THE TEXT OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT
by
E. K. RAND
THE MORGAN FRAGMENT AND ALDUS’S
ANCIENT CODEX PARISINUS.[1]
[Sidenote: _The Codex Parisinus_]
Aldus Manutius, in the preface to his edition of Pliny’s _Letters_,
printed at Venice in 1508, expresses his gratitude to Aloisio Mocenigo,
Venetian ambassador in Paris, for bringing to Italy an exceptionally
fine manuscript of the _Letters_; the book had been found not long
before at or near Paris by the architect Fra Giocondo of Verona. The
_editio princeps_, 1471, was based on a family of manuscripts that
omitted Book VIII, called Book IX Book VIII, and did not contain Book X,
the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Subsequent editions had
only in part made good these deficiencies. More than a half of Book X,
containing the letters numbered 41-121 in editions of our day, was
published by Avantius in 1502 from a copy of the Paris manuscript made
by Petrus Leander.[2] Aldus himself, two years before printing his
edition, had received from Fra Giocondo a copy of the entire manuscript,
with six other volumes, some of them printed editions which Giocondo had
collated with manuscripts. Aldus, addressing Mocenigo, thus describes
his acquisition:
“Deinde Iucundo Veronensi Viro singulari ingenio, ac bonarum
literarum studiosissimo, quod et easdem Secundi epistolas ab eo
ipso exemplari a se descriptas in Gallia diligenter ut facit
omnia, et sex alia uolumina epistolarum partim manu scripta,
partim impressa quidem, sed cum antiquis collata exemplaribus,
ad me ipse sua sponte, quae ipsius est ergo studiosos omneis
beneuolentia, adportauerit, idque biennio ante, quam tu ipsum
mihi exemplar publicandum tradidisses.”
[Footnote 1: I would acknowledge most gratefully the help given me
in the preparation of this part of our discussion by Professor E.T.
Merrill, of the University of Chicago. Professor Merrill, whose
edition of the _Letters_ of Pliny has long been in the hands of
Teubner, placed at my disposal his proof-sheets for the part covered
in the Morgan fragment, his preliminary _apparatus criticus_ for the
entire text of the _Letters_, and a card-catalogue of the readings
of _B_ and _F_. He patiently answered numerous questions and
subjected the first draft of my argument to a searching criticism
which saved me from errors in fact and in expression. But Professor
Merrill should not be held responsible for errors that remain or for
my estimate of the Morgan fragment.]
[Footnote 2: On Petrus Leander, see Merrill in _Classical Philology_
V (1910), pp. 451 f.]
So now the ancient manuscript itself had come. Aldus emphasizes its
value in supplying the defects of previous editions. The _Letters_ will
now include, he declares:
“multae non ante impressae. Tum Graeca correcta, et suis locis
restituta, atque retectis adulterinis, uera reposita. Item
fragmentatae epistolae, integrae factae. In medio etiam epistolae
libri octaui de Clitumno fonte non solum uertici calx additus, et
calci uertex, sed decem quoque epistolae interpositae, ac ex Nono
libro Octauus factus, et ex Octauo Nonus, Idque beneficio
exemplaris correctissimi, & mirae, ac uenerandae Vetustatis.”
The presence of such a manuscript, “most correct, and of a marvellous
and venerable antiquity,” stimulates the imagination: Aldus thinks that
now even the lost Decades of Livy may appear again:
“Solebam superioribus Annis Aloisi Vir Clariss. cum aut T. Liuii
Decades, quae non extare creduntur, aut Sallustii, aut Trogi
historiae, aut quemuis alium ex antiquis autoribus inuentum esse
audiebam, nugas dicere, ac fabulas. Sed ex quo tu ex Gallia has
Plinii epistolas in Italia reportasti, in membrana scriptas, atque
adeo diuersis a nostris characteribus, ut nisi quis diu assuerit,
non queat legere, coepi sperare mirum in modum, fore aetate
nostra, ut plurimi ex bonis autoribus, quos non extare credimus,
inueniantur.”
There was something unusual in the character of the script that made it
hard to read; its ancient appearance even suggested to Aldus a date as
early as that of Pliny himself.
“Est enim uolumen ipsum non solum correctissimum, sed etiam ita
antiquum, ut putem scriptum Plinii temporibus.”
This is enthusiastic language. In the days of Italian humanism,
a scholar might call almost any book a _codex pervetustus_ if it
supplied new readings for his edition and its script seemed unusual.
As Professor Merrill remarks:[3]
“The extreme age that Aldus was disposed to attribute to the
manuscript will, of course, occasion no wonder in the minds of
those who are familiar with the vague notions on such matters that
prevailed among scholars before the study of palaeography had been
developed into somewhat of a science. The manuscript may have been
written in one of the so-called ‘national’ hands, Lombardic,
Visigothic, or Merovingian. But if it were in a ‘Gothic’ hand of
the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, it might have appeared
sufficiently grotesque and illegible to a reader accustomed for
the most part to the exceedingly clear Italian book hands of the
fifteenth century.”
[Footnote 3: _C.P._ II (1907), pp. 134 f.]
In a later article Professor Merrill well adds that even the uncial
script would have seemed difficult and alien to one accustomed to the
current fifteenth-century style.[4] A contemporary and rival editor,
Catanaeus, disputed Aldus’s claims. In his second edition of the
_Letters_ (1518), he professed to have used a very ancient book that
came down from Germany and declared that the Paris manuscript had no
right to the antiquity which Aldus had imputed to it. But Catanaeus has
been proved a liar.[5] He had no ancient manuscript from Germany, and
abused Aldus mainly to conceal his cribbings from that scholar’s
edition; we may discount his opinion of the age of the Parisinus. Until
Aldus, an eminent scholar and honest publisher,[6] is proved guilty, we
should assume him innocent of mendacity or naïve ignorance. He speaks in
earnest; his words ring true. We must be prepared for the possibility
that his ancient manuscript was really ancient.
[Footnote 4: _C.P._ X (1915), pp. 18 f.]
[Footnote 5: By Merrill, _C.P._ V (1910), pp. 455 ff.]
[Footnote 6: Sandys, _A History of Classical Studies_ II (1908),
pp. 99 ff.]
Since Aldus’s time the Parisinus has disappeared. To quote Merrill
again:[7]
“This wonderful manuscript, like so many others, appears to have
vanished from earth. Early editors saw no especial reason for
preserving what was to them but copy for their own better printed
texts. Possibly some leaves of it may be lying hid in old
bindings; possibly they went to cover preserve-jars, or
tennis-racquets; possibly into some final dust-heap. At any rate
the manuscript is gone; the copy by Iucundus is gone; the copy
of the correspondence with Trajan that Avantius owed to Petrus
Leander is gone; if others had any other copies of Book X, in
whole or in part, they are gone too.”
[Footnote 7: _C.P._ II, p. 135.]
