PART I.

Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

{Transcriber's Note:

Except for footnote references, all brackets are in the original text.

Material added by the transcriber is in {braces}.

Typographical errors are listed at the end of the text.}

A SIXTH-CENTURY FRAGMENT

of the

LETTERS OF

PLINY THE YOUNGER

A Study of Six Leaves of an Uncial

Manuscript Preserved in

the Pierpont Morgan Library

New York

by

E. A. LOWE

Associate of the Carnegie Institution of Washington

Sandars Reader at Cambridge University (1914)

Lecturer in Palaeography at Oxford University

and

E. K. RAND

Professor of Latin in Harvard University

[Illustration:

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

1902]

Published by the

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

Washington, 1922

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

Publication No. 304

The University Press

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

U. S. A.

PREFATORY NOTE.

The Pierpont Morgan Library, itself a work of art, contains masterpieces

of painting and sculpture, rare books, and illuminated manuscripts.

Scholars generally are perhaps not aware that it also possesses the

oldest Latin manuscripts in America, including several that even the

greatest European libraries would be proud to own. The collection is

also admirably representative of the development of script throughout

the Middle Ages. It comprises specimens of the uncial hand, the

half-uncial, the Merovingian minuscule of the Luxeuil type, the script

of the famous school of Tours, the St. Gall type, the Irish and

Visigothic hands, and the Beneventan and Anglo-Saxon scripts.

Among the oldest manuscripts of the library, in fact the oldest,

is a hitherto unnoticed fragment of great significance not only to

palaeographers, but to all students of the classics. It consists of six

leaves of an early sixth-century manuscript of the _Letters_ of the

younger Pliny. This new witness to the text, older by three centuries

than the oldest codex heretofore used by any modern editor, has

reappeared in this unexpected quarter, after centuries of wandering and

hiding. The fragment was bought by the late J. Pierpont Morgan in Rome,

in December 1910, from the art dealer Imbert; he had obtained it from De

Marinis, of Florence, who had it from the heirs of the Marquis Taccone,

of Naples. Nothing is known of the rest of the manuscript.

The present writers had the good fortune to visit the Pierpont Morgan

Library in 1915. One of the first manuscripts put into their hands was

this early sixth-century fragment of Pliny’s _Letters_, which forms the

subject of the following pages. Having received permission to study

the manuscript and publish results, they lost no time in acquainting

classical scholars with this important find. In December of the

same year, at the joint meeting of the American Archaeological and

Philological Associations, held at Princeton University, two papers

were read, one concerning the palaeographical, the other the textual,

importance of the fragment. The two studies which follow, Part I by

Doctor Lowe, Part II by Professor Rand, are an elaboration of the views

presented at the meeting. Some months after the present volume was in

the form of page-proof, Professor E.T. Merrill’s long-expected edition

of Pliny’s _Letters_ appeared (Teubner, Leipsic, 1922). We regret that

we could not avail ourselves of it in time to introduce certain changes.

The reader will still find Pliny cited by the pages of Keil, and in

general he should regard the date of our production as 1921 rather

than 1922.

The writers wish to express their gratitude for the privilege of

visiting the Pierpont Morgan Library and making full use of its

facilities. For permission to publish the manuscript they are indebted

to the generous interest of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. They also desire to

make cordial acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness of

the Librarian, Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and her assistant, Miss Ada

Thurston. Lastly, the writers wish to thank the Carnegie Institution of

Washington for accepting their joint study for publication and for their

liberality in permitting them to give all the facsimiles necessary to

illustrate the discussion.

E. K. RAND.

E. A. LOWE.

CONTENTS.

Part I. THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT. By E. A. Lowe.

Description of the Fragment

Contents, size, vellum, binding

Ruling

Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the manuscript

Original size of the manuscript

Disposition

Ornamentation

Corrections

Syllabification

Orthography

Abbreviations

Authenticity of the six leaves

Archetype

The Date and Later History of the Manuscript

On the dating of uncial manuscripts

Dated uncial manuscripts

Oldest group of uncial manuscripts

Characteristics of the oldest uncial manuscripts

Date of the Morgan manuscript

Later history of the Morgan manuscript

Conclusion

Transcription

Part II. THE TEXT OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT. By E. K. Rand.

The Morgan Fragment and Aldus’s Ancient Codex Parisinus

The Codex Parisinus

The Bodleian volume

The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost Parisinus

The script

Provenience and contents

The text closely related to that of Aldus

Editorial methods of Aldus

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

Classes of the manuscripts

The early editions

_Π_ a member of Class I

_Π_ the direct ancestor of _BF_ with probably a copy intervening

The probable stemma

Further consideration of the external history of _P_, _Π_, and _B_

Evidence from the portions of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_

Editorial Methods of Aldus

Aldus’s methods; his basic text

The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume

Aldus and Budaeus compared

The latest criticism of Aldus

Aldus’s methods in the newly discovered parts of Books VIII, IX, and X

The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus

Conclusion

Description of Plates

PART I.

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN

FRAGMENT

by

E. A. LOWE

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENT.

[Sidenote: _Contents size vellum binding_]

The Morgan fragment of Pliny the Younger contains the end of Book II

and the beginning of Book III of the _Letters_ (II, xx. 13-III, v. 4).

The fragment consists of six vellum leaves, or twelve pages, which

apparently formed part of a gathering or quire of the original volume.

The leaves measure 11-3/8 by 7 inches (286 x 180 millimeters); the

written space measures 7-1/4 by 4-3/8 inches (175 x 114 millimeters);

outer margin, 1-7/8 inches (50 millimeters); inner, 3/4 inch (18

millimeters); upper margin, 1-3/4 inches (45 millimeters); lower,

2-1/4 inches (60 millimeters).

The vellum is well prepared and of medium thickness. The leaves are

bound in a modern pliable vellum binding with three blank vellum

fly-leaves in front and seven in back, all modern. On the inside of the

front cover is the book-plate of John Pierpont Morgan, showing the

Morgan arms with the device: _Onward and Upward_. Under the book-plate

is the press-mark M.462.

[Sidenote: _Ruling_]

There are twenty-seven horizontal lines to a page and two vertical

bounding lines. The lines were ruled with a hard point on the flesh

side, each opened sheet being ruled separately: 48v and 53r, 49r and

52v, 50v and 51r. The horizontal lines were guided by knife-slits made

in the outside margins quite close to the text space; the two vertical

lines were guided by two slits in the upper margin and two in the lower.

The horizontal lines were drawn across the open sheets and extended

occasionally beyond the slits, more often just beyond the perpendicular

bounding lines. The written space was kept inside the vertical bounding

lines except for the initial letter of each epistle; the first letter of

the address and the first letter of the epistle proper projected into

the left margin. Here and there the scribe transgressed beyond the

bounding line. On the whole, however, he observed the limits and seemed

to prefer to leave a blank before the bounding line rather than to crowd

the syllable into the space or go beyond the vertical line.

[Sidenote: _Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the manuscript_]

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

of the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios 48r

and 53v have a darker appearance, as though they had been the outside

leaves of a gathering that had been affected by exposure. But this

darker appearance is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that both

pages are on the hair side of the parchment, and the hair side is always

darker than the flesh side. Quires of six leaves or trinions are not

unknown. Examples of them may be found in our oldest manuscripts. But

they are the exception.[1] The customary quire is a gathering of eight

leaves, forming a quaternion proper. It would be natural, therefore, to

suppose that our fragment did not constitute a complete gathering in

itself but formed part of a quaternion. The supposition is confirmed by

the following considerations:

[Footnote 1: For example, in the fifth-century manuscript of Livy

in Paris (MS. lat. 5730) the forty-third and forty-fifth quires are

composed of six leaves, while the rest are all quires of eight.]

In the first place, if our six leaves were once a part of a quaternion,

the two leaves needed to complete them must have formed the outside

sheet, since our fragment furnishes a continuous text without any lacuna

whatever. Now, in the formation of quires, sheets were so arranged that

hair side faced hair side, and flesh side flesh side. This arrangement

is dictated by a sense of uniformity. As the hair side is usually much

darker than the flesh side the juxtaposition of hair and flesh sides

would offend the eye. So, in the case of our six leaves, folios 48v and

53r, presenting the flesh side, face folios 49r and 52v likewise on the

flesh side; and folios 49v and 52r presenting the hair side, face folios

50r and 51v likewise on the hair side. The inside pages 50v and 51r

which face each other, are both flesh side, and the outside pages 48r

and 53v are both hair side, as may be seen from the accompanying

diagram.

(47) 48 49 50 51 52 53 (54)

: | | | : | | | :

: | | | Flesh : Flesh | | | :

: | | +-------:-------+ | | :

: | | Hair : Hair | | :

: | | : | | :

: | | Hair : Hair | | :

: | +------------:------------+ | :

: | Flesh : Flesh | :

: | : | :

: | Flesh : Flesh | :

: +-----------------:-----------------+ :

: Hair : Hair :

: : :

: Hair : Hair :

: - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - :

Flesh Flesh

From this arrangement it is evident that if our fragment once formed

part of a quaternion the missing sheet was so folded that its hair side

faced the present outside sheet and its flesh side was on the outside of

the whole gathering. Now, it was by far the more usual practice in our

oldest uncial manuscripts to have the flesh side on the outside of the

quire.[2] And as our fragment belongs to the oldest class of uncial

manuscripts, the manner of arranging the sheets of quires seems to favor

the supposition that two outside leaves are missing. The hypothesis is,

moreover, strengthened by another consideration. According to the

foliation supplied by the fifteenth-century Arabic numerals, the leaf

which must have followed our fragment bore the number 54, the leaf

preceding it having the number 47. If we assume that our fragment was

a complete gathering, we are obliged to explain why the next gathering

began on a leaf bearing an even number (54), which is abnormal. We do

not have to contend with this difficulty if we assume that folios 47 and

54 formed the outside sheet of our fragment, for six quires of eight

leaves and one of six would give precisely 54 leaves. It seems,

therefore, reasonable to assume that our fragment is not a complete

unit, but formed part of a quaternion, the outside sheet of which is

missing.

[Footnote 2: In an examination of all the uncial manuscripts in the

Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, it was found that out of twenty

manuscripts that may be ascribed to the fifth and sixth centuries

only two had the hair side on the outside of the quires. Out of

thirty written approximately between A.D. 600 and 800, about half

showed the same practice, the other half having the hair side

outside. Thus the practice of our oldest Latin scribes agrees with

that of the Greek: see C.R. Gregory, “Les cahiers des manuscrits

grecs” in _Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et

Belles-Lettres_ (1885), p. 261. I am informed by Professor Hyvernat,

of the Catholic University of Washington, that the same custom is

observed by Coptic scribes.]

