 iam] MVDG (pri) r om. UBFa

66, 7 sint omnes] IIBFMVDG (pr?) a sint r

9 haec quoque] JJBFDVG ra hoc quoque M hie quoque p haec r

1 1 Pomponi] IIBMVo Pomponii FDpra Q. Pomponii r

12 amatus] TIFDG (pr?) a est amatus MTV 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 (/. e., r) in these twenty-six readings. In one sure case (60, 15) and eleven
possible1 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 pos-
sible 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^> 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 IIFB and hence were presumably in the Paris-
inus. 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.2

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,3 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.4 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.

Budaeus, on the other hand, is not an editor. He is a vastly interested reader

1 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.

2 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.

3 See above, p. 58. 4 See above, pp. 47 f.

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 Cata-
naeus, 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.1 In the present section, occupying 251 lines in 77, there js
only one reading of the Parisinus — a false reading, it happens — that seems to
Budaeus worth recording. Compared with what Aldus gleaned from P, 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.2

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 Par-
isinus. 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 frag-
ment, 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 mat-
ter 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 H is most intimately connected
with manuscripts BF of Class I, and indeed seems to be a part of the very manu-
script whence they are descended. Finally, a careful comparison of Aldus's text

1 See Merrill, "Zur friihen 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.

2 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 turn, Budaeus correcting this error in the margin. A scribe is of course capable of any-
thing, but with an uncial turn to start from, tamen is not a natural mistake to commit; it would rather appear
that the scribe falsely resolved a minuscule abbreviation.

with II shows him, for this much of the Letters at least, to be a scrupulous and
conscientious editor. His method is to follow 77 throughout, save when, confronted
by its obvious blunders, he has recourse to the editions of his day.

Since the publication of Otto's article in 1886,1 in which the author defended The latest
the F branch against that of MV, to which, as the elder representative of the criticism of
tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred, critical procedure has gradually Aldus
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 19 12,2 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 II that of the eleven readings which Keil regarded as
errors of the F branch, three are accepted by Kukula and five by Merrill.3

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 : 4

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

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,5 Professor Merrill
declares that Keil's remarks 6 on the procedure of Aldus in the part of Book X
already edited by Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus might safely have been ex-
tended 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

1 " Die Ueberlieferung der Briefedes jiingeren Plinius," in Hermes XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff. 2 See p. iv.

3 See above, pp. 47 f. 4 See the prefatory letter in his edition of 15 18. 6 C. P. XIV (1919), pp. 29 ff.

8 Op. cit., p. xxxvii: nam ea quae aliter in Aldina editione atque in illis (i. e., Avantius, Beroaldus, and Cata-
naeus) exhibentur ita comparata sunt omnia, ut coniectura potius inventa quam e codice profecta esse existi-
manda sint et plura quidem in pravis et temerariis interpolationibus versantur.

volume, which are apparently transcripts from the Parisinus (=/);1 in them
Budaeus with his own hand ( = /) 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 It 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, 1 1 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."2 Letter IX xvi, a very
short affair, added by Budaeus in the margin, contains no indictment against Aldus.

Aldus s
methods in the
newly dis-
covered 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."3 "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."4
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 / emends (221, 11),
and several cases in which Aldus and / or / 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). How-
ever, 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 manu-
script. 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

1 But see above, p. 62, n. 2.

• Pp. 31 ff-

3 P- 33-

4 P. 30.

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 77, 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.

With the discovery of the Morgan fragment, a new criterion of Aldus is offered. The Morgan
I believe that it is the surest starting-point from which to investigate Aldus's fragment the
relation to his ancient manuscript. I admit that for Book X, Avantius and the best criterion
Bodleian volume in its added parts are better authorities for the Parisinus than is of Aldus
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 ab-
solute 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 valu-
able 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 77 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.

I conclude, then, that the Morgan fragment is a piece of the Parisinus, and Conclusion
that we may compare with Aldus's text the very words which he studied out, care-
fully collated, and treated with a decent respect. On the basis of the new informa-
tion 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 frag-
ment 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 Caro-
line minuscule of the ninth century. See above, p. 44.
Our plates reproduce fols. 9 and gv (slightly reduced), con-
taining 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. $6V 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. 136* (plate XVIP). The missing text is sup-
plied 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 repro-
duces the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.

XX. Specimens of three uncial manuscripts:

(a) Berlin, Konigl. Bibl. Lat. 40 298, circa a. 447.

ib) New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462,

circa a. 500 (exact size).
(c) Fulda, Codex Bonifatianus 1, ante a. 547.