[Sidenote: _The Bodleian volume_]
In 1708 Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, bought at auction a peculiar
volume of Pliny’s _Letters_. It consisted of Beroaldus’s edition of the
nine books (1498), the portions of Book X published by Avantius in 1502,
and, on inserted leaves, the missing letters of Books VIII and X.[8] The
printed portions, moreover, were provided with over five hundred variant
readings and lemmata in a different hand from that which appeared on the
inserted leaves; the hand that added the variants also wrote in the
margin the sixteenth letter of Book IX, which is not in the edition of
Beroaldus. Hearne recognized the importance of this supplementary
matter, for he copied the variants into his own edition of the _Letters_
(1703), intending, apparently, to use them in a larger edition which he
is said to have published in 1709; he also lent the book to Jean Masson,
who refers to it in his _Plinii Vita_. Upon Hearne’s death, this
valuable volume was acquired by the Bodleian Library in Oxford, but lay
unnoticed until Mr. E.G. Hardy, in 1888,[9] examined it and, after a
comparison of the readings, pronounced it the very copy from which Aldus
had printed his edition in 1508. External proof of this highly exciting
surmise seemed to appear in a manuscript note on the last page of the
edition of Avantius, written in the hand that had inserted the variants
and supplements throughout the volume:[10]
“hae plinii iunioris epistolae ex uetustissimo exemplari
parisiensi et restitutae et emendatae sunt opera et industria
ioannis iucundi prestantissimi architecti hominis imprimis
antiquarii.”
[Footnote 8: See plate XVII, which shows the insertion in Book
VIII.]
[Footnote 9: _Journal of Philology_ XVII (1888), pp. 95 ff., and in
the introduction to his edition of the _Tenth Book_ (1889), pp. 75
ff.]
[Footnote 10: See Merrill _C.P._ II, p. 136.]
What more natural to conclude than that here is the very copy that Aldus
prepared from the ancient manuscript and the collations and transcripts
sent him by Fra Giocondo? One fact blocks this attractive conjecture:
though there are many agreements between the readings of the emended
Bodleian book and those of Aldus, there are also many disagreements.
Mr. Hardy removed the obstacle by assuming that Aldus made changes in
the proof; but the changes are numerous; they are not too numerous for a
scholar who can mark up his galleys free of cost, but they are decidedly
too numerous if the scholar is also his own printer.
Merrill, in a brilliant and searching article,[11] entirely demolishes
Hardy’s argument. Unlike most destructive critics, he replaces the
exploded theory by still more interesting fact. For the rediscovery of
the Bodleian book and a proper appreciation of its value, students of
Pliny’s text must always be grateful to Hardy; we now know, however,
that the volume was never owned by Aldus. The scholar who put its parts
together and added the variants with his own hand was the famous
Hellenist Guillaume Budé (Budaeus). The parts on the supplementary
leaves were done by some copyist who imitated the general effect of the
type used in the book itself; Budaeus added his notes on these inserted
leaves in the same way as elsewhere. It had been shown before by
Keil[12] that Budaeus must have used the readings of the Parisinus;
indeed, it is from his own statement in _Annotationes in Pandectas_ that
we learn of the discovery of the ancient manuscript by Giocondo:[13]
“Verum haec epistola et aliae non paucae in codicibus impressis
non leguntur: nos integrum ferme Plinium habemus: primum apud
parrhisios repertum opera Iucundi sacerdotis: hominis antiquarii
Architectique famigerati.”
[Footnote 11: _C.P._ II, pp. 129 ff.]
[Footnote 12: In his edition, pp. xxiii f.]
[Footnote 13: _C.P._ II, p. 152.]
The wording here is much like that in the note at the end of the
Bodleian book. After establishing his case convincingly from the
readings followed by Budaeus in his quotations from the _Letters_,
Merrill eventually was able to compare the handwriting with the
acknowledged script of Budaeus and to find that the two are
identical.[14] The Bodleian book, then, is not Aldus’s copy for the
printer. It is Budaeus’s own collation from the Parisinus. Whether he
examined the manuscript directly or used a copy made by Giocondo is
doubtful; the note at the end of the Bodleian volume seems to favor
the latter possibility. Budaeus does not by any means give a complete
collation, but what he does give constitutes, in Merrill’s opinion, our
best authority for any part of the lost Parisinus.[15]
[Footnote 14: _C.P._ V, p. 466.]
[Footnote 15: _C.P._ II, p. 156.]
[Sidenote: _The Morgan fragment possibly a part of the lost Parisinus_]
Perhaps we may now say the Bodleian volume _has been hitherto_ our
best authority. For a fragment of the ancient book, if my conjecture is
right, is now, after various journeys, reposing in the Pierpont Morgan
Library in New York City.
[Sidenote: _The script_]
First of all, we are impressed with the script. It is an uncial of about
the year 500 A.D.--certainly _venerandae vetustatis_. If Aldus had this
same uncial codex at his disposal, we can understand his delight and
pardon his slight exaggeration, for it is only slight. The essential
truth of his statement remains: he had found a book of a different
class from that of the ordinary manuscript--indeed _diversis a nostris
characteribus_. Instead of thinking him arrant knave or fool enough to
bring down “antiquity” to the thirteenth century, we might charitably
push back his definition of “_nostri characteres_” to include anything
in minuscules; script “not our own” would be the majuscule hands in
vogue before the Middle Ages. That is a position palaeographically
defensible, seeing that the humanistic script is a lineal descendant of
the Caroline variety. Furthermore, an uncial hand, though clear and
regular as in our fragment, is harder to read than a glance at a page of
it promises. This is due to the writing of words continuously. It takes
practice, as Aldus says, to decipher such a script quickly and
accurately. Moreover, the flesh sides of the leaves are faded.
[Sidenote: _Provenience and contents_]
We next note that the fragment came to the Pierpont Morgan Library from
Aldus’s country, where, as Dr. Lowe has amply shown, it was written; how
it came into the possession of the Marquis Taccone would be interesting
to know. But, like the Parisinus, the book to which our fragment
belonged had not stayed in Italy always. It had made a trip to
France--and was resting there in the fifteenth century, as is proved by
the French note of that period on fol. 51r. We may say “the book” and
not merely “the present six leaves,” for the fragment begins with fol.
48, and the foliation is of the fifteenth century. The last page of our
fragment is bright and clear, showing no signs of wear, as it would if
no more had followed it;[16] I will postpone the question of what
probably did follow. Moreover, if the _probatio pennae_ on fol. 53r is
Carolingian,[17] it would appear that the book had been in France at the
beginning as well as at the end of the Middle Ages. Thus our manuscript
may well have been one of those brought up from Italy by the emissaries
of Charlemagne or their successors during the revival of learning in the
eighth and ninth centuries. The outer history of our book, then, and the
character of its script, comport with what we know of Aldus’s Parisinus.
[Footnote 16: See Dr. Lowe’s remarks, pp. 3-6 above.]
[Footnote 17: See above, p. 21, and below, p. 53.]
[Sidenote: _The text closely related to that of Aldus_]
But we must now subject our fragment to internal tests. If Aldus used
the entire manuscript of which this is a part, his text must show a
general conformity to that of the fragment. An examination of the
appended collation will establish this fact beyond a doubt. The
references are to Keil’s critical edition of 1870, but the readings are
verified from Merrill’s apparatus. I will designate the fragment as
_Π_, using _P_ for Aldus’s Parisinus and _a_ for his edition.