[Sidenote: _Original size of the manuscript_]

In the fifteenth century, as the previous demonstration has made clear,

our fragment was preceded by 47 leaves that are missing to-day. With

this clue in our possession it can be demonstrated that the manuscript

began with the first book of the _Letters_. We start with the fact that

not all the 47 folios (or 94 pages) which preceded our six leaves were

devoted to the text of the _Letters_. For, from the contents of our six

leaves we know that each book must have been preceded by an index of

addresses and first lines. The indices for Books I and II, if arranged

in general like that of Book III, must have occupied four pages.[3] We

also learn from our fragment that space must be allowed for a colophon

at the end of each book. One page for the colophons of Books I and II is

a reasonable allowance. Accordingly it follows that out of the 94 pages

preceding our fragment 5 were not devoted to text, or in other words

that only 89 pages were thus devoted.

[Footnote 3: The confused arrangement of the indices for Books I and

II in the Codex Bellovacensis may well have been found in the

manuscript of which the Morgan fragment is a part. The space

required for the indices, however, would not have greatly differed

from that taken by the index of Book III in both the Morgan fragment

and the Codex Bellovacensis.]

Now, if we compare pages in our manuscript with pages of a printed text

we find that the average page in our manuscript corresponds to about 19

lines of the Teubner edition of 1912. If we multiply 89 by 19 we get

1691. This number of lines of the size of the Teubner edition should, if

our calculation be correct, contain the text of the _Letters_ preceding

our fragment. The average page of the Teubner edition of 1912 of the

part which interests us contains a little over 29 lines. If we divide

1691 by 29 we get 58.3. Just 58 pages of Teubner text are occupied by

the 47 leaves which preceded our fragment. So close a conformity is

sufficient to prove our point. We have possibly allowed too much space

for indices and colophons, especially if the former covered less ground

for Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviation

of _que_ and _bus_, and particularly of official titles, we can not

expect a closer agreement.

It is not worth while to attempt a more elaborate calculation. With the

edges matching so nearly, it is obvious that the original manuscript as

known and used in the fifteenth century could not have contained some

other work, however brief, before Book I of Pliny’s _Letters_. If the

manuscript contained the entire ten books it consisted of about 260

leaves. This sum is obtained by counting the number of lines in the

Teubner edition of 1912, dividing this sum by 19, and adding thereto

pages for colophons and indices. It would be too bold to suppose

that this calculation necessarily gives us the original size of the

manuscript, since the manuscript may have had less than ten books, or it

may, on the other hand, have had other works. But if it contained only

the ten books of the _Letters_, then 260 folios is an approximately

correct estimate of its size.

It is hard to believe that only six leaves of the original manuscript

have escaped destruction. The fact that the outside sheet (foll. 48r and

53v) is not much worn nor badly soiled suggests that the gathering of

six leaves must have been torn from the manuscript not so very long ago

and that the remaining portions may some day be found.

[Sidenote: _Disposition_]

The pages in our manuscript are written in long lines,[4] in _scriptura

continua_, with hardly any punctuation.

[Footnote 4: Many of our oldest Latin manuscripts have two and even

three columns on a page, a practice evidently taken over from the

roll. But very ancient manuscripts are not wanting which are written

in long lines, _e.g._, the Codex Vindobonensis of Livy, the Codex

Bobiensis of the Gospels, or the manuscript of Pliny’s _Natural

History_ preserved at St. Paul in Carinthia.]

Each page begins with a large letter, even though that letter occur in

the body of a word (cf. foll. 48r, 51v, 52r).[5]

[Footnote 5: This is an ear-mark of great antiquity. It is found,

for example, in the Berlin and Vatican Schedae Vergilianae in square

capitals (Berlin lat. 2º 416 and Rome Vatic. lat. 3256 reproduced in

Zangemeister and Wattenbach’s _Exempla Codicum Latinorum_, etc., pl.

14, and in Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie_², pl. 12b), in the

Vienna, Paris, and Lateran manuscripts of Livy, in the Codex

Corbeiensis of the Gospels, and here and there in the palimpsest

manuscript of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_ and in other manuscripts.]

Each epistle begins with a large letter. The line containing the address

which precedes each epistle also begins with a large letter. In both

cases the large letter projects into the left margin.

The running title at the top of each page is in small rustic

capitals.[6] On the verso of each folio stands the word EPISTVLARVM;

on the recto of the following folio stands the number of the book,

_e.g._, LIB. II, LIB. III.

[Footnote 6: In many of our oldest manuscripts uncials are employed.

The Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia agrees with our

manuscript in using rustic capitals. For facsimiles see J. Sillig,

_C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae_, Libri XXXVI, Vol. VI, Gotha

1855, and Chatelain, _Paléographie des Classiques Latins_, pl.

CXXXVI.]

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

addresses and initial lines written in alternating lines of black and

red uncials. Alternating lines of black and red rustic capitals of a

large size were used in the colophon.[7]

[Footnote 7: In this respect, too, the Pliny palimpsest of St.

Paul in Carinthia agrees with our fragment. Most of the oldest

manuscripts, however, have the colophon in the same type of writing

as the text.]

[Sidenote: _Ornamentation_]

As in all our oldest Latin manuscripts, the ornamentation is of

the simplest kind. Such as it is, it is mostly found at the end and

beginning of books. In our case, the colophon is enclosed between two

scrolls of vine-tendrils terminating in an ivy-leaf at both ends. The

lettering in the colophon and in the running title is set off by means

of ticking above and below the line.

Red is used for decorative purposes in the middle line of the colophon,

in the scroll of vine-tendrils, in the ticking, and in the border at

the end of the Index on fol. 49. Red was also used, to judge by our

fragment, in the first three lines of a new book,[8] in the addresses

in the Index, and in the addresses preceding each letter.

[Footnote 8: This is also the case in the Paris manuscript of Livy

of the fifth century, in the Codex Bezae of the Gospels (published

in facsimile by the University of Cambridge in 1899), in the Pliny

palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia, and in many other manuscripts

of the oldest type.]

[Sidenote: _Corrections_]

The original scribe made a number of corrections. The omitted line of

the Index on fol. 49 was added between the lines, probably by the scribe

himself, using a finer pen; likewise the omitted line on fol. 52v, lines

7-8. A number of slight corrections come either from the scribe or from

a contemporary reader; the others are by a somewhat later hand, which is

probably not more recent than the seventh century.[9] The method of

correcting varies. As a rule, the correct letter is added above the line

over the wrong letter; occasionally it is written over an erasure. An

omitted letter is also added above the line over the space where it

should be inserted. Deletion of single letters is indicated by a dot

placed over the letter and a horizontal or an oblique line drawn through

it. This double use of expunction and cancellation is not uncommon in

our oldest manuscripts. For details on the subject of corrections, see

the notes on pp. 23-34.

[Footnote 9: The strokes over the two consecutive _i_’s on fol.

53v, l. 23, were made by a hand that can hardly be older than the

thirteenth century.]

There is a ninth-century addition on fol. 53 and one of the fifteenth

century on fol. 51. On fol. 49, in the upper margin, a fifteenth-century

hand using a stilus or hard point scribbled a few words, now difficult

to decipher.[10] Presumably the same hand drew a bearded head with a

halo. Another relatively recent hand, using lead, wrote in the left

margin of fol. 53v the monogram QR[11] and the roman numerals i, ii, iii

under one another. These numerals, as Professor Rand correctly saw,

refer to the works of Pliny the Elder enumerated in the text. Further

activity by this hand, the date of which it is impossible to determine,

may be seen, for example, on fol. 49v, ll. 8, 10, 15; fol. 52, ll. 4,

10, 13, 21, 22; fol. 53, ll. 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27; fol. 53v, ll. 5,

10, 15.

[Footnote 10: I venture to read _dominus meus ... in te deus_.

[Footnote 11: This doubtless stands for _Quaere_ (= “investigate”),

a frequent marginal note in manuscripts of all ages. A number of

instances of _Q_ for _quaere_ are given by A.C. Clark, _The Descent

of Manuscripts_, Oxford 1918, p. 35.]

[Sidenote: _Syllabification_]

Syllables are divided after a vowel or diphthong except where such

a division involves beginning the next syllable with a group of

consonants.[12] In that case the consonants are distributed between the

two syllables, one consonant going with one syllable and the other with

the following, except when the group contains more than two successive

consonants, in which case the first consonant goes with the first

syllable, the rest with the following syllable. That the scribe is

controlled by this mechanical rule and not by considerations of

pronunciation is obvious from the division SAN|CTISSIMUM and other

examples found below. The method followed by him is made amply clear

by the examples which occur in our twelve pages:[13]

fo. 48r, line 1, con-suleret

2, sescen-ties

3, ex-ta

7, fal-si

fo. 49v, line 3, spu-rinnam

5, senesce-re

7, distin-ctius

12, se-nibus

13, con-ueniunt

15, spurin-na

18, circum-agit

20, mi-lia

24, prae-sentibus

25, grauan-tur

fo. 50r, line 1, singu-laris

4, an-tiquitatis

5, au-dias

9, ite-rum

11, scri-bit

12, ly-rica

15, scri-bentis

17, octa-ua

19, uehe-menter

20, exer-citationis

21, se-nectute

22, paulis-per

23, le-gentem

fo. 50v, line 2, de-lectatur

3, co-moedis

4, uolupta-tes

5, ali-quid

6, lon-gum

11, senec-tut

12, uo-to

13, ingres-surus

14, ae-tatis

15, in-terim

16, ho-rum

20, re-xit

21, me-ruit

22, eun-dem

25, epis-tulam

fo. 51r, line 2, mi-hi

4, afria-nus

6, facultati-bus

7, super-sunt

8, gra-uitate

9, consi-lio

10, ut-or

13, ar-dentius

23, con-feras

24, habe-bis

27, concu-piscat

fo. 51v, line 3, san-ctissimum

5, memo-riam

10, pater-nus

11, contige-rit

12, lau-de

14, hones-tis

15, refe-rat

17, contuber-nium

21, circumspi-ciendus

22, scho-lae

24, nos-tro

27, praecep-tor

fo. 52r, line 2, demon-strare

5, iudi-cio

6, gra-uis

8, quan-tum

9, cre-dere

12, mag-nasque

13, ge-nitore

16, nes[cis]-se

19, nomi-na

20, fauen-tibus

23, dis-citur

fo. 52v, line 1, uidean-tur

3, con-silium

5, concu-pisco

6, pecu-nia

7, excucuris-sem

10, se-natu

12, ne-cessitatibus

19, postulaue-runt

21, bae-bium

23, clari-sima

25, in-quam

26, excusa-tionis

fo. 53r, line 1, com (_or_ con)-pulit

5, ueni-ebat

7, iniu-rias

8, ex-secutos

10, prae-terea

12, aduoca-tione

13, con-seruandum

15, com-paratum

16, sub-uertas

17, cumu-les

18, obliga-ti

23, tris-tissimum

fo. 53v, line 2, facili-orem

3, si-quis

5, offi-ciorum

7, praepara-tur

8, super-est

10, sim-plicitas

11, compro-bantis

14, diligen-ter

20, cog-nitio

22, milita-ret

26, exsol-uit

[Footnote 12: Such a division as _ut_|_or_ on fol. 7, l. 10, is due

entirely to thoughtless copying. The scribe probably took _ut_ for a

word.]