[PLATE I]

1 " "■<" ' ' ' — ■■ I i H»' ■ II HW ■!

■ ■lli^^ww

■

\Jh 5

•/

\ essnmirseiV\iU*fcvKefyTcucv\ccr~-

S ul e i^eiquxcoc noses Te R.t \ u o\s es ce~
mesiiarleTu^cT»sesseTiMg€>aisseseex
TX^uriic xTX^|*ai&?roiL~iet4£>uv*i ii eS<*t
^ucemiesKxsuufuimei V>xfceBixsi
cv> ot* ouieoef &>Aa e#AXTesria.n^ e jot*
auo^es^io>f|LOfciS£uv\utt^ceNUSfxl
SUrsiSqiK>i^ut^SU^TiL4^^iA^ArC0ETLl*:
uxle

r#*J

'■'■?'/> ---"*wi-*

^ -, •- . ♦

;. - * . • ./»vf&*** * <£..<

JitSLiteT**

[IlSTVjLARMIXtlfKEp',

•IMC: Lm- fn- mitmfe -4 ]

fMj^Sf^

I'lliltfr ii

[ PLATE II ]

TW!9f^V^Tr-f

we? ex O % *iv\Xiicn
A& ut&khv>* <v>xxionucn

X& cxeiLetlixe JftjsruLLxe

Xfc cxeltucopf>xciUNUtt>

x& &xefeiuio. c**xc£Asm

- » - - *

x& c xwMiucvx^uT um

»£fe.X

Xb Ue&XfUC SfUfUMM

vA-2JL^ ' ^. .

[PLATE III]

-• .

xfc lubucoceianoiL'

Xfc ckiiUhuco seuen

Xfc UOCO|41UC^fLOCOXf4UCn

x5 fXTltHicn

xfc SiLia«>fju3Cub

xfc unmuoo seuejujm

Xb cxluistuorv *Ai>'uav

■ f

MBfl -— -

fi nt ' ~"

1— V —-'<—-

[ PLATE IV ]

■ "^ ■!■■■.. i m^yniinn mp

»[fiin"»ir^^'

NeScioXMuUur,%luCu|46RiSTemrus
R1N^Jx<v»ru1x^eo€|U1^emulla€ miwe«>

cTiusto^exureroutceTaus si^enum
cuilsus a xun x Kcnvn^Lm> fets poSrt*
^eUciviseNuo^rRxeseMm^isAKiv^

?UU€M€S XM^UCCON] LIS V^UXeOXiVi

eiquxsnu^BXXMaoNixj^ecexn^e^
wfcH^cifcxowxjix^Toi£iax*txcoKj
U€Miuiaiquifti*jfcusiitivse<xTuiLn<;
^♦^Bnioes^iUxKjc]Lecuixaxsru|Liiss

r^^uxV^xecrx^ux-5iMOMcoii^ie|ixJ
o^^iMcquc^X4T>aTuclino^feeci^cu

xcnmvwrLeciulocowaiMeiuiiUo^
secuxi^xcxU eosr oscn xo^Buivt ov

HXf \SSUUC\MH! XT4€Ci\>|MUS Xlsll^U^

^uxmco^aae-aectLceiS? x&sumxcnic*
HoMesxissi <^isen^%OMes4£xriicxMtuiL

Se*rti&' xtt>tctssitssaw-^^t«aoM£^^j'^r^
-* XUTSefUrtOU&JW*? erwo^ o\x^€ U* cuu>-

itti«n rm lM— ,

-.'.V-1''

[PLATE V]

'" 11,1 HP

■^yq^^ia |. HIM .!»■■■ .1

"«*■■■

.£l* • .Jtt-

X^jy^exeo^pXiuel xU v)uei»\oMc OfLum

Tl cjun XtiS cjuxef vci x ques ui r c*s x u
T>1 XSqvilfc.J»JLXecerT ^* 1 ft V&u Xi^e tjuxtvt uis

lULe Kocaeo^f <f ^\ow mtu o*o>o best i>*
sux e ^K^)1 Kef.u vie t*^ xe c ir € r e U 1 b t XT tf.
p eivxcrvase ritrivuwi bfe rxssuuft>vi e
T^UCft XOfcul XUVM lL e vie lUKWjLes 1MT
ueLsecu&icuLaxesxiloi^efcbusciu