{Transcriber’s Note:
In the following paragraph, letters originally printed in roman
(non-italic) type are capitalized for clarity.}
We may begin by excluding two probable misprints in Aldus, 64, 1
_contuRbernium_ and 65, 17 _subEuertas_. Then there are various
spellings in which Aldus adheres to the fashion of his day, as
_seXcenties_, _miLLies_, _miLLia_, _teNtarunt_, _cauSSas_, _auToritas_,
_quaNquam_, _sYderum_, _hYeme_, _cOEna_, _oCium_, _hospiCii_,
_negoCiis_, _solaTium_, _adUlescet_, _eXoluit_, _THuscos_; there are
other spellings which modern editors might not disdain, _i.e._,
_aerarII_ and _iLLustri_, and some that they have accepted, namely
_aPPonitur_, _eXistat_, _iMpleturus_, _iMplorantes_, _oBtulissem_,
_balInei_, _Caret_ (not _Karet_), _Caritas_ (not _Karitas_).[18]
[Footnote 18: The spellings _Karet_ and _Karitas_, whether Pliny’s
or not, are a sign of antiquity. In the first century A.D., as we
see from Velius Longus (p. 53, 12 K) and Quintilian (I, 7, 10),
certain old-timers clung to the use of _k_ for _c_ when the vowel
_a_ followed. By the fourth century, theorists of the opposite
tendency proposed the abandonment of _k_ and _q_ as superfluous
letters, since their functions were performed by _c_. Donatus (p.
368, 7 K) and Diomedes, too, according to Keil (p. 423, 11), still
believed in the rule of _ka_ for _ca_, but these rigid critics had
passed away in the time of Servius, who, in his commentary on
Donatus (p. 422, 35 K), remarks _k vero et q aliter nos utimur,
aliter usi sunt maiores nostri. Namque illi, quotienscumque a
sequebatur, k praeponebant in omni parte orationis, ut Kaput et
similia; nos vero non usurpamus k litteram nisi in Kalendarum nomine
scribendo._ See also Cledonius (p. 28, 5K); W. Brambach, _Latein.
Orthog._ 1868, pp. 210 ff.; W.M. Lindsay, _The Latin Language_,
1894, pp. 6 f. There would thus be no temptation for a scribe at
the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth to adopt
_ka_ for _ca_ as a habit. The writer of our fragment was copying
faithfully from his original a spelling that he apparently would not
have used himself. There are various other cases of _ca_ in our text
(_e.g._, _calceos_, III, i, 4; _canere_, 11), but there we find the
usual spelling. On traces of _ka_ in the Bellovacensis, see below,
p. 57. I should not be surprised if Pliny himself employed the
spelling _ka_, which was gradually modified in the successive copies
of his work; it may be, however, that our manuscript represents a
text which had passed through the hand of some archaeologizing
scholar of a later age, like Donatus. At any rate, this feature of
our fragment is an indication of genuineness and of antiquity.]
A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of correction
in _Π_ by either the scribe himself or a second and possibly a third
ancient hand. Here Aldus, if he read the pages of our fragment and read
them with care, might have seen warrant for following either the
original text or the emended form, as he preferred. The most important
cases are: 61, 14 sera] _Πa_ SERUA _Π²_ 61, 21 considit] _Π_
CONSIDET _Π²a_ The original reading of _Π_ is clearly CONSIDIT.
The second I has been altered to a capital E, which of course is not the
proper form for uncial. 62, 5 residit] _Π_ residet _a_ Here _Π_ is
not corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case of
CONSIDET (_m. 2_) supported what he supposed the better form _residet_.
63, 11 posset] _a_ POSSIT (in _posset m. 1_?) _Π_ Again the corrected
E is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in
adopting the reading of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] _a_
MODICA EST ETIAM (_corr. m. 2_) _Π_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut
praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _Π_ omitted _accepto ut
praefectus aerari_,--evidently a line of the manuscript that he was
copying, for there are no similar endings to account otherwise for the
omission. 66, 2 dissentientis] _a_ _ex_ DISSITIENTIS _m. 1_ (?) _Π_.
There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected,
in _Π_, which Aldus himself might easily have corrected or have found
the right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conteror
quorum] _a_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM _Π B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _Π_ 64, 24
conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _Π_.
In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _Π_, most of
them corrected but a few not, Aldus may have felt justified in abiding
by one of the early editions in the following three cases, where _Π_
might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64,3) modern
editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] Π aurium
oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA Π 65, 11
et alii] Π etiam alii _a_.
There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri]
Π quaesturi _MVa_ Aldus’s reading, as I learn from Professor Merrill,
is in the anonymous edition ascribed to Roscius (Venice, 1492?), but not
in any of the editions cited by Keil. This may be a conscious
emendation, but it is just as possibly an error of hearing made by
either Aldus or his compositor in repeating the word to himself as he
wrote or set up the passage. Once in the text, _quaesturi_ gives no
offense, and is not corrected by Aldus in his edition of 1518. An
apparently more certain effort at emendation is reported by Keil on 62,
13, where Aldus is said to differ from all the manuscripts and the
editions in reading _agere_ for _facere_. So he does in his second
edition; but here he has _facere_ with everybody else. The changes in
the second edition are few and are largely confined to the correction
of obvious misprints. There is no point in substituting _agere_ for
_facere_. I should attribute this innovation to a careless compositor,
who tried to memorize too large a bit of text, rather than to an
emending editor. At all events, it has no bearing on our immediate
concern.
The striking similarity, therefore, between Aldus’s text and that of
our fragment confirms our surmise that the latter may be a part of that
ancient manuscript which he professes to have used in his edition.
Whatever his procedure may have been, he has produced a text that
differs from Π only in certain spellings, in the correction, with the
help of existing editions, of three obvious errors of Π and of three
of its readings that to Aldus might well have seemed erroneous, in two
misprints, and in one reading which is possibly an emendation but which
may just as well be another misprint. Thus the internal evidence of the
text offers no contradiction of what the script and the history of the
manuscript have suggested. I can not claim to have established an
irrefutable conclusion, but the signs all point in one direction. I see
enough evidence to warrant a working hypothesis, which we may use
circumspectly as a clue, submit to further tests, and abandon in case
these tests yield evidence with which it can not be reconciled.
[Sidenote: _Editorial methods of Aldus_]
Further, if we are justified in our assumption that Aldus used the
manuscript of which Π is a part, the fragment is instructive as to
his editorial methods. If he proceeded elsewhere as carefully as here,
he certainly did not perform his task with the high-handedness of the
traditional humanistic editor; rather, he treated his ancient witness
with respect, and abandoned it only when confronted with what seemed its
obvious mistakes. I will revert to this matter at a later stage of the
argument.
RELATION OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT
TO THE OTHER MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LETTERS.
But, it will be asked, how do we know that Aldus used Π rather than
some other manuscript that had a very similar text and that happened to
have gone through the same travels? To answer this question we must
examine the relation of Π to the other extant manuscripts in the
light of what is known of the transmission of Pliny’s _Letters_ in the
Middle Ages. A convenient summary is given by Merrill on the basis of
his abundant researches.[19]
[Footnote 19: _C.P._ X (1915), pp. 8 ff. A classified list of the
manuscripts of the _Letters_ is given by Miss Dora Johnson in _C.P._
VII (1912), pp. 66 ff.]
[Sidenote: _Classes of the manuscripts_]
Manuscripts of the _Letters_ may be divided into three classes,
distinguished by the number of books that each contains.