[Footnote 13: For further details on syllabification in our oldest

Latin manuscripts, see Th. Mommsen, “Livii Codex Veronensis,” in

_Abhandlungen der k. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, phil. hist. Cl._

(1868), p. 163, n. 2, and pp. 165-6; Mommsen-Studemund, _Analecta

Liviana_ (Leipsic 1873), p. 3; Brandt, “Der St. Galler Palimpsest,”

in _Sitzungsberichte der phil. hist. Cl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. in

Wien_, CVIII (1885), pp. 245-6; L. Traube, “Palaeographische

Forschungen IV,” in _Abhandlungen d. h. t. Cl. d. k. Bayer. Akad. d.

Wiss._ XXIV. 1 (1906), p. 27; A.W. Van Buren, “The Palimpsest of

Cicero’s _De Re Publica_,” in _Archaeological Institute of America,

Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies in

Rome_, ii (1908), pp. 89 sqq.; C. Wessely, in his preface to the

facsimile edition of the Vienna Livy (MS. lat. 15), published in the

Leyden series, _Codices graeci et latini_, etc., T. XI. See also

W.G. Hale, “Syllabification in Roman speech,” in _Harvard Studies of

Classical Philology_, VII (1896), pp. 249-71, and W. Dennison,

“Syllabification in Latin Inscriptions,” in _Classical Philology_, I

(1906), pp. 47-68.]

[Sidenote: _Orthography_]

The spelling found in our six leaves is remarkably correct. It compares

favorably with the best spelling encountered in our oldest Latin

manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. The diphthong _ae_ is

regularly distinguished from _e_. The interchange of _b_ and _u_, _d_

and _t_, _o_ and _u_, so common in later manuscripts, is rare here: the

confusion between _b_ and _u_ occurs once (_comprouasse_, fo. 52v, l.

1); the omission of _h_ occurs once (_pulcritudo_, fo. 51v, l. 26); the

use of _k_ for _c_ occurs twice (_karet_, fo. 51r, l. 14, and _karitas_,

fo. 52r, l. 5). The scribe uses the correct forms in _adolescet_ (fo.

51v, l. 14) and _adulescenti_ (fo. 51v, l. 24); he writes _auonculi_

(fo. 53v, l. 15), _exsistat_ (fo. 51v, l. 9), and _exsecutos_ (fo. 53r,

l. 8). In the case of composite words he has the assimilated form in

some, and in others the unassimilated form, as the following examples

go to show:

fo. 48r, line 3, inpleturus fo. 48r, line 7, improbissimum

49r, 13a, adnotasse 48v, 23, composuisse

19, adsumo 50r, 1, ascendit

50r, 1, adsumit 6, imbuare

27, adponitur 22, accubat

50v, 3, adficitur 51r, 2, optulissem

51r, 19, adstruere 3, suppeteret

21, adstruere 16, ascendere

26, adpetat 51v, 16, accipiat

51v, 9, exsistat 52v, 1, comprouasse

12, inlustri 11, collegae

14, inbutus 17, impetrassent

52r, 18, admonebitur 53r, 8, accusationibus

52v,} 20, inplorantes 15, comparatum

22, adlegantes 53v, 1, computabam

24, adsensio 5, accusare

27, adtulisse 11, comprobantis

53r, 8, exsecutos 23, composuit

[Sidenote: _Abbreviations_]

Very few abbreviated words occur in our twelve pages. Those that are

found are subject to strict rules. What is true of the twelve pages was

doubtless true of the entire manuscript, inasmuch as the sparing use

of abbreviations in conformity with certain definite rules is a

characteristic of all our oldest manuscripts.[14] The abbreviations

found in our fragment may conveniently be grouped as follows:

[Footnote 14: That is, manuscripts written before the eighth

century. The number of abbreviations increases considerably

during the eighth century. Previously the only symbols found in

calligraphic majuscule manuscripts are the “Nomina Sacra” (_deus_,

_dominus_, _Iesus_, _Christus_, _spiritus_, _sanctus_), which

constantly occur in Christian literature, and such suspensions as

are met with in our fragment. A familiar exception is the manuscript

of Gaius, preserved in the Chapter library of Verona, MS. xv (13).

This is full of abbreviations not found in contemporary manuscripts

containing purely literary or religious texts. Cf. W. Studemund,

_Gaii Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor_, etc., Leipsic 1874; and

F. Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_, pl. 18 (pl. 8 of the

Supplement). The Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Cicero’s speeches is

non-calligraphic and therefore not subject to the rule governing

calligraphic products. The same is true of marginal notes to

calligraphic texts. See W.M. Lindsay, _Notae Latinae_, Cambridge

1915, pp. 1-2.]

1. Suspensions which might occur in any ancient manuscript or

inscription, _e.g._:

B· = BUS

Q· = QUE[15]

·C̅· = GAIUS[16]

P· C· = PATRES CONSCRIPTI

[Footnote 15: Found only at the end of words in our fragment. Its

use in the body of a word is, however, very ancient.]

[Footnote 16: The _C_ invariably has the two dots as well as the

superior horizontal stroke.]

2. Technical or recurrent terms which occur in the colophons at the end

of each book and at the end of letters, as:

·EXP· = EXPLICIT

·INC· = INCIPIT

LIB· = LIBER

VAL· = VALE[17]

[Footnote 17: The abbreviation is indicated by a stroke above the

letters as well as by a dot after them.]

3. Purely arbitrary suspensions which occur only in the index of

addresses preceding each book, suspensions which would never occur in

the body of the text, as: SUETON TRANQUE,[18] UESTRIC SPURINN·

[Footnote 18: An ancestor of our manuscript must have had TRANQ·,

which was wrongly expanded to TRANQUE.]

4. Omitted _M_ at the end of a line, omitted _N_ at the end of a line,

the omission being indicated by means of a horizontal stroke, thickened

at either end, which is placed over the space immediately following the

final vowel.[19] This omission may occur in the middle of a word but

only at the end of a line.

[Footnote 19: This is a sign of antiquity. After the sixth century

the _M_ or _N_stroke is usually placed above the vowel. The practice

of confining the omission of _M_ or _N_ to the end of a line is a

characteristic of our very oldest manuscripts. Later manuscripts

omit _M_ or _N_ in the middle of a line and in the middle of a word.

No distinction is made in our manuscript between omitted _M_ and

omitted _N_. Some ancient manuscripts make a distinction. Cf.

Traube, _Nomina Sacra_, pp. 179, 181, 183, 185, final column of each

page; and W.M. Lindsay, _Notae Latinae_, pp. 342 and 345.]

[Sidenote: _Authenticity of the six leaves_]

The sudden appearance in America of a portion of a very ancient

classical manuscript unknown to modern editors may easily arouse

suspicion in the minds of some scholars. Our experience with the

“Anonymus Cortesianus” has taught us to be wary,[20] and it is natural

to demand proof establishing the genuineness of the new fragment.[21] As

to the six leaves of the Morgan Pliny, it may be said unhesitatingly

that no one with experience of ancient Latin manuscripts could entertain

any doubt as to their genuineness. The look and feel of the parchment,

the ink, the script, the titles, colophons, ornamentation, corrections,

and later additions, all bear the indisputable marks of genuine

antiquity.

[Footnote 20: The fraudulent character of the alleged discovery

was exposed in masterly fashion by Ludwig Traube in his

“Palaeographische Forschungen IV,” published in the _Abhandlungen

der K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_, III Klasse, XXIV

Band, 1 Abteilung, Munich 1904.]

[Footnote 21: Cf. E.T. Merrill, “On the use by Aldus of his

manuscripts of Pliny’s _Letters_,” in _Classical Philology_, XIV

(1919), p. 34.]

But it may be objected that a clever forger possessing a knowledge of

palaeography would be able to reproduce all these features of ancient

manuscripts. This objection can hardly be sustained. It is difficult

to believe that any modern could reproduce faithfully all the

characteristics of sixth-century uncials and fifteenth-century notarial

writing without unconsciously falling into some error and betraying

his modernity. Besides, there is one consideration which to my mind

establishes the genuineness of our fragment beyond a peradventure. We

have seen above that the leaves of our manuscript are so arranged that

hair side faces hair side and flesh side faces flesh side. The visible

effect of this arrangement is that two pages of clear writing alternate

with two pages of faded writing, the faded appearance being caused by

the ink scaling off from the less porous surface of the flesh side of

the vellum.[22] As a matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellum

showed faded writing long before modern time. To judge by the retouched

characters on fol. 53r it would seem that the original writing had

become illegible by the eighth or ninth century.[23] Still, a

considerable period of time would, so far as we know, be necessary for

this process. It is highly improbable that a forger could devise this

method of giving his forgery the appearance of antiquity, and even if he

attempted it, it is safe to say that the present effect would not be

produced in the time that elapsed before the book was sold to Mr.

Morgan.

[Footnote 22: That the hair side of the vellum retained the ink

better than the flesh side may be seen from an examination of

facsimiles in the Leyden series _Codices graeci et latini

photographice depicti_.]

[Footnote 23: That the ink could scale off the flesh side of the

vellum in less than three centuries is proved by the condition of

the famous Tacitus manuscript in Beneventan script in the Laurentian

Library. It was written in the eleventh century and shows retouched

characters of the thirteenth. See foll. 102, 103 in the facsimile

edition in the Leyden series mentioned in the previous note.]

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Morgan fragment is

a modern forgery. We are then constrained to credit the forger not only

with a knowledge of palaeography which is simply faultless, but, as will

be shown in the second part, with a minute acquaintance with the

criticism and the history of the text. And this forger did not try to

attain fame or academic standing by his nefarious doings, as was the

case with the Roman author of the forged “Anonymus Cortesianus,” for

nothing was heard of this Morgan fragment till it had reached the

library of the American collector. If his motive was monetary gain he

chose a long and arduous path to attain it. It is hardly conceivable

that he should take the trouble to make all the errors and omissions

found in our twelve pages and all the additions and corrections

representing different ages, different styles, when less than half

the number would have served to give the forged document an air of

verisimilitude. The assumption that the Morgan fragment is a forgery

thus becomes highly unreasonable. When you add to this the fact that

there is nothing in the twelve pages that in any way arouses suspicion,

the conclusion is inevitable that the Morgan fragment is a genuine relic

of antiquity.

[Sidenote: _Archetype_]

As to the original from which our manuscript was copied, very little can

be said. The six leaves before us furnish scanty material on which to

build any theory. The errors which occur are not sufficient to warrant

any conclusion as to the script of the archetype. One item of

information, however, we do get: an omission on fol. 52v goes to show

that the manuscript from which our scribe copied was written in lines

of 25 letters or thereabout.[24] The scribe first wrote EXCUCURIS|SEM

COMMEATU. Discovering his error of omission, he erased SEM at the

beginning of line 8 and added it at the end of line 7 (intruding upon

margin-space in order to do so), and then supplied, in somewhat smaller

letters, the omitted words ACCEPTO UT PRAEFECTUS AERARI. As there are no

_homoioteleuta_ to account for the omission, it is almost certain that

it was caused by the inadvertent skipping of a line.[25] The omitted

letters number 25.