Bnewuv>eTcjuic>eft^uTi^xqA»Mc.uxlY
tucxfccHrnssKv*xft>^xilUs£»uLeec>o

4t>iRxsuxun xs o>ir xV>iLxilit xitscuius

Cjfc XXJXCOC UO^ul XXSXXJC t n xt \sscjl\

fcemvsu&iHoj^xBxLtaei xiuxru xx xesi
€STKUteo^l>icfl^eMOM\ xesiMCoav
isxifasoLeSKTXj^exue xixo xco&ulx*
j»>aufcusfeeiHc> ^ OfXouexuiLf i Lxue he
o>ei^ejLex^iui4xo^Uocquoq*exjefL
cirxiioMisceMe^eruc^xxcucns e

>iecxiiieLcausxccuBxipeTr xuRs
reiteiBua> biyf ejLXiwxjeiuar>xu& nxe
ce&ixeft^eornsstusxLi q u: £>ct bulcuu?

-^,go$ciSA3eLex^,ea^xce>Leiie^^ii x

SHYixd^siTxbro^u^cevxwoxat^iN^

:y_i

•■■-■- -'- 1 ■ -■-■■•- ■-

■ i ■ k* ■ *-

[ PLATE VI ]

•

N-

Tes^pocj .!5TU^^iS€0|a^ix^uu-Ki:\tct"mxu '

90 cvNesi 1 xw xcecnn xi e cd*iu«us u cr>
i^xV.viui^wbe ill 5 f osxs efr 1 r> • u cr> er

eftu 1 *j : b vice* c 1. ^ 1* U3£; olLxa - ex.3 eta e c
xiyt*? --jeKi ; x"h xracet^outx &,$msg

* ' even 'o^r, itxsi cm e> -T^.esi:^c f - q^-es

xxu-~ . i ta&ri * xtcxta* -A - ; ••€ r as ::: s^fu* ^
pjtimocsa V $ &x •. - oLxc*vi £ ..v ~x esjcearrp L a*a

&ST1 P&I14KK ' • ? ;XCrt I • erjUOO'

«■ r T »

; ■«*■- -•• •

^—*j'&-*\

— .

[PLATE VII]

■ ur.1 "*■ ■ »"■ »"Fjy ■■ ■»

^ fLijauxs- mxxirUo suo SxLure"^

* JSJUS O' :>T' 21U1& 3lLI !Ma I LI i ' - * ' : arc

■

•!

1 ■»!■ I

[ PLATE VIII ]

r —

W&L.;

- itvn^LxiiMM'

- riscvt' uxle
v/rliwus-co-|u?ilixe sxluietvv
C\uY>rxT^eo>TUUiV\cfcxutssuY>uoxeT.sxN
CTis^imumuiju^imsusfexej^imoxxcis
xw xoxuc^ \ *»fc utne cwtecj* iNo>e mo

fci lie, XiV\cufixiY*j4e cess eesixicj' *-\**-
cj u xmi uo> iMcvte y ue ^n € m n xn urf 1 1 ms

~1 uus xoosi cvu L is e vsvsi xt e ^ui beo>
axxlooxxTejLiaoquxo^cjxaxil li vxi e f^
Kvise-iixo^clx^tiSSfCCTVius^owTice
^nrxxe^tjUoq»cirxT|^uasiMlLiST^ilxu
fc e coMSf i c uicjot& ocv\ m« **ri x£> e o> u o>
S w*M lisx?soleScexstBnMb^nusKoMc5.

-I IS MLT WbUSf Ulc^lT C|U XSfl U|L 10>U€VMLe J e f
\i XlXCfUOf Olt&SlCttOt'ttXC.Ciri XT \M>uc

ill ucvtfu^iunxe^xTieiKtii xcovto^^k
wmivvruumv^iuirni x£ c«? vicvp.c.s b oa\i
Nx^unuBiesTentLovLiB-ci^obicxcs^tiX'
wull xcnxte iu xixcwsr u&t xeiusexi l^x
lic^eiac ©m* e^ xnoXSUNT \ xoxcirc uoxsr »
c:€:^jbusTX,1>eioi^lxiiHuscouJ55cUo

I X € Se Life" |L*S XS fu£>0£ * Wfc*i lYN 9 « c xsi u xs

comst^t x©esx«f -nkv> xo u I e^e e >n i fkc^s
"Ti^ocuci^c etc tu^n xtwl xe y o^t lvkix ^ <^-

foCTIfer ^gH»l-XCCt^yo|tSSt>uijC^1TU^-0

cam v*j V%©cl-tt%iiic© * sTv^^NOMrKxect r

* — ■ ■-- *- - •

- - — •

[PLATE IX]