Class I, the ten-book family, consists of _B_ (Bellovacensis or
Riccardianus), now Ashburnhamensis, R 98 in the Laurentian Library in
Florence, its former home, whence it had been diverted on an interesting
pilgrimage by the noted book-thief Libri. This manuscript is attributed
to the tenth century by Merrill, and by Chatelain in his description of
the book. But Chatelain labels his facsimile page “_Saec._ IX.”[20] The
latter seems the more probable date. The free use of a flat-topped _a_,
along with the general appearance of the script, reminds me of the style
in vogue at Fleury and its environs about the middle of the ninth
century. A good specimen is accessible in a codex of St. Hilary on
the Psalms (Vaticanus Reginensis 95), written at Micy between 846 and
859, of which a page is reproduced by Ehrle and Liebaert.[21] _F_
(Florentinus), the other important representative of this class, is also
in the Laurentian Library (S. Marco 284). The date assigned to it seems
also too late. It is apparently as early as the tenth century, and also
has some of the characteristics of the script of Fleury; it is French
work, at any rate. Keil’s suggestion[22] that it may be the book
mentioned as _liber epistolarum Gaii Plinii_ in a tenth-century
catalogue of the manuscripts at Lorsch may be perfectly correct; though
not written at Lorsch, it might have been presented to the monastery by
that time.[23] These two manuscripts agree in containing, by the first
hand, only Books I-V, vi (_F_ having all and _B_ only a part of the
sixth letter). However, as the initial title in _B_ is PLINI · SECUNDI ·
EPISTULARUM · LIBRI · DECEM, we may infer that some ancestor, if not the
immediate ancestor, of _B_ and _F_ had all ten books.
[Footnote 20: _Pal. des Class. Lat._ pl. CXLIII. See our plates XIII
and XIV. At least as early as the thirteenth century, the manuscript
was at Beauvais. The ancient press-mark _S. Petri Beluacensis_, in
writing perhaps of the twelfth century, may still be discerned on
the recto of the first folio. See Merrill, _C.P._ X, p. 16. If the
book was written at Beauvais, as Chatelain thinks (_Journal des
Savants_, 1900, p. 48), then something like what I call the
mid-century style of Fleury was also cultivated, possibly a bit
later, in the north. The Beauvais Horace, Leidensis lat. 28 _saec._
IX (Chatelain, pl. LXXVIII), shows a certain similarity in the
script to that of _B_. If both were done at Beauvais, the Horace
would seem to be the later book. It belongs, we may observe, to a
group of manuscripts of which a Floriacensis (Paris lat. 7971) is a
conspicuous member. To settle the case of _B_, we need a study of
all the books of Beauvais. For this, a valuable preliminary survey
is given by Omont in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Ins. et Belles Lettres_ XL
(1914), pp. 1 ff.]
[Footnote 21: _Specimina Cod. Lat. Vatic._ 1912, pl. 30. See also
H.M. Bannister, _Paleografia Musicale Vaticana_ 1913, p. 30, No.
109.]
[Footnote 22: See the preface to his edition, p. xi.]
[Footnote 23: For the script of _F_, see plates XV and XVI. Bern.
136, _s._ XIII (Merrill, _C.P._ X, p. 18) is a copy of _F_.]
In Class II the leading manuscript is another Laurentian codex (Mediceus
XLVII 36), which contains Books I-IX, xxvi, 8. It was written in the
ninth century, at Corvey, whence it was brought to Rome at the beginning
of the sixteenth century. It is part of a volume that also once
contained our only manuscript of the first part of the _Annals_ of
Tacitus.[24] The other chief manuscript of this class is _V_ (Vaticanus
Latinus 3864), which has Books I-IV. The script has been variously
estimated. I am inclined to the opinion that the book was written
somewhere near Tours, perhaps Fleury, in the earlier part of the ninth
century.[25] If Ullman is right in seeing a reference to Pliny’s
_Letters_ in a notice in a mediaeval catalogue of Corbie,[26] it may be
that the codex is a Corbeiensis. But it is also possible that a volume
of the _Letters_ at Corbie was twice copied, once at Corvey (_M_) and
once in the neighborhood of Tours (_V_). At any rate, with the help of
_V_, we may reach farther back than Corvey and Germany for the origin of
this class. There are likewise two fragmentary texts, both of brief
extent, Monacensis 14641 (olim Emmeramensis) _saec._ IX, and Leidensis
Vossianus 98 _saec._ IX, the latter partly in Tironian notes. Merrill
regards these as bearing “testimony to the existence of the nine-book
text in the same geographical region,” namely Germany.[27] There they
are to-day, in Germany and Holland, but where they were written is
another affair. The Munich fragment is part of a composite volume of
which it occupies only a page or two. The script is continental, and
may well be that of Regensburg, but it shows marked traces of insular
influence, English rather than Irish in character. The work immediately
preceding the fragment is in an insular hand, of the kind practised at
various continental monasteries, such as Fulda; there are certain notes
in the usual continental hand. Evidently the manuscript deserves
consideration in the history of the struggle between the insular and the
continental hands in Germany.[28] The script of the Leyden fragment, on
the other hand, so far as I can judge from a photograph, looks very much
like the mid-century Fleury variety with which I have associated the
Bellovacensis; there can hardly be doubt, at any rate, that De Vries is
correct in assigning it to France, where Voss obtained so many of his
manuscripts.[29] Except, therefore, for _M_ and the Munich fragment,
there is no evidence furnished by the chief manuscripts which connects
the tradition of the _Letters_ with Germany. The insular clue afforded
by the latter book deserves further attention, but I can not follow it
here. The question of the Parisinus aside, _B_ and _F_ of Class I and
_V_ of Class II are sure signs that the propagation of the text started
from one or more centres--Fleury and Corbie seem the most probable--in
France.
[Footnote 24: Cod. Med. LXVIII, 1. See Rostagno in the preface to
his edition of this manuscript in the Leyden series, and for the
Pliny, Chatelain, _Pal. des Class. Lat._, pl. CXLV. Keil (edition,
p. vi), followed by Kukula (edition, p. iv), incorrectly assigns the
manuscript to the tenth century. The latest treatment is by Paul
Lehmann in his “Corveyer Studien,” in _Abhandl. der Bayer. Akad. der
Wiss. Philos.-philol. u. hist. Klasse_, XXX, 5 (1919), p. 38. He
assigns it to the middle or the last half of the ninth century.]
[Footnote 25: Chatelain calls the page of Pliny that he reproduces
(pl. CXLIV) tenth century, but attributes the Sallust portion of the
manuscript, although this seems of a piece with the style of the
Pliny, to the ninth; see pl. LIV. Hauler, who has given the most
complete account of the manuscript, thinks it “_saec._ IX/X”
(_Wiener Studien_ XVII (1895), p. 124). He shows, as others had done
before him, the close association of the book with Bernensis 357,
and of that codex with Fleury.]
[Footnote 26: See Merrill _C.P._ X, p. 23. The catalogue (G. Becker,
_Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui_, p. 282) was prepared about 1200,
and is of Corbie, not as Merrill has it, Corvey. Chatelain (on plate
LIV) regards the book as “provenant du monastère de Corbie.” At my
request, Mr. H.J. Leon, Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University,
recently examined the manuscript, and neither he nor Monsignore
Mercati, the Prefect of the Vatican Library, could discover any note
or library-mark to indicate that the book is a Corbeiensis. In a
recent article, _Philol. Quart._ I (1922), pp. 17 ff.), Professor
Ullman is inclined, after a careful analysis of the evidence, to
assign the manuscript to Corbie, but allows for the possibility that
it was written in Tours or the neighborhood and thence sent to
Corbie.]