[Footnote 24: On the subject of omissions and the clues they often

furnish, see the exhaustive treatise by A.C. Clark entitled _The

Descent of Manuscripts_, Oxford 1918.]

[Footnote 25: Our scribe’s method is as patient as it is

unreflecting. Apparently he does not commit to memory small

intelligible units of text, but is copying word for word, or in

some places even letter for letter.]

A glance at the abbreviations used in the index of addresses on foll.

48v-49r teaches that the original from which our manuscript was copied

must have had its names abbreviated in exactly the same form. There is

no other way of explaining why the scribe first wrote AD IULIUM

SERUIANUM (fol. 49, l. 12), and then erased the final UM and put a

point after SERUIAN.

THE DATE AND LATER HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

Our manuscript was written in Italy at the end of the fifth or more

probably at the beginning of the sixth century.

The manuscripts with which we can compare it come, with scarcely an

exception, from Italy; for it is only of more recent uncial manuscripts

(those of the seventh and eighth centuries) that we can say with

certainty that they originate in other than Italian centres. The only

exception which occurs to one is the Codex Bobiensis (k) of the Gospels

of the fifth century, which may actually have been written in Africa,

though this is far from certain. As for our fragment, the details of its

script, as well as the ornamentation, disposition of the page, the ink,

the parchment, all find their parallels in authenticated Italian

products; and this similarity in details is borne out by the general

impression of the whole.

The manuscript may be dated at about the year A.D. 500, for the reason

that the script is not quite so old as that of our oldest fifth-century

uncial manuscripts, and yet decidedly older than that of the Codex

Fuldensis of the Gospels (F) written in or before A.D. 546.

[Sidenote: _On the dating of uncial manuscripts_]

In dating uncial manuscripts we must proceed warily, since the data

on which our judgments are based are meagre in the extreme and rather

difficult to formulate.

The history of uncial writing still remains to be written. The chief

value of excellent works like Chatelain’s _Uncialis Scriptura_ or

Zangemeister and Wattenbach’s _Exempla Codicum Latinorum Litteris

Maiusculis Scriptorum_ lies in the mass of material they offer to the

student. This could not well be otherwise, since clear-cut, objective

criteria for dating uncial manuscripts have not yet been formulated;

and that is due to the fact that of our four hundred or more uncial

manuscripts, ranging from the fourth to the eighth century, very few,

indeed, can be dated with precision, and of these virtually none is in

the oldest class. Yet a few guide-posts there are. By means of those it

ought to be possible not only to throw light on the development of this

script, but also to determine the features peculiar to the different

periods of its history. This task, of course, can not be attempted here;

it may, however, not be out of place to call attention to certain

salient facts.

The student of manuscripts knows that a law of evolution is observable

in writing as in other aspects of human endeavor. The process of

evolution is from the less to the more complex, from the less to the

more differentiated, from the simple to the more ornate form. Guided by

these general considerations, he would find that his uncial manuscripts

naturally fall into two groups. One group is manifestly the older: in

orthography, punctuation, and abbreviation it bears close resemblance

to inscriptions of the classical or Roman period. The other group is as

manifestly composed of the more recent manuscripts: this may be inferred

from the corrupt or barbarous spelling, from the use of abbreviations

unfamiliar in the classical period but very common in the Middle Ages,

or from the presence of punctuation, which the oldest manuscripts

invariably lack. The manuscripts of the first group show letters that

are simple and unadorned and words unseparated from each other. Those

of the second group show a type of ornate writing, the letters having

serifs or hair-lines and flourishes, and the words being well separated.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this rough classification is

correct as far as it goes; but it must remain rough and permit large

play for subjective judgement.

A scientific classification, however, can rest only on objective

criteria--criteria which, once recognized, are acceptable to all. Such

criteria are made possible by the presence of dated manuscripts. Now, if

by a dated manuscript we mean a manuscript of which we know, through a

subscription or some other entry, that it was written in a certain year,

there is not a single dated manuscript in uncial writing which is older

than the seventh century--the oldest manuscript with a _precise_ date

known to me being the manuscript of St. Augustine written in the Abbey

of Luxeuil in A.D. 669.[26] But there are a few manuscripts of which we

can say with certainty that they were written either before or after

some given date. And these manuscripts which furnish us with a _terminus

ante quem_ or _post quem_, as the case may be, are extremely important

to us as being the only relatively safe landmarks for following

development in a field that is both remote and shadowy.

[Footnote 26: See below, p. 16.]

The Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels, mentioned above, is our first

landmark of importance.[27] It was read by Bishop Victor of Capua in

the years A.D. 546 and 547, as is testified by two entries, probably

autograph. From this it follows that the manuscript was written before

A.D. 546. We may surmise--and I think correctly--that it was shortly

before 546, if not in that very year. In any case the Codex Fuldensis

furnishes a precise _terminus ante quem_.

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

The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragment

containing a computation for finding the correct date for Easter

Sunday.[28] Internal evidence makes it clear that this _Computus

Paschalis_ first saw light shortly after A.D. 447. The presumption is

that the Berlin leaves represent a very early copy, if not the original,

of this composition. In no case can these leaves be regarded as a much

later copy of the original, as the following purely palaeographical

considerations, that is, considerations of style and form of letters,

will go to show.

[Footnote 28: See below, p. 16.]

Let us assume, as we do in geometry, for the sake of argument, that the

Fulda manuscript and the Berlin fragment were both written about the

year 500--a date representing, roughly speaking, the middle point in the

period of about one hundred years which separates the extreme limits of

the dates possible for either of these two manuscripts, as the following

diagram illustrates:

Berlin Paschal Computus Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels

A D 447 |<-----------------+------------------->| ca A D 546

A.D. 500

If our hypothesis be correct, then the script of these two manuscripts,

as well as other palaeographical features, would offer striking

similarities if not close resemblance. As a matter of fact, a careful

comparison of the two manuscripts discloses differences so marked as to

render our assumption absurd. The Berlin fragment is obviously much

older than the Fulda manuscript. It would be rash to specify the exact

interval of time that separates these two manuscripts, yet if we

remember the slow development of types of writing the conclusion seems

justified that at least several generations of evolution lie between the

two manuscripts. If this be correct, we are forced to push the date of

each as far back as the ascertained limit will permit, namely, the

Fulda manuscript to the year 546 and the Berlin fragment to the year

447. Thus, apparently, considerations of form and style (purely

palaeographical considerations) confirm the dates derived from

examination of the internal evidence, and the Berlin and Fulda

manuscripts may, in effect, be considered two dated manuscripts,

two definite guide-posts.

If the preceding conclusion accords with fact, then we may accept the

traditional date (circa A.D. 371) of the Codex Vercellensis of the

Gospels. The famous Vatican palimpsest of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_ seems

more properly placed in the fourth than in the fifth century; and the

older portion of the Bodleian manuscript of Jerome’s translation of the

_Chronicle_ of Eusebius, dated after the year A.D. 442, becomes another

guide-post in the history of uncial writing, since a comparison with

the Berlin fragment of about A.D. 447 convinces one that the Bodleian

manuscript can not have been written much after the date of its

archetype, which is A.D. 442.

[Sidenote: _Dated uncial manuscripts_]

Asked to enumerate the landmarks which may serve as helpful guides in

uncial writing prior to the year 800, we should hardly go far wrong if

we tabulate them in the following order:[29]

[Footnote 29: For the pertinent literature on the manuscripts in the

following list the student is referred to Traube’s _Vorlesungen und

Abhandlungen_, Vol. I, pp. 171-261, Munich 1909, and the index in

Vol. III, Munich 1920. The chief works of facsimiles referred to

below are: Zangemeister and Wattenbach, _Exempla codicum latinorum

litteris maiusculis scriptorum_, Heidelberg 1876 & 1879; E.

Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, Paris 1884-1900,

and _Uncialis scriptura codicum latinorum novis exemplis illustrata_,

Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_, Treves

1907. (Second edition in French appeared in 1910.)]

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

Traube, l.c., No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX.

2. Bodleian Manuscript (Auct. T. 2. 26) of Jerome’s translation of the

Chronicle of Eusebius (older portion). post a. 442

Traube, l.c., No. 164; J.K. Fotheringham, _The Bodleian manuscript

of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of Eusebius reproduced in

collotype_, Oxford 1905, pp. 25-6; Steffens², pl. 17; also

Schwartz in _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, XXVI (1906),

c. 746.

3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 4º. 298). ca. a. 447

Traube, l.c., No. 13; Th. Mommsen, “Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre

447” in _Abhandl. der Berliner Akad. aus dem Jahre 1862_, Berlin

1863, pp. 539 sqq.; “Liber Paschalis Codicis Cicensis A.

CCCCXLVII” in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores

Antiquissimi_, IX, 1, pp. 502 sqq.; Zangemeister-Wattenbach,

pl. XXIII.

4. Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F), Fulda MS. Bonifat. 1, read by

Bishop Victor of Capua. ante a. 546

Traube, l.c., No. 47; E. Ranke, _Codex Fuldensis, Novum

Testamentum Latine interprete Hieronymo ex manuscripto Victoris

Capuani_, Marburg and Leipsic 1868; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl.

XXXIV; Steffens², pl. 21a.

5. Codex Theodosianus (Turin, MS. A. II. 2). a. 438-ca. 550

Manuscripts containing the Theodosian Code can not be earlier than

A.D. 438, when this body of law was promulgated, nor much later than

the middle of sixth century, when the Justinian Code supplanted the

Theodosian and made it useless to copy it.

Traube, l.c., No. 311; idem, “Enarratio tabularum” in _Theodosiani

libri_ XVI edited by Th. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer, Berlin 1905;

Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pls. XXV-XXVIII; C. Cipolla, _Codici

Bobbiesi_, pls. VII, VIII. See also _Oxyrh. Papyri_ XV (1922),

No. 1813, pl. 1.

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

Canons, written at Albi. a. 600-666

Traube, l.c., No. 304; F. Schulte, “Iter Gallicum” in

_Sitzungsberichte der K. Akad. der Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl._ LIX

(1868), p. 422, facs. 5; C.H. Turner, “Chapters in the history of

Latin manuscripts: II. A group of manuscripts of Canons at

Toulouse, Albi and Paris” in _Journal of Theological Studies_, II

(1901), pp. 266 sqq.; and Traube’s descriptions in A.E. Burn,

_Facsimiles of the Creeds from Early Manuscripts_ (= vol. XXXVI of

the publications of the Henry Bradshaw Society).

7. The Morgan Manuscript of St. Augustine’s Homilies, written in the

Abbey of Luxeuil. Later at Beauvais and Chateau de Troussures. a. 669

Traube, l.c., No 307; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit de

l’abbaye de Luxeuil copié en 625” in _Notices et Extraits des

manuscrits de la bibliothèque nationale_, XXXI. 2 (1886), pp. 149

sqq.; J. Havet, “Questions mérovingiennes: III. La date d’un

manuscrit de Luxeuil” in _Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes_,

XLVI (1885), pp. 429 sqq.