Lojuy>o^se^cuSTOSeTixcr>^ecToj

ST^x^e TtfcTTOSSeioliumceNTWlte^
x<^xTUTLxor\efe»icicrrxa^e>aorv€K^>3or»

c10NVtxesTU1TteSTeme1<l^xT<3^S€rKy^x
uisrxuloeTi xcv>h 0^1 fcioju-x fcujuofL
utim Uxc Lieoaxi xte cv\po^ua> cjuxn
Tucv>e Locjuej<rnxuxLexTrlujut> ci^*
t>eTU^roxeSMxa^bioeNi^TxcuLtxs -

xpefT xeTexT*osiTx six"i)ir\ c ei^parrw
an xUoiYMNUort xlxos p.ecessus cts xc^

nxsq-LxTefeK^sUxB^Tcuiusri^0^^

MiT o^e tv\esi* om&o^€ iv*xccire*aiV*iL

exl^ocuii^oj i Iiust uvas xufci eT mvs i
f!U3TUTu^ucv\>iil>vL^isceTcjuoSMesci;>~
S€]iecTiusfuefnNei^iNUS5Nefc\B
ill ocjuxivvxxecoecj uexOcnoN e ^>n ujl
c^uib imxciMiB* OMei^eruTLcjuxe>Kxni

>3XeTCJUX>iTXSUS11MeXT]»^01M5eT ^e-

"TiBas^MiSTt^x^e uo>ri^xecefTO)U x

bi$c XT <quxe <v\x.Les4>ie cvvoiufcusfcis
^>cixuil uxLe — -. -

\_fLiHius a3XC|«Ho SxLuTecr>

OoxmuiserxaucicauosFi^xe^emeLs^

y v *

t>x &e^xft> eT 3 e jl«t\ o^ es K oa > i >i \sa \

■ <\

■•••«

•

^*h. i ni.'iyWXl-iiintliMii ■* ■*■ -■^■■■. ■

[ PLATE X ]

■ '■■"

^pp

STulfcWJM'

se>mxs;ruM£,€ -vcuiusiNTec^x jiecc n

.-1

»<f£tae r~-,<: \ -■ . - -

;

<7>

- '• - " ---" '■--

«ml

[PLATE XI]

'Mi I. KJHWH

L\h' v-V

£Mlj i ;&»uxeco«cr>e>£» V>oc ecus ? lip ^cr*^*-

Utr--rrWt>«.XyT>-

J, <

[ PLATE XII ]

■

;

'inSTVliM^V.^-

Psi oLl XO>lN5UO> m\COOAf UT X t» xm
0]^ei%^CI^ll>1«iKC«J5^XT10MeO^JOJLeSl

au»smci6iSS6Tt|ueo>iaoMbeBiefem
xccus x^ew xo\c lio> esxotYt *a % cuyuvjt »
eup.M tv»^rr*M^^ tic^uiST urn o j*T mx «?
j LisefVtxiiiaeMix.ofcsecjvuor^ xerxt^x

e STxLxe^uTi^xe K^xfjte luoiciucwr uu~ •
L 4xi^uocixil^ixecj'iucuMbxe^nsiiv^
f Licit xs^i^iTxejsmscju xmcoiT>piu>

-^B»XXJ T VS. XiJCTO JUT xsA u x L e

P e^c^XT urn e^rrrvi H*tj uoM xmbi U^~
Te^LiBiJjOjsxuoisjcuiici^eiLecriTxsuT
U xb eKeonMac s ueli s<^u xe i^xsq • c^vm
sixrtoiwxiesfcief uxacxiu>i&iosr x^tib-

XT^U4r^T1XCV>quOi&IKItOK^^aeSClHft|

N<»T4aovtisi^ xcix a>e^Te»mnfax£c

auoc|^TLUt>iOSiSNOt4waiucuMbxco^
xuTiooei xc uL xr i qk» c^/iuesxiu ONUS •
V> oKic cuo^fTt xe^ ecrus xlxearuUxx

rjr

oeu uxroo^fio-Mi sec viju £v» Z> uo xcj u o
siMCAilxjmep-aasaxx^jsj^oi^^

■Milifc^iiMbrfl— ri-nrrrii, ^.ii

£ <

[PLATK XIII]

ff^-3 I-

"Ni Si '

s $ f 1

* i c &-

3-8 -I i

J 5 3 8 _I

e 8

•3

w 5 ft- a J Tr
£ 5 ** 5 cl. is

I H Lt S
i y ft

v it E

iw iu;|l.vf|i

***~~*

[PLATE XIV]