[Footnote 27: _C.P._ X, p. 23.]
[Footnote 28: See Paul Lehmann, “Aufgaben und Anregungen der
lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters,” in _Sitzungsberichte der
Bayer. Akad. der Wiss. Philos.-philol. u. hist. Klasse_, 1918, 8,
pp. 14 ff. I am indebted to Professor Lehmann for the facts on the
basis of which I have made the statement above. To quote his exact
words, the contents of the manuscript are as follows: “Fol. 1-31v
Briefe des Hierononymus u. Gregorius Magnus + fol. 46v-47v,
Briefe des Plinius an Tacitus u. Albinus, in kontinentaler, wohl
Regensburger Minuskel etwa der Mitte des 9ten Jahrhunderts, _unter
starken insularen (angelsächsischen) Einfluss_ in Buchstabenformen,
Abkürzungen, etc. Fol. 32r _saec._ IX _ex_ _vel_ X _in._ fol.
32v-46r in der Hauptsache _direkt insular_ mit historischen Notizen
in festländischer Style. Fol. 48v-128 Ambrosius _saec._ X _in_.”]
[Footnote 29: _Commentatiuncula de C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi
epistularum fragmento Vossiano notis tironianis descripto_ (in
_Exercitationes Palaeog. in Bibl. Univ. Lugduno-Bat._, 1890). De
Vries ascribes the fragment to the ninth century and is sure that
the writing is French (p. 12). His reproduction, though not
photographic, gives an essentially correct idea of the script.
The text of the fragment is inferior to that of _MV_, with which
manuscripts it is undoubtedly associated. In one error it agrees
with _V_ against _M_. Chatelain (_Introduction à la Lecture des
Notes Tironiennes_, 1900), though citing De Vries’s publication in
his bibliography (p. xv), does not discuss the character of the
notes in this fragment. I must leave it for experts in tachygraphy
to decide whether the style of the Tironian notes is that of the
school of Orléans.]
The third class comprises manuscripts containing eight books, the eighth
being omitted and the ninth called the eighth. Representatives of this
class are all codices of the fifteenth century, though the class has a
more ancient basis than that, namely a lost manuscript of Verona. This
is best attested by _D_, a Dresden codex, while almost all other
manuscripts of this class descend from a free recension made by Guarino
and conflated with _F_; _o_, _u_, and _x_ are the representatives of
this recension (_G_) that are reported by Merrill. The relation of this
third class to the second is exceedingly close; indeed, it may be merely
a branch of it.[30]
[Footnote 30: See Merrill’s discussion of the different
possibilities, _C.P._ X, p. 14.]
[Sidenote: _The early editions_]
As is often the case, the leading manuscript authorities are only
inadequately represented in the early editions. The Editio Princeps
(_p_) of 1471 was based on a manuscript of the Guarino recension. A
Roman editor in 1474 added part of Book VIII, putting it at the end and
calling it Book IX; he acquired this new material, along with various
readings in the other books, from some manuscript of Class II that may
have come down from the north. Three editors, called ς by
Keil--Pomponius Laetus 1490, Beroaldus 1498, and Catanaeus 1506--took
_r_ as a basis; but Laetus had another and a better representative of
the same type of text as that from which _r_ had drawn, and he likewise
made use of _V_. With the help of these new sources the ς editors
polished away a large number of the gross blunders of _p_ and _r_, and
added a sometimes unnecessary brilliance of emendation. Avantius’s
edition of part of Book X in 1502 was appropriated by Beroaldus in the
same year and by Catanaeus in 1506; these latter editors had no new
sources at their disposal. No wonder that the Parisinus seemed a godsend
to Aldus. The only known ancient manuscripts whose readings had been
utilized in the editions preceding his own were _F_ and _V_, both
incomplete representatives of Classes I and II. The manuscripts
discovered by the Roman editor and Laetus were of great help at the
time, but we have no certain evidence of their age. _B_ and _M_ were not
accessible.[31] Now, besides the transcript of Giocondo and his other
six volumes, whatever these may have been, Aldus had the ancient codex
itself with all ten books complete. Everybody admits that the Parisinus,
as shown by the readings of Aldus, is clearly associated with the
manuscripts of Class I. Its contents corroborate the evidence of the
title in _B_, which indicates descent from some codex containing ten
books.
[Footnote 31: _C.P._ X, p. 20.]
[Sidenote: _Π a member of Class I_]
Now nothing is plainer than that _Π_ is a member of Class I, as it
agrees with _BF_ in the following errors, or what are regarded by Keil
as errors. I consider the text of the _Letters_ and not their
superscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] _MVD_ duplicata _ΠBFGa_; 61, 12
confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _ΠBFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_
doctissima _ΠBFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ et
adficitur _ΠBFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _ΠBF_; 63, 22
teque et] _MVDG_ teque _ΠBFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda
_BFu_ CONFERANDA _Π_ (_MV_ lack an extensive passage here); 65, 11
alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri] _DG_ alii quidam minores sed tam
innumeri _MV_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_; 65, 12
voluntariis accusationibus] _M_ (uoluntaris) _D_ voluntariis _om. V_
accusationibus uoluntariis _ΠBFGa_; 65, 15 superiore] _MVD_ priore
_ΠBFGa_; 65, 24 iam] _MVDG_ _om._ _ΠBFa._
Tastes differ, and not all these eleven readings of Class I may be
errors. Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (1912), accepts
three of them (60, 15; 62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcoming
edition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6; 65, 12; 65, 15). Personally I
could be reconciled to them all with the exception of the very two which
Aldus could not admit--62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places he had the early
editions to fall back on. However, I should concur with Merrill and
Kukula in preferring the reading of the other classes in 62, 16 and 65,
24. In 65, 11 I would emend to _alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri_;
if this is the right reading, _ΠBF_ agree in the easy error of
_quidem_ for _quidam_, and _MVD_ in another easy error, _minores_ for
_minoris_--the parent manuscript of _MV_ further changed _tamen numeri_
to _tam innumeri_. Whatever the final judgment, here are five cases in
which all recent editors would attribute error to Class I; in the
remaining six cases the manuscripts of Class I either agree in error or
avoid the error of Class II--surely, then, _Π_ is not of the latter
class. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the whole
passage, no one of which appears in _Π_: 61, 15 si non] sint _MV_;
62, 6 mira illis] mirabilis _MV_; 62, 11 lotus] illic _MV_; cibum]
cibos _MV_; 62, 25 fuit--64, 12 potes] _om._ _MV_; 66, 12 amatus] est
amatus _MV_. Once the first hand in _Π_ agrees with _V_ in an error
easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2_
_Π_ ornata _V_.
_Π_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by different
routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _Π_ clearly
has no close association.