8. The Berne Manuscript (No. 219B) of Jerome’s translation of the

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

Traube, l.c., No. 16; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LIX; J.R.

Sinner, _Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bernensis_

(Berne 1760), pp. 64-7; A. Schone, _Eusebii chronicorum libri

duo_, vol. II (Berlin 1866), p. XXVII; J.K. Fotheringham, _The

Bodleian manuscript of Jerome’s version of the Chronicle of

Eusebius_ (Oxford 1905), p. 4.

9. Brussels Fragment of a Psalter and Varia Patristica (MS. 1221

= 9850-52) written for St. Medardus in Soissons in the time of

Childebert III. a. 695-711

Traube, l.c., No. 27; L. Delisle, “Notice sur un manuscrit

mérovingien de Saint-Médard de Soissons” in _Revue archéologique_,

Nouv. sér. XLI (1881), pp. 257 sqq. and pl. IX; idem, “Notice sur

un manuscrit mérovingien de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique Nr.

9850-52” in _Notices et extraits des manuscrits_, etc., XXXI. 1

(1884), pp. 33-47, pls. 1, 2, 4; J. Van den Ghejn, _Catalogue des

manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique_, II (1902), pp.

224-6.

10. Codex Amiatinus of the Bible (Florence Laur. Am. 1) written in

England. ante a. 716

Traube, l.c., No. 44: Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXV;

Steffens², pl. 21b; E.H. Zimmermann, _Vorkarolingische

Miniaturen_ (Berlin 1916), pl. 222; but particularly G.B. de

Rossi, _La biblia offerta da Ceolfrido abbate al sepolcro di

S. Pietro, codice antichissimo tra i superstiti delle biblioteche

della sede apostolica_--Al Sommo Pontefice Leone XIII, omaggio

giubilare della biblioteca Vaticana, Rome 1888, No. v.

11. The Treves Prosper (MS. 36, olim S. Matthaei). a. 719

Traube, l.c., No. 306; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XLIX;

M. Keuffer, _Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Handschriften der

Stadtbibliothek zu Trier_, I (1888), pp. 38 sqq.

12. The Milan Manuscript (Ambros. B. 159 sup.) of Gregory’s Moralia,

written at Bobbio in the abbacy of Anastasius. ca. a. 750

Traube, l.c., No. 102; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 121; E.H.

Zimmermann, _Vorkarolingische Miniaturen_ (Berlin 1916), pl.

14-16, Text, pp. 10, 41, 152; A. Reifferscheid, _Bibliotheca

patrum latinorum italica_, II, 38 sq.

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

the Isle of Thanet. ante a. 752

Traube, l.c., No. 165; Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, IV

(New York 1876) 3458 b; S. Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate_

(Paris 1893), p. 44; Wordsworth and White, _Novum Testamentum_,

II (1905), p. vii.

14. The Autun Manuscript (No. 3) of the Gospels, written at Vosevium.

a. 754

Traube, l.c., No. 3; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. LXI; Steffens²,

pl. 37.

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

written at Benevento. a. 739-760

Traube, l.c., No. 88; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 236;

_Catalogue of the Ancient Manuscripts in the British Museum_, II,

pl. 7.

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

post a. 787

Traube, l.c., No. 92; J.D. Mansi, “De insigni codice Caroli

Magni aetate scripto” in _Raccolta di opuscoli scientifici e

filologici_, T. XLV (Venice 1751), ed. A. Calogiera, pp. 78-80;

Th. Mommsen, _Gesta pontificum romanorum_, I (1899) in _Monumenta

Germaniae Historica_; Steffens², pl. 48.

Guided by the above manuscripts, we may proceed to determine the place

which the Morgan Pliny occupies in the series of uncial manuscripts. The

student of manuscripts recognizes at a glance that the Morgan fragment

is, as has been said, distinctly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about

the year 546. But how much older? Is it to be compared in antiquity with

such venerable monuments as the palimpsest of Cicero’s _De Re Publica_,

with products like the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ or the Bodleian

_Chronicle_ of Eusebius? If we examine carefully the characteristics of

our oldest group of fourth- and fifth-century manuscripts and compare

them with those of the Morgan manuscript we shall see that the latter,

though sharing some of the features found in manuscripts of the oldest

group, lacks others and in turn shows features peculiar to manuscripts

of a later group.

[Sidenote: _Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_]

Our oldest group would naturally be composed of those uncial manuscripts

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

the fourth and fifth centuries, and I should include in that group such

manuscripts as these:

A. Of Classical Authors.

1. Rome, Vatic. lat. 5757.--Cicero, De Re Publica, palimpsest.

Traube, l.c., No. 269-70; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVII; E.

Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. XXXIX, 2;

_Palaeographical Society_, pl. 160; Steffens², pl. 15. For a

complete facsimile edition of the manuscript see _Codices e

Vaticanis selecti phototypice expressi_, Vol. II, Milan 1907;

Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_ (Bonn

1912), pl. 4.

2. Rome, Vatic. lat. 5750 + Milan, Ambros. E. 147 sup.--Scholia

Bobiensia in Ciceronem, palimpsest.

Traube, l.c., No. 265-68; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXXI;

_Palaeographical Society_, pl. 112; complete facsimile edition

in _Codices e Vaticanis selecti_, etc., Vol. VII, Milan 1906;

Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5a.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 359; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XVIII; E.

Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXX; complete

facsimile edition in _Codices graeci et latini photographice

depicti_, Tom. IX, Leyden 1907.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 183; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XIX;

_Paleographical Society_, pls. 31 and 32; E. Chatelain,

_Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CXVI; _Réproductions des

manuscrits et miniatures de la Bibliothèque Nationale_, ed. H.

Omont, Vol. I, Paris 1907.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 349-50. Th. Mommsen, _Analecta Liviana_, Leipsic

1873; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, pl. CVI.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 277; M. Vattasso, “Frammenti d’un Livio del V.

secolo recentemente scoperti, Codice Vaticano Latino 10696” in

_Studi e Testi_, Vol. XVIII, Rome 1906; Ehrle-Liebaert, _Specimina

codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5b.

7. Bamberg, Class. 35_a_.--Livy, fourth decade, fragments.

Traube, l.c., No. 7; idem, “Palaeographische Forschungen IV,

Bamberger Fragmente der vierten Dekade des Livius” in

_Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften_, III Klasse, XXIV Band, I Abteilung, Munich 1904.

8. Vienna, lat. 1_a_.--Pliny, Historia Naturalis, fragments.

Traube, l.c., No. 357; E. Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques

latins_, pl. CXXXVII, 1.

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

palimpsest.

Traube, l.c., No. 231; E. Chatelain, ibid. pl. CXXXVI. Chatelain

cites the manuscript under the press-mark XXV 2/67.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 311; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXV; Cipolla,

_Codici Bobbiesi_, pl. VII.

B. Of Christian Authors.

1. Vercelli, Cathedral Library.--Gospels (_a_) ascribed to Bishop

Eusebius (†371).

Traube, l.c., No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX.

2. Paris, lat. 17225.--Corbie Gospels (ff²).

Traube, l.c., No. 214; _Palaeographical Society_, pl. 87;

E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. II; Reusens, _Éléments

de paléographie_, pl. III, Louvain 1899.

3. Constance-Weingarten Biblical fragments.--Prophets, fragments

scattered in the libraries of Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Fulda, and St. Paul

in Carinthia.

Traube, l.c., No. 302; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXI; complete

facsimile reproduction of the fragments in _Codices graeci et

latini photographice depicti_, Supplementum IX, Leyden 1912, with

introduction by P. Lehmann.

4. Berlin, lat. 4º. 298.--Computus Paschalis of ca. a. 447.

Traube, l.c., No. 13; see above, p. 16, no. 3.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 324; _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, vol. II, Oxford

1886; F. Carta, C. Cipolla, C. Frati, _Monumenta Palaeographica

sacra_, pl. V, 2; R. Beer, “Über den Ältesten Handschriftenbestand

des Klosters Bobbio” in _Anzeiger der Kais. Akad. der Wiss. in

Wien_, 1911, No. XI, pp. 91 sqq.; C. Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_,

pls. XIV-XV; complete facsimile reproduction of the manuscript,

with preface by C. Cipolla: _Il codice Evangelico _k_ della

Biblioteca Universitaria Nazionale di Torino_, Turin 1913.

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

Cyprian, Epistolae, fragments.

Traube, l.c., No. 320; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. IV,

2; C. Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_, pl. XIII; Ehrle-Liebaert,

_Specimina codicum latinorum Vaticanorum_, pl. 5d.

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

Traube, l.c., No. 323; Carta, Cipolla e Frati, _Monumenta

palaeographica sacra_, pl. V, 1; Cipolla, _Codici Bobbiesi_,

pl. XII.

8. Oxford, Bodleian Auct. T. 2. 26.--Eusebius-Hieronymus, Chronicle,

post a. 442.

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

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

Traube, l.c., No. 140; E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl.

III; A. Staerk, _Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe siècle

conservés à la bibliothèque impériale de Saint Petersburg_ (St.

Petersburg 1910), Vol. II. pl. 2.

10. St. Gall, 1394.--Gospels (n).

Traube, l.c., No. 60; _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, Vol. II, Oxford

1886; _Palaeographical Society_, II. pl. 50; Steffens¹, pl. 15;

E. Chatelain, _Uncialis scriptura_, pl. I, 1; A. Chroust,

_Monumenta Palaeographica_, XVII, pl. 3.

[Sidenote: _Characteristics of the oldest uncial manuscripts_]

The main characteristics of the manuscripts included in the above list,

which is by no means complete, may briefly be described thus:

1. General effect of compactness. This is the result of _scriptura

continua_, which knows no separation of words and no punctuation.

See the facsimiles cited above.

2. Precision in the mode of shading. The alternation of stressed

and unstressed strokes is very regular. The two arcs of {O} are

shaded not in the middle, as in Greek uncials, but in the lower

left and upper right parts of the letter, so that the space

enclosed by the two arcs resembles an ellipse leaning to the left

at an angle of about 45°, thus {O}. What is true of the {O} is

true of other curved strokes. The strokes are often very short,

mere touches of pen to parchment, like brush work. Often they are

unconnected, thus giving a mere suggestion of the form. The attack

or fore-stroke as well as the finishing stroke is a very fine,

oblique hair-line.[30]

[Footnote 30: In later uncials the fore-stroke is often a horizontal

hair-line.]

3. Absence of long ascending or descending strokes. The letters

lie virtually between two lines (instead of between four as in

later uncials), the upper and lower shafts of letters like {H L P

Q} projecting but slightly beyond the head and base lines.

4. The broadness of the letters {M N U}

5. The relative narrowness of the letters {F L P S T}

6. The manner of forming {B E L M N P S T}

_B_ with the lower bow considerably larger than the upper, which

often has the form of a mere comma.