Ifi

I I *

3 I S

■ it' s i *

f J I ^

■i *-*

I-

1 * :*

14 I *

• £a

[PLATE XV]

\xcwci

Mvfoice anrfuUr cpfc<nfr*p*™t*rexjpaiT',f*€cmni7i fcmfuryS foctz

rnm^'OhrtWMrtafua fV*pc\n-MylufmJ a1^pitrni:c^uiitbiy€i

dttty- MiafipCccoaAve fx\ixt .'income infciuifyuctn <L<c{hr (tyklciuf biff
Jltlrt<vaplcl^a^(ttl«rt^tti?aif?trtta: uaitruJuic cotiflic&bac "Cuptfiur
rmtarr tdihunzu* 'jveculufdut Ituj-rf- aliduua evrunuf mluilif. dui<x nt«Paxp

f <>flaftim^rum'r trltzum^'truiorpfcrut* vunttc aJLjciuwhc' iCclca% mcAuif
d iu? ufo tmferu crttcixaF (1 uw inuidAif bonAmoiafc cut Aatc i i id' n fxn H) f. **

fahztyjnfccldifhcK' h?nr' ivradycfaCf \$urAcfex(i\iirAx*. o» wcca
femvna* fvm&cA zsfamcu'luvfepxe yuUUaittrutfxunic<xf ^c^iditTcd
uerufViX cidfi^ruxnAu^tv^mautJ. Uafmlezpf AMitLaluAeix- \->omme
vutdxec' lllefert^ rnftaUor fle*mutc\ -'ivmr mitl*tt*r apu*r cxtuLxf-
.vfikiaimcaf 'ciiuxfa-az ind'tax Iczprc Obfctnuzmr toilvnzr • ;nfpex"ir
zn$rwft{f<&/* CtMi^iia. ^aulc taavc-'iticcam ifhiA zntnatiujinzutTi av^ir

' £ tUicUetv^ioutPUicUviai atuxftnaTar ^ajyu- AUAAmf iKi>AvA!

|! mcU'XKRiltr tn4tULiApriA'fnr:ti:i01?lVtrit\ imina mcaoi \mcc\uu u\ nun

lU-bU

■v

v V

tef^im^v cfieunm*cbitf(linuip\ faifi- lalij'qusv- ','- ilia Ju: c .; l^ti * vaU

fenefcejx: cLacum-C' pmvCUiri umm tfic\nl-£illo <£#u i*tre zp

* ■■>;

ltd jp*i:i\io fty-nunx^

rut?

[PLATE XVT]

utAtfarcncciPiiuC vxui , xJ- \

cJbX&rw, acPPCnoirv GuZvclerc ^c^tt^faidcomAarTfimut'iAfCCiiAer^
utaictlctmfenC adtfcrt&fadiicKiXzzrrti' ipcpexcxcw* cuer&» fam&nttntaf

1u£ ^axnAvcU cmitya-rmonb} dtumi confenxzmeiiTtwan^cor^nf* Vtyk
dkCdhzSvcc in j cjutfcdcnitfxamc. cpiduiftilifmA?citn4L epcparve 1Up6p
caAe ttLt que (huiab; • ram. hoc aJtlederw^aiuifi 3dn Uzcneur -iAepm&*iA
rur ]\^inmCTi^apiri^a4^nm^uin<?mrddUumci» caui'manuf> prpfc
cXxvnc ' Quwmwfi mvr&c* ' fu^udtwrtt tnccrtcw i^-An&MfaziutiUf
excnnfetmtchUmAimzifcap^ ntfAcceAiZ^derx ',

no c\ecvLxa.\oc\ucz* pwnia^ -iccmtvpcwfa^c ' lon'ovcxriA^ccnv^rxOX'C
urca^arfonpfitn ,i*aborc* dia^uLxhore ^ttcWtyivxm CWane cjtiotr '#<

c\tufa; x£riXCMui\xxrL*c^ixcnvonxxfAvX£Kc& q*u\?&ix^ff1ty

Adccxnz -tCfccjuiAeommo turbtfx^hxMcoiAxx £# cam aufoteructy 1
cxientr. uzaliaA ludicefpci^wr '"cucd^c^uafp^uvtxc'JUicuxTfv adfici
debate Oiiuh; u^ft-fW^titde^-'mA^rne-prnouerdiur lact&z&n fieri*

t—~~.™~-\.,i«***iX-t \if*ew»- ~^/*' k J r> rr^..JJJ r...** i...-^*- '*—+*£ ~JHsk Ja/tz