But the evidence for allying _Π_ with _B_ and _F_, the manuscripts of
Class I, is by no means exhausted. In 61, 14, _BFux_ have the erroneous
emendation, which Budaeus includes among his variants, of _serua_ for
_sera_. A glance at _Π_ shows its apparent origin. The first hand has
SERA correctly; the second hand writes U above the line.[32] If the
second hand is solely responsible for the attempt at improvement here,
and is not reproducing a variant in the parent manuscript of _Π_,
then _BF_ must descend directly from _Π_. The following instances
point in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _Π_ has
CONSIDIT by the first hand, the second hand changing the second I to a
capital E.[33] In 65, 5, however, RESIDIT is not thus changed in _Π_,
and perhaps for this very reason is retained by the careful scribe of
_B_; _F_, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with _G_,
_residet_. 63, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me _B_. Here the
letters of the _scriptura continua_ in _Π_ are faded and blurred;
the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscript
derived directly from _Π_. If one ask whether the page were as faded
in the ninth century as now, Dr. Lowe has already answered this
question; the flesh side of the parchment might well have lost a portion
of its ink considerably before the Carolingian period.[34] In any case,
the error of _praestatam ad me_ seems natural enough to one who reads
the line for the first time in _Π_. _B_ did not, as we shall see,
copy directly from _Π_; a copy intervened, in which the error was
made and then, I should infer, corrected above the line, whence _F_
drew the right reading, _B_ taking the original but incorrect text.
[Footnote 32: I have not always followed Dr. Lowe in distinguishing
first and second hands in the various alterations discussed here
(pp. 48-50).]
[Footnote 33: See above, p. 42.]
[Footnote 34: See above, pp. 11 f.]
There are cases in plenty elsewhere in the _Letters_ to show that _B_ is
not many removes from the _scriptura continua_ of some majuscule hand.
In the section included in _Π_, apart from the general tightness of
the writing, which led to the later insertion of strokes between many of
the words,[35] we note these special indications of a parent manuscript
in majuscules. In 61, 10 me autem], _B_ started to write _mea_ and then
corrected it. 64, 19 praeceptori a quo] praeceptoria quo _B_, (_m. 1_)
_F_. If _B_ or its parent manuscript copied _Π_ directly, the mistake
would be especially easy, for PRAECEPTORIA ends the line in _Π_. 64,
25 integra re]. After _integra_, a letter is erased in _B_; the copyist,
it would seem, first mistook _integra re_ for one word.
[Footnote 35: See plates XIII-XIV.]
Other instances showing a close connection between _B_ and _Π_ are as
follows: 62, 23 unice] _Π_ has by the first hand INUICE, the second
hand writing U above I, and a vertical stroke above U. In _BF_, _uince_,
the reading of the first hand, is changed by the second to _unice_; this
second hand, Professor Merrill informs me, seems to be that of a writer
in the same scriptorium as the first. The error in _BF_ might, of
course, be due to copying an original in minuscules, but it might also
be due to the curious state of affairs in _Π_. 65, 24 fungerer]. In
_Π_ the final R is written, somewhat indistinctly, above the line.
_B_ has _fungerer_ corrected by the second hand from _fungeret_ (?),
which may be due to a misunderstanding of _Π_. 66, 2 avunculi]
AUONCULI _Π_ (O _in ras._) _B_. This form might perhaps be read;
_F_ has emended it out, and no other manuscript has it. 65, 7 desino,
inquam, patres conscripti, putare] Here the relation of _BF_ to _Π_
seems particularly close. _Π_, like _MVDoxa_, has the abbreviation
P.C. On a clearly written page, the error of _reputare_ (_BF_) for P.C.
PUTARE is not a specially likely one to make. But in the blur at the
bottom of fol. 52v, a page on the flesh side of the parchment, the
combination might readily be mistaken for REPUTARE.
Another curious bit of testimony appears at the beginning of the third
book. The scribe of _B_[36] wrote the words NESCIO--APUD in rustic
capitals, occupying therewith the first line and about a third of the
second. This is not effective calligraphy. It would appear that he is
reproducing, as is his habit, exactly what he found in his original.
That original might have had one full line, or two lines, of majuscules,
perhaps, following pretty closely the lines in _Π_, which has the
same amount of text, plus the first three letters of SPURINNAM, in the
first two lines. If _B_ had _Π_ before him, there is nothing to
explain his most unusual procedure. His original, therefore, is not
_Π_ but an intervening copy, which he is transcribing with an utter
indifference to aesthetic effect and with a laudable, if painful, desire
for accuracy. This trait, obvious in _B_’s work throughout, is perhaps
nowhere more strikingly exhibited than here.
[Footnote 36: See plate XIV.]
[Sidenote: _Π the direct ancestor of BF with probably a copy
intervening_]
If _Π_ is the direct ancestor of _BF_, these manuscripts should
contain no good readings not found in _Π_, unless their writers
could arrive at such readings by easy emendation or unless there is
contamination with some other source. From what we know of the text of
_BF_ in general, the latter supposition may at once be ruled out. There
are but three cases to consider, two of which may be readily disposed
of: 64, 3 proferenda] conferenda _BF_ CONFERANDA _Π_; 64, 4
conprobasse] (comp.) _BF_ COMPROUASSE _Π_. These are simple slips,
which a scribe might almost unconsciously correct as he wrote. The
remaining error (63, 28 SIBI to _si_) is not difficult to emend when
one considers the entire sentence: _quibus omnibus ita demum similis
adolescet_, si _imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas_, etc. It is less
probable, however, that _B_ with _Π_ before him should correct it as
he wrote than, as we have already surmised, that a minuscule copy
intervened between _Π_ and _B_, in which the letters _bi_ were
deleted by some careful reviser. Two other passages tend to confirm
this assumption of an intermediate copy. In 65, 6 (_tum optime libertati
venia obsequio praeparatur_), _B_ has _optimae_, a false alteration
induced perhaps by the following _libertati_. In _Π_, OPTIME stands
at the end of the line. The scribe of _B_, had he not found _libertati_
immediately adjacent, would not so readily be tempted to emend; still,
we should not make too much of this instance, as _B_ has a rather
pronounced tendency to write _ae_ for _e_. A more certain case is 66, 7
fungar indicis] fungarindicis _ex_ fungari dicis _B_; here the error is
easier to derive from an original in minuscules in which _in_ was
abbreviated with a stroke above the _i_. There is abundant evidence
elsewhere in the _Letters_ that the immediate ancestor of _BF_ was
written in minuscules; I need not elaborate this point. Our present
consideration is that apart from the three instances of simple
emendation just discussed, there is no good reading of _B_ or _F_ in
the portion of text contained in _Π_ that may not be found, by
either the first or the second hand, in _Π_.[37]
[Footnote 37: There are one or two divergencies in spelling hardly
worth mention. The most important are 63, 10 caret _B_ KARET _Π_;
caritas _B_ KARITAS _Π_. Yet see below, p. 57, where it is shown
that the ancient spelling is found in _B_ elsewhere than in the
portion of text included in _Π_.]