_E_ with the tongue or horizontal stroke placed not in the

middle, as in later uncial manuscripts, but high above it, and

extending beyond the upper curve. The loop is often left open.

_L_ with very small base.

_M_ with the initial stroke tending to be a straight line

instead of the well-rounded bow of later uncials.

_N_ with the oblique connecting stroke shaded.

_P_ with the loop very small and often open.

_S_ with a rather longish form and shallow curves, as compared

with the broad form and ample curves of later uncials.

_T_ with a very small, sinuous horizontal top stroke (except at

the beginning of a line when it often has an exaggerated

extension to the left).

7. Extreme fineness of parchment, at least in parts of the

manuscript.

8. Perforation of parchment along furrows made by the pen.

9. Quires signed by means of roman numerals often preceded by the

letter _Q·_ (= Quaternio) in the lower right corner of the last

page of each gathering.

10. Running titles, in abbreviated form, usually in smaller

uncials than the text.

11. Colophons, in which red and black ink alternate, usually in

large-sized uncials.

12. Use of a capital, _i.e._, a larger-sized letter at the

beginning of each page or of each column in the page, even if the

beginning falls in the middle of a word.

13. Lack of all but the simplest ornamentation, _e.g._, scroll or

ivy-leaf.

14. The restricted use of abbreviations. Besides B· and Q· and

such suspensions as occur in classical inscriptions only the

contracted forms of the _Nomina Sacra_ are found.

15. Omission of _M_ and _N_ allowed only at the end of a line,

the omission being marked by means of a simple horizontal line

(somewhat hooked at each end) placed above the line after the

final vowel and not directly over it as in later uncial

manuscripts.

16. Absence of nearly all punctuation.

17. The use of {Symbol: infra?} in the text where an omission has

occurred, and {Symbol: supra?} _after_ the supplied omission in

the lower margin, or the same symbols reversed if the supplement

is entered in the upper margin.

If we now turn to the Morgan Pliny we observe that it lacks a number of

the characteristics enumerated above as belonging to the oldest type of

uncial manuscripts. The parchment is not of the very thin sort. There

has been no corrosion along the furrows made by the pen. The running

title and colophons are in rustic capitals, not in uncials. The manner

of forming such letters as {B E M R S T} differs from that employed in

the oldest group.

_B_ with the lower bow not so markedly larger than the upper.

_E_ with the horizontal stroke placed nearer the middle.

_M_ with the left bow tending to become a distinct curve.

_R S T_ have gained in breadth and proportionately lost in height.

[Sidenote: _Date of the Morgan manuscript_]

Inasmuch as these palaeographical differences mark a tendency which

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

their presence in our manuscript is a sign of its more recent character

as compared with manuscripts of the oldest type. Just as our manuscript

is clearly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about the year 546, so it

is clearly more recent than the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ of about the

year 447. Its proper place is at the end of the oldest series of uncial

manuscripts, which begins with the Cicero palimpsest. Its closest

neighbors are, I believe, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia

and the _Codex Theodosianus_ of Turin. If we conclude by saying that the

Morgan manuscript was written about the year 500 we shall probably not

be far from the truth.

[Sidenote: _Later history of the Morgan manuscript_]

The vicissitudes of a manuscript often throw light upon the history of

the text contained in the manuscript. And the palaeographer knows that

any scratch or scribbling, any _probatio pennae_ or casual entry, may

become important in tracing the wanderings of a manuscript.

In the six leaves that have been saved of our Morgan manuscript we have

two entries. One is of a neutral character and does not take us further,

but the other is very clear and tells an unequivocal story.

The unimportant entry occurs in the lower margin of folio 53r. The words

“_uir erat in terra_,” which are apparently the beginning of the book

of Job, are written in Carolingian characters of the ninth century. As

these characters were used during the ninth century in northern Italy as

well as in France, it is impossible to say where this entry was made. If

in France, then the manuscript of Pliny must have left its Italian home

before the ninth century.[31]

[Footnote 31: This supposition will be strengthened by Professor

Rand; see p. 53.]

That it had crossed the Alps by the beginning of the fifteenth century

we know from the second entry. Nay, we learn more precise details. We

learn that our manuscript had found a home in France, in the town of

Meaux or its vicinity. The entry is found in the upper margin of fol.

51r and doubtless represents a _probatio pennae_ on the part of a

notary. It runs thus:

“A tous ceulz qui ces p_rese_ntes l_ett_res verront et orront

Jeh_an_ de Sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de

Meaulx & Francois Beloy clerc Jure de p_ar_ le Roy

nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que p_ar_.”

The above note is made in the regular French notarial hand of the

fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.[32] The formula of greeting with

which the document opens is in the precise form in which it occurs in

numberless charters of the period. All efforts to identify Jehan de

Sannemeres, keeper of the seal of the _provosté_ of Meaux, and François

Beloy, sworn clerk in behalf of the King, have so far proved

fruitless.[33]

[Footnote 32: Compare, for example, the facsimile of a French deed

of sale at Roye, November 24, 1433, reproduced in _Recueil de

Fac-similés à l’usage de l’école des chartes_. Premier fascicule

(Paris 1880), No. 1.]

[Footnote 33: No mention of either of these is to be found in

Dom Toussaints du Plessis’ _Histoire de l’église de Meaux_. For

documents with similar opening formulas, see ibid. vol. ii (Paris

1731), pp. 191, 258, 269, 273.]

[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]

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

quite possible that it had crossed the Alps by the ninth century or even

before. It is certain that by the fifteenth century it had found asylum

in France. When and under what circumstances it got back to Italy will

be shown by Professor Rand in the pages that follow.

So it is France that has saved this, the oldest extant witness of

Pliny’s _Letters_, for modern times. To mediaeval France we are, in

fact, indebted for the preservation of more than one ancient classical

manuscript. The oldest manuscript of the third decade of Livy was at

Corbie in Charlemagne’s time, when it was loaned to Tours and a copy of

it made there. Both copy and original have come down to us. Sallust’s

_Histories_ were saved (though not in complete form) for our generation

by the Abbey of Fleury. The famous Schedae Vergilianae, in square

capitals, as well as the Codex Romanus of Virgil, in rustic capitals,

belonged to the monastery of St. Denis. Lyons preserved the _Codex

Theodosianus_. It was again some French centre that rescued Pomponius

Mela from destruction. The oldest fragments of Ovid’s _Pontica_, the

oldest fragments of the first decade of Livy, the oldest manuscript of

Pliny’s _Natural History_--all palimpsests--were in some French centre

in the Middle Ages, as may be seen from the indisputably eighth-century

French writing which covers the ancient texts. The student of Latin

literature knows that the manuscript tradition of Lucretius, Suetonius,

Cæsar, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius--to mention only the greatest

names--shows that we are indebted primarily to Gallia Christiana for the

preservation of these authors.

{Transcriber's Note:

Superscript letters are shown as in mathematical notation: ^{L}

The twelve-page transcription retains the page and line breaks of the

original text, representing the manuscript itself.

In a few places the authors used V in place of U. This appears to be

an error, but has not been changed.}

[TRANSCRIPTION] [A]

{fol. 48r}

LIBER·II·

CESSIT UT IPSE MIHI DIXERIT CUM CO_N_

SULERET QUAM CITO SESTERTIUM SESCE_N_

TIES INPLETURUS ESSET INUENISSE SE EX

TA DUPLICATA QUIB_US_ PORTENDI MI^{L}LIES[1] ET

DUCENTIES HABITURUM ET HABEBIT SI

MODO UT COEPIT ALIENA TESTAMENTA

QUOD EST IMPROBISSIMUM GENUS FAL

SI IPSIS QUORUM SUNT ILLA DICTAUERIT

UALE

[2]·C·PLINI·SECUNDI

EPISTULARUM·EXP_LICIT_·LIBER·II.

·INC_IPIT_·LIB_ER_·III·FELICITER[2]

[Footnote A: The original manuscript is in _scriptura continua_. For

the reader’s convenience, words have been separated and punctuation

added in the transcription.]

[Footnote 1: _L_ added by a hand which seems contemporary, if not

the scribe’s own. If the scribe’s, he used a finer pen for

corrections.]

[Footnote 2-2: The colophon is written in rustic capitals, the

middle line being in red.]

{fol. 48v}

AD CALUISIUM RUFUM[1]

NESCIO AN ULLUM 5

AD UIBIUM·MAXIMUM

QUOD·IPSE AMICIS TUIS

AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE[2]

CUM PATREM TUUM

AD CAE^{CI}LIUM[3] MACRINUM 10

QUAMUIS ET AMICI

AD BAEBIUM MACRUM

PERGRATUM EST MIHI

[4]AD ANNIUM[4] SEUERUM

[4]EX HEREDITATE[4] QUAE 15

AD CANINIUM RUFUM

MODO NUNTIATUS EST

AD SUETON[5] TRANQUE

FACIS AD PRO CETERA

AD CORNELIUM[6] MINICIANUM 20

POSSUM IAM PERSCRIB

AD UESTRIC SPURINN·

COMPOSUISSE ME QUAED

[Footnote 1: On this and the following page lines in red alternate

with lines in black. The first line is in red.]

[Footnote 2: The _h_ seems written over an erasure.]

[Footnote 3: _ci_ above the line by first hand.]

[Footnote 4-4: Over an erasure apparently.]

[Footnote 5: _t_ over an erasure.]

[Footnote 6: _c_ over an erasure.]

{fol. 49r}

AD IULIUM GENITOR·

EST OMNINO ARTEMIDORI 5

AD CATILINUM SEUER·

UENIAM AD CENAM

AD UOCONIUM ROMANUM

LIBRUM QUO NUPER

AD PATILIUM 10

REM ATROCEM

AD SILIUM PROCUL·

PETIS UT LIBELLOS TUOS

ad nepotem adnotasse uideor fata dictaque·[1]

AD IULIUM SERUIAN·[2]

RECTE OMNIA 15

AD UIRIUM SEUERUM

OFFICIU CONSULATUS

AD CALUISIUM RUFUM·

ADSUMO TE IN CONSILIUM

AD MAESIUM MAXIMUM 20

MEMINISTINE TE

AD CORNELIUM PRISCUM

AUDIO UALERIUM MARTIAL·

[Footnote 1: Added interlineally, in black, by first hand using a

finer pen.]

[Footnote 2: This is followed by an erasure of the letters _um_ in

red.]