Jll.fcCKtvA<".(i.- lit' '-"'C-.-

tow "of fi neM J »U<? u »ktku«U

■ ,,v.«n.t JLat U4.'- -:Hr.J.i*

nuiVi' u.'-

po{hd^ren*tvCcuUc^ipf^(e^rdMufco^ OJ^neqtxaquA

bLxt\Au<uvn.b; unptco*f^iiwniawreAPd<Lxt^ AebdtZjfV

mvnorTAfJCvfidcctai'Vc^ 'j^faixcftplaczieivrecieare' ^aMnhiztfum
etiidtaffvmu quia;* JctvlanCaJUtc An firrcat^riAu^pcammAizcu*
otmfa', cvwfeZP rnouu" vmxr\i\a\ pxi^e (XcUtdofPone* u^f eUgr'inqiw ;
-fhzt'zcio* Arc anrxao exi^uf'Snofextufabvtcbfeyuui'vxu

%<b I Mr TA^-'olfactpe-AUixzifahula*

fahulaftrntruyi^rncPoru'riaaA Zrnonuxc f^ecrvftr^'^uoporff
iiann-waviA* (Jh&mx&Vifrnif^VMxc iac&zc* UuSc\ut>tf>ifrmfs<ju*
f^Xlxi aAovcmiz AjUanc rvgdufuem? fmn ' Lmpiitkna* kunwiif

s*vr#

-N-

L 1'LA 1 f; A\ L1J

JlN 1 c fc I

1 2 .O

> 3 -

"-1 •"* 3 V *■

1*1 !!§

,-=: 'E nr l o
3 3 2 3-^5 fc P

w*5** a ;.■'■"

r\ *»» ' * . . »J — ~"

Jt *"" "* o

— "C ~* r-
»i p* T* P*~

• £ — E

E b ^

•* 2 ,5

-i Is 3

r~ •* \j

-' <"> 2 n

QJ ' 3 3 O

«J 3 c f

} e* t is

-• £• pa ju r~

- S3 •* p* 3

^ <X — 7?

t- 3 w —

o -*- < z

- 3 -'-~L
'=" O 7i a.

o '-- **. 8

ate

~ 3 *<£"

r" i- i_

%» f-

-..^

P* j^^

cr-a

S !jN

-j

-j 7J

3 ,-Q

* t C-SE

^ s I *

L< > Vj ^

C =a .;.. -t* -5

u '*" *~ 3

£Z

K E ^5 nf |

' ^* M « ^^" ^

?• «j >j •*• r

_C fe Or*- V,

= JS 'fl r -

t ^ 3 ^J r

•"

' -* "* ^

0 ■'■■■ P t f

r« p- -. vj —
<~ «* »j pr

r* <

; * P-

• 1 CW » V '^^ '»

r- t_i

W fM «_t '«7v> »■ !

f. >~ 0 -1 d~

kd "**

^ <v p- c A-

3 "73

3 C

C i- £ V 3

2 t

S* ^ 0 H ?*

0 *- C 3 *"

\j :j ,-^ ■**

3T^

*ri

*-*

***

p«

■^

>>
3

*-*

1 ~

tat

0 ^r

p«
3

r» '

r—

•5

cr*s

*^;

' £

or(TJ

-t-

r1-

^»

- IJ

w o ,*: *n is e v t; 'S w \

r9 xtJ w C .=" 3 « -= ^ 0- H

^•^^ C & C ^V^JQ fc! T3

ja. ^ g 4> -o >S g <S ^0 S rt

iu 3 C ^3 C ^t u 2 -S° 3 \3

^- i; w ,-S c iM u *-> £ 4> i;

-^ v^: »rt c

- u 3 O
*- r" i-t 1- »

£i 3.ti — u^u 3 f>

ara£.i a ^i^- i

O 73 i '- *P •« ^ (3

Ci 3

«3 6 "J

c^3-H-« g ^*3 g-n.i

cj 5 r-. •—

3 «

c -d

rt \3

5 5
•7- «

0 « u
3crt«5ii^:=:3t-

T^ S Cu S- G c •" - 3 ^

3 .1

-. £cE ^ ^H -i is 3 w ,rt

n-cj.«3rr33cjf-i^

J r*. «/i Lj •* nt l~ _ !- ?•

£4--— 3 iG o = rt V-

o c 00 2 -0 3 tuc;