We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the
close connection existing between _BF_ and _Π_. _B_ alone of all
manuscripts hitherto known is provided with indices of the _Letters_,
one for each book, which give the names of the correspondents and the
opening words of each letter. Now _Π_, by good luck, preserves the
end of Book II, the beginning of Book III, and between them the index
for Book III. Dr. F.E. Robbins, in a careful article on _B_ and _F_, and
one on the tables of contents in _B_,[38] concluded that _P_ did not
contain the indices which are preserved in _B_, and that these were
compiled in some ancestor of _B_, perhaps in the eighth century. Here
they are, in the Morgan fragment, which takes us back two centuries
farther into the past. A comparison of the index in _Π_ shows
indubitably a close kinship with _B_. A glance at plates XIII and XIV
indicates, first of all, that the copy _B_, here as in the text of the
_Letters_, is not many removes from _scriptura continua_. Moreover, the
lists are drawn up on the same principle; the _nomen_ and _cognomen_ but
not the _praenomen_ of the correspondent being given, and exactly the
same amount of text quoted at the beginning of each letter. The incipit
of III, xvi (AD NEPOTEM--ADNOTASSE UIDEOR FATADICTAQ·) is an addition in
_Π_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original title
had been omitted in the manuscript which _Π_ was copying and the
corrector of _Π_ had substituted a title of his own making.[39] It
reappears in _B_, with the easy emendation of _facta_ from _fata_. The
only other case in the indices of a right reading in _B_ that is not in
_Π_ is in the title of III, viii: AD SUETON TRANQUE _Π_ Adsu&on
tranqui. _B_. In both these instances the scribe of _B_ needed no
external help in correcting the simple error. Far more significant is
the coincidence of _B_ and _Π_ in very curious mistakes, as the
address of III, iii (AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE for AD CORELLIAM HISPULLAM)
and the lemma of III, viii (FACIS ADPROCETERA for FACIS PRO CETERA).
_ΠBF_ agree in omitting SUAE (III, iii) and SUO (III, iv), but in
retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in
_Π_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _Π_ and _B_, as AD
SUETON TRANQUE (tranqui _B_); AD UESTRIC SPURINN·; AD SILIUM PROCUL.[40]
In the first of these cases, the parent of _Π_ evidently had TRANQ·,
which _Π_ falsely enlarges to TRANQUE; this form and not TRANQ· is
the basis of _B_’s correction--a semi-successful correction--TRANQUI.
This, then, is another sign that _B_ depends directly on _Π_.
Further, _B_ omits one symbol of abbreviation which _Π_ has (POSSUM
IAM PERSCRIB̅), the lemma of the ninth letter), and in the lemma of
the tenth neither manuscript preserves the symbol (COMPOSUISSE ME
QUAED). In the first of these cases, it will be observed, _B_ has a very
long _i_ in _perscrib_.[41] This long _i_ is not a feature of the script
of _B_, nor is there any provocation for it in the way in which the word
is written in _Π_. This detail, therefore, may be added to the
indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _Π_;
the curious _i_, faithfully reproduced, as usual, by _B_, may have
occurred in such a copy.
[Footnote 38: _C.P._ V, pp. 467 ff. and 476 ff., and for the
supposed lack of indices in _P_, p. 485.]
[Footnote 39: I venture to disagree with Dr. Lowe’s view (above,
p. 25) that the addition is by the first hand.]
[Footnote 40: See above, p. 11.]
[Footnote 41: See plate XIV.]
These details prove an intimate relation between _Π_ and _BF_, and
fit the supposition that _B_ and _F_ are direct descendants of _Π_.
This may be strengthened by another consideration. If _Π_ and _B_
independently copy the same source, they inevitably make independent
errors, however careful their work. _Π_ should contain, then, a
certain number of errors not in _B_. As we have found only three such
cases in 12 pages, or 324 lines, and as in all these three the right
reading in _B_ could readily have been due to emendation on the part of
the scribe of _B_ or of a copy between _Π_ and _B_, we have acquired
negative evidence of an impressive kind. It is distinctly harder to
believe that the two texts derive independently from a common source.
Show us the significant errors of _Π_ not in _B_, and we will accept
the existence of that common source; otherwise the appropriate
supposition is that _B_ descends directly from its elder relative
_Π_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readings
that _Π_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settle
that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that
_Π_ and _B_ were of the same age, we could readily prove that the
former is not copied from the latter. For _B_ contains a significant
collection of errors which are not present in _Π_. Six slight
mistakes were made by the first hand and corrected by it, three more
were corrected by the second hand, and twelve were left uncorrected.
Some of these are trivial slips that a scribe copying _B_ might emend
on his own initiative, or perhaps by a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26
iudicium] indicium _B_; 64, 29 Caecili] caecilii _B_; 65, 13 neglegere]
neglere _B_. But intelligent pondering must precede the emendation of
_praeceptoria quo_ into _praeceptori a quo_ (64, 19), of _beaticis_ into
_Baeticis_ (65, 15), and of _optimae_ into _optime_ (65, 26), while
it would take a Madvig to remedy the corruptions in 63, 9 (_praestatam
ad me_) and 65,7 (_reputare_ into _patres conscripti putare_). These
are the sort of errors which if found in _Π_ would furnish
incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was
independent of _Π_; but there is no such evidence of independence
in the case of _B_. Our case is strengthened by the consideration
that various of the errors in _B_ may well be traced to idiosyncrasies
of _Π_, not merely to its _scriptura continua_, a source of
misunderstanding that any majuscule would present, but to the fading
of the writing on the flesh side of the pages in _Π_, and to the
possibility that some of the corrections of the second hand may be the
private inventions of that hand.[42] We are hampered, of course, by the
comparatively small amount of matter in _Π_, nor are we absolutely
certain that this is characteristic of the entire manuscript of which
it was once a part. But my reasoning is correct, I believe, for the
material at our disposal.
[Footnote 42: See above, pp. 48 f.]
[Sidenote: _The probable stemma_]
Our tentative stemma thus far, then, is No. 1 below, not No. 2 and not
No. 3.
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
_Π_ _Π_ _X_
| | / \
| | / \
_Π¹_ _Π¹_ / \
/ \ | _X¹_ _Π_
/ \ | / \
_B_ \ _B_ / \
_F_ | _B_ \
| _F_
_F_
Robbins put _P_ in the position of _Π_ in this last stemma, but on
the assumption that it did not contain the indices. That is not true of
_Π_.
[Sidenote: _Further consideration of the external history of P, Π,
and B_]
Still further evidence is supplied by the external history of our
manuscripts. _B_ was at Beauvais at the end of the twelfth or the
beginning of the thirteenth century, as we have seen.[43] Whatever the
uncertainties as to its origin, any palaeographer would agree that it
could hardly have been written before the middle of the ninth century
or after the middle of the tenth. It was undoubtedly produced in France,
as was _F_, its sister manuscript. The presumption is that _Π_¹, the
copy intervening between _Π_ and _B_, was also French, and that
_Π_ was in France when the copy was made from it. Merrill, for what
reason I fail to see, suggested that the original of _BF_ might be
“Lombardic,” written in North Italy.[44] An extraneous origin of this
sort must be proved from the character of the errors, such as spellings
and the false resolution of abbreviations, made by _BF_. If no such
signs can be adduced, it is natural to suppose that _Π_¹ was of the
same nationality and general tendencies as its copies _B_ and _F_.