{fol. 49v}

·EPISTULARUM·

·C·PLINIUS·CALUISIO SUO SALUTEM

NESCIO AN ULLUM IUCUNDIUS TEMPUS

EXEGERIM QUAM QUO NUPER APUD SPU

RINNAM FUI ADEO QUIDEM UT NEMINEM

MAGIS IN SENECTUTE SI MODO SENESCE 5

RE DATUM EST AEMULARI UELIM NIHIL

EST ENIM ILLO UITAE GENERE DISTIN

CTIUS ME AUTEM UT CERTUS SIDERUM

CURSUS ITA UITA HOMINUM DISPOSITA

DELECTAT SENUM PRAESERTIM NAM 10

IUUENES ADHUC CONFUSA QUAEDAM

ET QUASI TURBATA NON INDECENT SE

NIB_US_ PLACIDA OMNIA ET OR^{DI}NATA[1] CON

UENIUNT QUIB_US_ INDUSTRIA SER^{U}A[1] TURPIS

AMBITIO EST HANC REGULAM SPURIN 15

NA CONSTANTISSIME SERUAT·QUIN ETIA_M_

PARUA HAEC PARUA·SI NON COTIDIE FIANT

ORDINE QUODAM ET UELUT ORBE CIRCU_M_

AGIT MANE LECTULO[2] CONTINETUR HORA

SECUNDA CALCEOS POSCIT AMBULAT MI 20

LIA PASSUUM TRIA NEC MINUS ANIMUM

QUAM CORPUS EXERCET SI ADSUNT AMICI

HONESTISSIMI SERMONES EXPLICANTUR

SI NON LIBER LEGITUR INTERDUM ETIAM PRAE

SENTIB_US_ AMICIS SI TAMEN ILLI NON GRAUA_N_ 25

TUR DEINDE CONSIDIT[3] ET LIBER RURSUS

AUT SERMO LIBRO POTIOR·MOX UEHICULU_M_

[Footnote 1: Letters above the line were added by first or

contemporary hand.]

[Footnote 2: _u_ corrected to _e_.]

[Footnote 3: Second _i_ corrected to _e_ (not the regular uncial

form) apparently by the first or contemporary hand.]

{fol. 50r}

·LIBER·III·

ASCENDIT ADSUMIT UXOREM SINGU

LARIS EXEMPLI UEL ALIQUEM AMICORUM

UT ME PROXIME QUAM PULCHRUM ILLUD

QUAM DULCE SECRETUM QUANTUM IBI A_N_

TIQUITATIS QUAE FACTA QUOS UIROS AU 5

DIAS QUIB_US_ PRAECEPTIS IMBUARE QUAMUIS

ILLE HOC TEMPERAMENTUM MODESTIAE

SUAE INDIXERIT NE PRAECIPE REUIDEATUR

PERACTIS SEPTEM MILIB_US_ PASSUUM ITE

RUM AMBULAT MILLE ITERUM RESIDIT 10

UEL SE CUBICULO AC STILO REDDIT SCRI

BIT ENIM ET QUIDEM UTRAQ_UE_ LINGUA LY

RICA DOCTISSIMA MIRA ILLIS DULCEDO

MIRA SUAUITAS MIRA HILARITA[.T][.I]S[1] CUIUS

GRATIAM CUMULAT SANCTITA[.T][.I]S[2] SCRI 15

BENTIS UBI HORA BALNEI NUNTIATA EST

EST AUTEM HIEME NONA·AESTATE OCTA

UA IN SOLE SI CARET UENTO AMBULAT

NUDUS DEINDE MOUETUR PILA UEHE

MENTER ET DIU NAM HOC QUOQ_UE_ EXER 20

CITATIONIS GENERE PUGNAT CUM SE

NECTUTE LOTUS ACCUBAT ET PAULIS

PER CIBUM DIFFERT INTERIM AUDIT LE

GENTEM REMISSIUS ALIQUID ET DULCIUS

PER HOC OMNE TEMPUS LIBERUM EST 25

AMICIS UEL EADEM FACERE UEL ALIA

SI MALINT ADPON^{I}TUR[3] CENA NON MINUS

[Footnote 1: The scribe first wrote _hilaritatis_. To correct the

error he or a contemporary hand placed dots above the _t_ and _i_

and drew a horizontal line through them to indicate that they should

be omitted. This is the usual method in very old manuscripts.]

[Footnote 2: _sanctitatis_ is corrected to _sanctitas_ in the manner

described in the preceding note.]

[Footnote 3: _i_ added above the line, apparently by first hand.]

{fol. 50v}

·EPISTULARUM·

NITIDA QUAM FRUGI IN ARGENTO PURO ET

ANTIQUO SUNT IN USU ET C^{H}ORINTHIA[1] QUIB_US_ DE

LECTATUR ET ADFICITUR FREQUENTER CO

MOEDIS CENA DISTINGUITUR UT UOLUPTA

TES QUOQ_UE_ STUDIIS CONDIANTUR SUMIT ALI 5

QUID DE NOCTE ET AESTATE NEMI^{NI}[1] HOC LO_N_

GUM EST TANTA COMITATE CONUIUIUM

TRAHITUR INDE ILLI POST SEPTIMUM ET

SEPTUAGENSIMUM ANNUM AURIUM

OCULORUM UIGOR INTEGER INDE AGILE 10

ET UIUIDUM CORPUS SOLAQ_UE_ EX SENEC

TUTE PRUDENTIA HANC EGO UITAM UO

TO ET COGITATIONE PRAESUMO INGRES

SURUS AUIDISSIME UT PRIMUM RATIO AE

TATIS RECEPTUI CANERE PERMISERIT[2] IN 15

TERIM MILLE LABORIB_US_ CONTEROR QUI HO

RUM MIHI ET SOLACIUM ET EXEMPLUM

EST IDEM SPURINNA NAM ILLE QUOQ_UE_

QUOAD HONESTUM FUIT OB^{I}IT[1] OFFICIA

GESSIT MAGISTRATUS PROVINCIAS RE 20

XIT MULTOQ^{_UE_} LABORE HOC OTIUM ME

RUIT IGITUR EUNDEM MIHI CURSUM EU_N_

DEM TERMINUM STATUO IDQ_UE_ IAM NUNC

APUD TE SUBSIGNO UT SI ME LONGIUS SE

EUEHI[3] UIDERIS IN IUS UOCES AD HANC EPIS 25

TULAM MEAM ET QUIESCERE IUBEAS CUM

INERTIAE CRIMEN EFFUGERO UAL_E_·[4]

[Footnote 1: The letters above the line are additions by the first,

or by another contemporary, hand.]

[Footnote 2: _permiserit_: _t_ stands over an erasure, and original

_it_ seems to be corrected to _et_, with _e_ having the rustic

form.]

[Footnote 3: The scribe first wrote _longius se uehi_. The _e_ which

precedes _uehi_ was added by him when he later corrected the page

and deleted _se_.]

[Footnote 4: _uale_: The abbreviation is marked by a stroke above as

well as by a dot after the word.]

{fol. 51r}

·LIBER·III·

_A tout ceulz qui ces presentes lettres verront et orront

Jehan de sannemeres garde du scel de la provoste de

Meaulx & francois Beloy clerc Jure de par le Roy

nostre sire a ce faire Salut sachient tuit que par._[1]

·C̅·PLINIUS·MAXIMO SUO SALUT_EM_

QUOD IPSE AMICIS TUIS OPTULISSEM·SI MI

HI EADEM MATERIA SUPPETERET ID NUNC

IURE UIDEOR A TE MEIS PETITURUS ARRIA

NUS MATURUS ALTINATIUM EST PRINCEPS 5

CUM DICO PRINCEPS NON DE FACULTATI

BUS LOQUOR QUAE ILLI LARGE SUPER

SUNT SED DE CASTITATE IUSTITIA GRA

UITATE PRUDENTIA HUIOS EGO CONSI

LIO IN NEGOTIIS IUDICIO IN STUDIIS UT 10

OR NAM PLURIMUM FIDE PLURIMUM

VERITATE PLURIMUM INTELLEGENTIA

PRAESTAT AMAT ME NIHIL POSSUM AR

DENTIUS DICERE UT TU KARET AMBITUI[2]

IDEO SE IN EQUESTRI GRADU TENUIT CUM 15

FACILE POSSIT[3] ASCENDERE ALTISSIMU_M_

MIHI TAMEN ORNANDUS EXCOLENDUS

QUE EST ITAQ_UE_ MAGNI AESTIMO DIGNITATI

EIUS ALIQUID ADSTRUERE INOPINANTIS

NESCIENTIS IMMO ETIAM FORTASSE 20

NOLENTIS ADSTRUERE AUTEM QUOD SIT

SPLENDIDUM NEC MOLESTUM CUIUS

GENERIS QUAE PRIMA OCCASIO TIBI CO_N_

FERAS IN EUM ROGO HABEBIS ME HABE

BIS IPSUM GRATISSIMUM DEBITOREM 25

QUAMUIS ENIM ISTA NON ADPETAT TAM

GRATE TAMEN EXCIPIT QUAM SI CONCU

[Footnote 1: A fifteenth-century addition, see above, p. 21.]

[Footnote 2: The scribe originally divided _i-deo_ between two

lines. On correcting the page he (or a contemporary corrector)

cancelled the _i_ at the end of the line and added it before the

next.]

[Footnote 3: _i_ changed to _e_ (not the uncial form) possibly by

the original hand in correcting.]

{fol. 51v}

·EPISTULARUM·

PISCAT·UALE

·C̅·PLINIUS·CORELLIAE·SALUTEM·

CUM PATREM TUUM GRAUISSIMUM ET SAN

CTISSIMUM UIRUM SUSPEXERIM MAGIS

AN AMAUERIM DUBITEM TEQ_UE_ IN MEMO 5

RIAM EIUS ET IN HONOREM TUUM I^{U}NU^{I}ICE[1]

DILIGAM CUPIAM NECESSE EST ATQ_UE_ ETIA_M_

QUANTUM IN ME FUERIT ENITAR UT FILIUS

TUUS AUO SIMILIS EXSISTAT EQUIDEM

MALO MATERNO QUAMQ^{U}AM[2] ILLI PATER 10

NUS ETIAM CLARUS SPECTATUS^{Q_UE_}[3] CONTIGE

RIT PATER QUOQ_UE_ ET PATRUUS INLUSTRI LAU

DE CONSPICUI QUIB_US_ OMNIB_US_ ITA DEMUM

SIMILIS ADOLESCET SIBI INBUTUS HONES

TIS ARTIBUS FUERIT QUAS PLURIMUM REFER[4] 15

ṘȦT[5] A QUO POTISSIMUM ACCIPIAT ADHUC

ILLUM PUERITIAE RATIO INTRA CONTUBER

NIUM TUUM TENUIT PRAECEPTORES DOMI

HABUIT UBI EST ERRORIB_US_ MODICA ^{U}E^{L}ST[6] ETIA_M_

NULLA MATERIA IAM STUDIA EIUS EXTRA 20

LIMEN CONFERANDA SUNT IAM CIRCUMSPI

CIENDUS RHETOR LATINUS CUIUS SCHO

LAE SEUERITAS PUDOR INPRIMIS CASTITAS

CONSTET ADEST ENIM ADULESCENTI NOS

TRO CUM CETERIS NATURAE FORTUNAEQ_UE_ 25

DOTIB_US_ EXIMIA CORPORIS PULC^{H}RITUDO[7]

CUI IN HOC LUBRICO AETATIS NON PRAECEP

[Footnote 1: _inuice_: corrected to _unice_ by cancelling _i_ and

_ui_ (the cancellation stroke is barely visible) and writing _u_ and

_i_ above the line. The correction is by a somewhat later hand.]