_3 a u
o u —

*~:

•J

4-J

1/5

r—

■ *~

' t/>

5
0

D-

Srf

i/i

■2 c « « 3 ti 3 3n 5
x2"u^: ° 3 O-^-aU-3

'!■£ r.lli-g^ .1

rt-iG.^-Tn- ^ o X a OJ1

•S -^^^s Pi

5 u5 -= y .ti .ps -2 3 j -3
-5 ; g p vj 3 . P Q >

O
T3
.'13

o » c 3 \3 "~ro
rt rt ti ,c. • c.

rt rt

- *TJ

O >3 v^

°- 3 vi^

'3 O O

3 3 3

3 3 *— ' rt „ . '-» rr q_ - _i

_Z *- UU >3 *— a.u^H0

« e: c-S-a y E
^ " 3 P *3 ra t:

^r *^ r^ ^^

-31 W on ~

3 g

O rt

12 3

333

- ku o 3

rs '3 *- — ;

- u H ™

o -a --. -a

O C c O .rt

3 ^ « - »2 -- «
*=a-3C3Luwr5-a

[PLATE XVIII]

O GG § cs ~

•E C O c

c o c rfto

«-> -s- •♦ c E

C u S *- '" 5

33rr£cjGcDE

u.^tSra > ,3

o E <s-5 £ ^=

J3 c? v^ ft *■" «-■

r3 v.
G ^ Q- S 6 ■

3 3 E-S^^

w 3 c C

C .~

ti ^ ^g «l»

*— «Q £> »♦♦ .vj -Q

<-> Si c

5 to? 5 vii w

»3 O

-G J£ c P. u

° fi S E 8 .c

cd o 3 H a- a

cj
3
X
O

£ 5

; o

5.2 §^i

3 3 S-rs

CTT3 ♦* ,wi

CJ * 3 j-

£-2-6
cL 3 O

* to R 9 5 O

£*£ irS 12-*

"T3 X .w

J5 3 C
"Don

•a «« a

.a ^& g

Evi :--

-•5 3

Eu w
*♦ fc«

~ .4-) J-

^ « ^S
o -2 £T

,w *S « w

*S G W

fc "^4^ £ ,3 1£

cr u

J3 «
O »3 ,

3 ^

e « its -a
c 'g § g

si I i

c c;-o 3

p- ; 5T 2 .c c .§

" ^G <^ ^— U

« w c

3^0i

c 2 ^

•= (3 ^

*->

c
o

a.
3

3
O

fj
HD
.G

-a
♦♦

T)
3

n zi j lt!

u -3

c w

2 u

g 3.3 .0

= ^S £

p< 4-1 C >^

XT'

Oro-S >&"-S g rQ CS

^ f *-

h E *-

u — 7-0 *- •— 00 3-3

j= s «« ■ « « g

= « G E w
3 ^ r- . *- <-< nj

h S^.S -S^^ ^^^ eg
S « ^-g^ a.CS := ^ 3 £ ^

cu
o

« ^'c cLcs .

3 w G w w > 3
g0 E -2 H 13 .9 «

GO-2
C "C 3

4-1

13
CS

♦ ♦

3
E

■g § .£ E 1= -| -2 §

2-73 3 8*« 3 fe
3 >1>

g « -O .3

E goE^CH

cd 3 3 3 «<u

CD .*-

■• c

3
G

•1 \j*

«3 3 . VJ »-M ft^

.2" S^* S 5

-*i O ?S « u

12 ,5 & <— _

.3 pj w q c

« S 2 j: 3

.c E * .2 ~p

•»« im 3 3 CD

a.s J 8-a

S. H « ^-s

c Q-fe y £

£2-5
d o 3

•! C

S-gScI
P S - -B-

fe wj « (-2
U W -*i G3

52 ^ S^"-2
3 G o 3
« -O 3 g

,« O E G

G 3^-0 -1

a- 3

&. 3\Q-

S JG x ^
g .&•!!(&

G -Q 3 o

S o-E £l
S"H.E-3 S"

p ^a Jc -5 5t>

T- T3 *3 *0 —- 1— 1 «— «

fiaSS'S d"4

x x •*■< cr c

""" . CD 2 «J ^-"

2 ^ •= »C £

u c: ,Si c

QT rj 4-i OS

*- « G CS
CD Si <-• u

*- 3 w> *-

3
j^
O

w
w

u
<

*v •♦-«.«•-» - rm {j o, «.