[Footnote 2: _u_ above the line is by the first hand.]

[Footnote 3: _q·_ above the line is added by a somewhat later hand.]

[Footnote 4: Final _r_ is added by a somewhat later hand.]

[Footnote 5: The dots above _ra_ indicate deletion. The cancellation

stroke is oblique.]

[Footnote 6: A somewhat later corrector, possibly contemporary,

changed _est_ to _uel_ by adding _u_ before _e_ and _l_ above _s_

and cancelling both _s_ and _t_.]

[Footnote 7: _h_ added above the line by a hand which may be

contemporary.]

{fol. 52r}

·LIBER·III·

TOR MODO SED CUSTOS ETIAM RECTORQ_UE_

QUAERENDUS EST UIDEOR ERGO DEMON

STRARE TIBI POSSE IULIUM GEN^{I}TIOREM[1]

AM^{N}ATUR[2] A ME I^{U}DICIO[3] TAMEN MEO NON

OBSTAT KARITAS HOMINIS QUAE ^{EX}[4]IUDI 5

CIO NATA EST UIR EST EMENDATUS ET GRA

UIS PAULO ETIAM HORRIDIOR ET DURIOR

UT IN HAC LICENTIA TEMPORUM QUAN

TUM ELOQUENTIA UALEAT PLURIB_US_ CRE

DERE POTES NAM DICENDI FACULTAS 10

APERTA ET EXPOSITA·STATIM CERNITUR

UITA HOMINUM ALTOS RECESSUS MAG

NASQ_UE_ LATEBRAS HABET CUIUS PRO GE

NITORE ME SPONSOREM ACCIPE NIHIL

EX HOC UIRO FILIUS TUUS AUDIET NISI 15

PROFUTURUM NIHIL DISCET QUOD NESCIS[5]

SE RECTIUS FUERIT NE^{C}[6] MINUS SAEPE AB

ILLO QUAM A TE MEQUE ADMONEBITUR

QUIB_US_ IMAGINIB_US_ ONERETUR QUAE NOMI

NA ET QUANTA SUSTINEAT PROINDE FAUE_N_ 20

TIBUS DIIS TRADE eUM[7] PRAECEPTORI A

QUO MORES PRIMUM MOX ELOQUENTIA_M_

DISCAT QUAE MALE SINE MORIBUS DIS

CITUR UALE

·C· PLINIUS MACRINO SALUTEM 25

QUAMUIS ET AMICI QUOS PRAESENTES

HABEBAM ET SERMONES HOMINUM

[Footnote 1: The scribe wrote _gentiorem_: a somewhat later

corrector changed it to _genitorem_ by adding an _i_ above the line

between _n_ and _t_ and cancelled the _i_ after _t_.]

[Footnote 2: Above the _m_ a somewhat later hand wrote _n_. It was

cancelled by a crude modern hand using lead.]

[Footnote 3: _u_ added above the line by the later hand.]

[Footnote 4: _ex_ added above the line by the later corrector.]

[Footnote 5: _cis_ is added in the margin by the later hand. The

original scribe wrote _nes_ | _se_.]

[Footnote 6: _c_ is added above the line by the later hand.]

[Footnote 7: _e_ added above the line.]

{fol. 52v}

·EPISTULARUM·

FACTUM MEUM COMPROUASSE UIDEAN

TUR MAGNI TAMEN AESTIMO SCIRE QUID

SENTIAS TU NAM CUIUS INTEGRA RE CON

SILIUM EXQUIRERE O^{P}TASSEM[1] HUIUS ETIA_M_

PERACTA IUDICIȦUM[2] NOSSE MIRE CONCU 5

PISCO CUM PUBLICUM OPUS MEA PECU

NIA INCHOATURUS IN TUSCOS EXCUCURIS{SE_M_ AC}

{CEPTO UT PR} COMMEATU[3] LEGATI PROVINCIAE

{above COMMEATU: AEFECTUS AERARI}

BAETICAE QUESTURI DE PROCONSULATUṠ[4]

CAECILII CLASSICI ADVOCATUM ME A SE 10

NATU PETIERUNT COLLEGAE OPTIMI MEIQ_UE_

AMANTISSIMI DE COMMUNIS OFFICII NE

CESSITATIB_US_ PRAELOCUTI EXCUSARE

ME ET EXIMERE TEMPTARUNT FACTUM

ṪU̇Ṁ[5] EST SENATUS CONSULTUM PERQUAM 15

HONORIFICUM UT DARE^{R}[6] PROVINCIALIB_US_

PATRONUS SI AB IPSO ME IMPETRASSENT

LEGATI RURSUS INDUCTI ITERUM ME IA_M_

PRAESENTEM ADUOCATUM POST^{U}LAUE[7]

RUNT INPLORANTES FIDEM MEAM 20

QUAM ESSENT CONTRA MASSAM BAE

BIUM EXPERTI ADLEGANTES PATRO^{C}INII[8]

FOEDUS SECUTA EST SENATUS CLARIS

SIMA ADSENSIO QUAE SOLET DECRETA

PRAECURRERE TUM EGO DESINO IN 25

QUAM P. C. PUTARE ME IUSTAS EXCUSA

TIONIS CAUSAS ADTULISSE PLACUIT ET

[Footnote 1: _p_ added above the line by the scribe.]

[Footnote 2: The superfluous _a_ is cancelled by means of a dot

above the letter.]

[Footnote 3: The scribe originally wrote _excucuris | sem commeatu_,

omitting _accepto ut praefectus aerari_. Noticing his error, he

erased _sem_ and wrote it at the end of the preceding line, and

added the omitted words over the erasure and the word _commeatu_.]

[Footnote 4: The dot over _s_ indicates deletion.]

[Footnote 5: _tum_: error due to diplography. The correction is made

by means of dots and crossing out.]

[Footnote 6: _r_ added by the scribe.]

[Footnote 7: _u_ added apparently by a contemporary hand.]

[Footnote 8: _c_ added above the line, apparently by a contemporary

hand.]

{fol. 53r}

·LIBER·III·

MODESTIA SERMONIS ET RATIO CO_M_

PULIT AUTEM ME AD HOC CONSILIUM NO_N_

SOLUM CONSENSUS SENATUS QUAMQUA_M_

HIC MAXIME UERUM ET ALII QUIDEM

MINORIS SED TAMEN NUMERI UENI 5

EBAT IN MENTEM PRIORES NOSTROS

ETIAM SINGULORUM HOSPİTIUM[1] INIU

RIAS ACCUSATIONIB_US_ UOLUNTARIIS EX

SECUTOS QUO DEFORMIUS ARBITRABAR

PUBLICI ^{H}OSPITII ^{I}URA[2] NEGLEGERE PRAE 10

TEREA CUM RECORDARER QUANTA

PRO IISDEM BAETICIS PRIORE ADUOCA

TIONE ETIAM PERICULA SUBISSEM CO_N_

SERVANDUM UETERIS OFFICII MERITU_M_

NOVO VIDEBATUR EST ENIM ITA COM 15

PARATUM UT ANTIQUIORA BENEFICIA SUB

UERTAS NISI ILLA POSTERIORIB_US_ CUMU

LES NAM QUAMLIBET SAEPE OBLIGA(N)[3]

TI SIQUID[4] UNUM NEGES HOC SOLUM

MEMINERUNT QUOD NEGATUM EST 20

DUCEBAR ETIAM QUOD DECESSERAT

CLASSICUS AMOTUMQ_UE_ ERAT QUOD

I[5]N EIUSMODI CAUSIS SOLET ESSE TRIS

ṪİTISSIMUM[6] PERICULUM SENATORIS

UIDEBAM ERGO ADUOCATIONI MEAE 25

NON MINOREM GRATIAM QUAM SI

UIUERET ILLE PROPOSITAM INUIDIAM

_Uir erat in terra_[7]

[Footnote 1: Deletion of _i_ before _u_ is marked by a dot above the

letter and a slanting stroke through it.]

[Footnote 2: _h_ and _i_ above the line are apparently by the first

hand.]

[Footnote 3: _n_ (in brackets) is a later addition.]

[Footnote 4: The letters _uid_ are plainly retraced by a later hand.

The same hand retouched _neges h_ in the same line.]

[Footnote 5: _i_ before _n_ added by a later corrector who erased

the _i_ which the scribe wrote after _quod_, in the line above.]

[Footnote 6: Superfluous _ti_ cancelled by means of dots and oblique

stroke.]

[Footnote 7: Added by a Caroline hand of the ninth century.]

{fol. 53v}

·EPISTULARUM·

NULLAM IN SUMMA COMPUTABAM

SI MUNERE HOC TERTIO FUNGERE^{R}[1] FACILI

OREM MIHI EXCUSATIONEM FORE SI

QUIS INCIDISSET QUEM NON DEBEREM

ACCUSARE NAM CUM EST OMNIUM OFFI 5

CIORUM FINIS ALIQUIS TUM OPTIME

LIBERTATI UENIA OBSEQUIO PRAEPARA

TUR AUDISTI CONSILII MEI MOTUS SUPER

EST ALTERUTRA EX PARTE IUDICIUM TUUM

IN QUO MIHI AEQ_UE_ IUCU^{I}NDA[2] ERIT SIM 10

PLICITAS DISSI^{N}TIENTIS[3] QUAM COMPRO

BANTIS AUCTORITAS UALE

·C̅·PLINIUS MACRO·SUO·SALUTEM

PERGRATUM EST MIHI QUOD TAM DILIGE_N_

TER LIBROS AUONCULI MEI LECTITAS UT 15

HABERE OMNES UELIS QUAERASQ_UE_ QUI

SINT OMNES ḊĖFUNGAR[4] INDICIS PARTIBUS

ATQUE ETIAM QUO SINT ORDINE SCRIPTI

NOTUM TIBI FACIAM EST ENIM HAEC

QUOQ_UE_ STUDIOSIS NON INIUCUNDA COG 20

NITIO DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI UNUS·

HUNC CUM PRAEFECTUS ALAE MILITA

RET· PARI[5] INGENIO CURAQ_UE_ COMPOSUIT·

DE UITA POMPONI SECUNDI DUO A QUO

SINGULARITER AMATUS HOC MEMORIAE 25

AMICI QUASI DEBITUM MUNUS EXSOL

UIT·BELLORUM GERMANIAE UIGINTI QUIB_US_

[Footnote 1: _r_ added above the line by the scribe or by a

contemporary hand.]

[Footnote 2: _i_ added above the second _u_ by the scribe or by a

contemporary hand.]

[Footnote 3: The scribe wrote _dissitientis_. A contemporary hand

changed the second _i_ to _e_ and wrote an _n_ above the _t_.]

[Footnote 4: _de_ is cancelled by means of dots above the _d_ and

_e_ and oblique strokes drawn through them.]

[Footnote 5: The strokes over the _i_ at the end of this word and at

the beginning of the next were added by a corrector who can not be

much older than the thirteenth century.]