CD to

§•8

y .3 e P <£ G 3 G

«q c »« pes w g 2

^n So4'13 37 « 2 o 3 3

a cu£ 3 *j ■« g-9^-q a cd

2 CO E

.3 -o g -a

o 3 " E

VG Sj C

S«Q33^£ . w ^

M3 Jr; *" O cs ES no

ti r? w « — o. cd ♦•

3 ^ — 3 rs tT" SS *->

ts u S U S^^-^SSCG

•«E?3^ e^C E °Sj g «
Xg= § go 5 sq^-o-t3-2cS s

s 3 w 2 s .« o o

3 ? <G

3 c 8 § -C

ft ^ *— .W ,CD

JJ •«= ^ vr? S t «« -jr

•r >^ "° .

c/j 3

cd C 3_ 3

lV>

[PLATE XIX]

8. 2

w- W

> ul

O ca

^ 2

< *-

U >

►J
to

* o

*•• a s h ^~
X ft- a ^ _^

ft. a e '-^ 2

gig -it -.-

=a
a

t £ § -?

w - ■<•

£ a

fee ~~

! i^

a s »»

§ ft: -a

», »• - * &

~i_a

■'S 3

? 4! i ^

r: k R

2 * e

c 3 §

£ £ S c «*«.-.= 'S

5^ ** — . -. r? ft- a. ?r

i=^-w -^ a
a -

ft*

•TJ ^ I* "

| § eoi

** c s **

Sec E-«

a c £ §-? •

14 8 11

a-3^^
3 £^3^

,5 S-

a ^^ £

eve, s 5

"- l, tr ^.

« »:

^ N o o

S a 5 »*

lib 1^2

«r^" !

_ c

^ -ft

I! v

4. v. t ^

x a s t»

' vss. »j g •« S S

^* ? c ^i-,G a 5
5 *=; =* 2 £ rT'-it

11? 1 1 1"? I tl^ ! 1

a§?o*2l§t->o§5g^-*

illl 5 I c &i~ <*. a *. «- «n

-i-

+Hb& -

**- ft fc <

■>*> la,

£ote

n ^ ^

fe I. SL ^

R C-- '3-'

IJl*^TS*ft*-S

«- ft

e 8

<3- „

~ "3

■S Si*

5 i; ~S * h r~ a

a ~ "S, ft «-
_ r: S s .-r k

So 2 1 1 I !«

a & ~c

V S. a a

^ s e ,!-^ £-c

s ft § x "??

a k

5 ?-*r js

l'^§/36"£

* 1 *

JjiS a S C

ft, « v -S Bo

■

"2 a

fc a te o a ^ v

s ** ^ ^^ S S S ^* •

C<J^ \*T <T" 5 5S ? ? *i

J ^=S -8 ^ J § « ^

«^

i5 &.£""
£ ..-5 •

1 lole^^^Lb

§,V- ft- ^ <*•

c ft*

V L PLATE XX J

Act

essnutifseo^iiv^xef4Tcuc»cor-'
Sulef^etcjuxa>ciToseSTei^tiuo\sesce^

uxLe

hrtt'f h»«* fti*» quoa>po i esrr saLuajuwhi

: *Z3&]FZ& •psok quixsiauisxulM

*;• lit^UfWi^M^ VoRC-sx-ae^BieJ hohk^
> *f £o^<Hn»pVK -TOR' hiGCompx^x&iki^
( » en (ioa>NSi^e^AKi1u»J^

1 .n^^&lvw^ f i U tr»M Xtj U II M IS §U A C

£'■ Mtw^v^r^^ CTS1X1 icnoBLt-niSCST
!?C3Ssfepfcft!lSs- cTUxLisput^Ri-i • CHiixu

gS**^*M.^ .4, c;epe^ecT<LiBop.rAT»s
| , , . , i erpeKo^xMseRTT^ >Jo*>

V^,v^rw-,£rr '"^i c l^isscSpAciORoponTs
f^t^i^^f^y. SicBeATUSiHp^cTociuoerul
£u ; ,. .^5/ 5 -k^ 1 1 <; a.v! ' i a «x> p ar.\ x s e

# ^ j*e*fe*c;iosciejF*€\sse >

nsi

,:;:;! rllH

25L6

^owe, El±as Avery

of theiwrentUr7 fr80»nt

1 ztle letters of piw th_

younger y ne

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

; ::

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "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"

See other formats