This consideration helps out the possible evidence furnished by the
scribbling in a hand of the Carolingian variety on fol. 53v;[45] we
may now be more confident that it is French rather than Italian. But
whatever the history of our book in the early Middle Ages, in the
fifteenth century it was surely near Meaux, which is not far from
Paris--about as far to the east as Beauvais is to the north. Now,
granted for a moment that the last of our stemmata is correct, _X_,
from which _Π_ and _B_ descend, being earlier than _Π_, must have
been a manuscript in majuscules, written in Italy, since that is
unquestionably the provenience of _Π_. There were, then, by this
supposition, _two_ ancient majuscule manuscripts of the _Letters_, most
closely related in text--veritable twins, indeed--that travelled from
Italy to France. One (X¹) had arrived in the early Middle Ages and is
the parent of _B_ and _F_; the other (_Π_) was probably there in the
early Middle Ages, and surely was there in the fifteenth century. We can
not deny this possibility, but, on the principle _melius est per unum
fieri quam per plura_, we must not adopt it unless driven to it. The
history of the transmission of Classical texts in the Carolingian period
is against such a supposition.[46] Not many books of the age and quality
of _Π_ were floating about in France in the ninth century. There is
nothing in the evidence presented by _Π_ and _B_ that drives us to
assume the presence of two such codices. There is nothing in this
evidence that does not fit the simpler supposition that _BF_ descend
directly from _Π_. The burden of proof would appear to rest on those
who assert the contrary. _Π_, therefore, if the ancestor of _B_,
contained at least as much as we find today in _B_. Some ancestor of _B_
had all ten books. Aldus, whose text is closely related to _BF_, got all
ten books from a very ancient manuscript that came down from Paris. Our
simpler stemma indicates the presence of one rather than more than one
such manuscript in the vicinity of Paris in the ninth or the tenth
century and again in the fifteenth. This line of argument, which
presents not a mathematically absolute demonstration but at least a
highly probable concatenation of facts and deductions, warrants the
assumption, to be used at any rate as a working hypothesis, that _Π_
is a fragment of the lost Parisinus which contained all the books of
Pliny’s _Letters_.
[Footnote 43: See above, p. 44, n. 2.]
[Footnote 44: “Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des
Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan,” in _Wiener Studien_ XXXI
(1909), p. 258.]
[Footnote 45: See above, pp. 21, 41.]
[Footnote 46: See above, p. 22.]
Our stemma, then, becomes,
_P_ (the whole manuscript), of which _Π_ is a part.
|
|
_P¹_
/ \
/ \
_B_ \
_F_
[Sidenote: _Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of Π_]
We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions
of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_. We note, above all, a number of
omissions in _BF_ that indicate the length of line in some manuscript
from which they descend. This length of line is precisely what we find
in _Π_. Our fragment has lines containing from 23 to 33 letters, very
rarely 23, 24, or 33, and most frequently from 27 to 30, the average
being 28.4. These figures tally closely with those given by Professor
A.C. Clark[47] for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed in
date from _Π_. Supposing that _Π_ is a typical section of _P_--and
after Professor Clark’s studies[48] we may more confidently assume that
it is--_P_ had the same length of line. The important cases of omission
are as follows:
[Footnote 47: _The Descent of Manuscripts_, 1918, p. 16. Professor
Clark counts on two pages chosen at random, 23-31 letters in the
line. My count for _Π_ includes the nine and a third pages on
which full lines occur. If I had taken only foll. 52r, 52v, 53r and
53v, I should have found no lines of 32 or 33 letters. On the other
hand, the first page to which I turned in the Vindobonensis of Livy
(133v) has a line of 32 letters, and so has 135v, while 136v has one
of 33. The lines of _Π_ are a shade longer than those of the
Vindobonensis, but only a shade.]
[Footnote 48: _Ibidem_, pp. vi, 9-18. There is some danger of
pushing Professor Clark’s method too far, particularly when it is
applied to New Testament problems. For a well-considered criticism
of the book, see Merrill’s review in the _Classical Journal_ XIV
(1919), pp. 395 ff.]
32, 19 atque etiam invisus virtutibus fuerat evasit, reliquit incolumen
optimum atque] etiam--atque _om. BF_. _P_ would have the abbreviation
for _bus_ in _virtutibus_ and for _que_ in _atque_. There would thus be
in all 61 letters and dots, or two lines, arranged about as follows:
ATQ·
ETIAMINUISUSUIRTUTIB·FUERATEUA (30)
SITRELIQUITINCOLUMEMOPTIMUMATQ· (31)
The scribe could easily catch at the second ATQ· after writing the
first. It will be at once objected that the repeated ATQ· might have
occasioned the mistake, whatever the length of the line. Thus in
82, 2 (aegrotabat Caecina Paetus, maritus eius, aegrotabat] Caecina--
aegrotabat _om. BF_), the omitted portion comprises 34 letters--a bit
too long, perhaps, for a line of _P_. The following instances, however,
can not be thus disposed of.
94, 10 alia quamquam dignitate propemodum paria] quamquam--paria (32
letters) _om. BF_. _Cetera_ and _paria_, to be sure, offer a mild case
of _homoioteleuta_, but not powerful enough to occasion an omission
unless the words happened to stand at the ends of lines, as they might
well have done in _P_. As the line occurs near the beginning of a
letter, we may verify our conjecture by plotting the opening lines.
The address, as in _Π_, would occupy a line. Then, allowing for
contractions in _rebus_ (18) and _quoque_ (19) and reading _cum_ (Class
I) for _quod_ (18), _cetera_ (Class I) for _alia_ (20), we can arrange
the 236 letters in 8 lines, with an average of 29.5 letters in a line.
123, 10 sentiebant. interrogati a Nepote praetore quem docuissent,
responderunt quem prius: interrogati an tunc gratis adfuisset,
responderunt sex milibus] interrogati a Nepote--docuissent responderunt
_om. BF_. Here are two good chances for omissions due to similar
endings, as _interrogati_ and _responderunt_ are both repeated, but
neither chance is taken by _BF_. Instead, a far less striking case
(_sentiebant--responderunt_) leads to the omission. The arrangement
in _P_ might be
SENTIEBANT
INTERROGATIANEPOTEPRAETORE (26)
QUEMDOCUISSENTRESPONDERUNT (26)
QUEMPRIUSINTERROGATIANTUNCGRA (29)
TISADFUISSETRESPONDERUNTSEXMI (29)
Here the dangerous words INTERROGATI and RESPONDERUNT are in safe
places. SENTIEBANT and RESPONDERUNT, ordinarily a safe enough pair,
become dangerous by their position at the end of lines; indeed, in the
_scriptura continua_ the danger of confusing _homoioteleuta_, unless
these stand at the end of lines, is distinctly less than in a script in
which the words are divided. Here again, as in 94, 10, we may reckon the
lengths of the opening lines of the letter. After the line occupied with
the addresses, we have 296 letters, or ten lines with an average of 29.6
letters apiece.
We may add two omissions of _F_ in passages now missing altogether
in _B_. 69, 28 quod minorem ex liberis duobus amisit sed maiorem]
minorem--sed _om._ _F_. Here again an omission is imminent from the
similar endings _minorem--maiorem_; that made by _F_ (29 letters and one
dot) seems to be that of a line of _P_ where the arrangement would be:
QUOD
MINOREMEXLIBERISDUOB·AMISITSED
MAIOREM
There may have been a copy (_P²_) intervening between _P¹_ and _F_,
but doubtless neither that nor _P¹_ itself had lines so short as those
in _P_; the error of _F_, therefore, may be most naturally ascribed to
_P¹_, who omitted a line of _P_.
130, 16 percolui. in summa (cur enim non aperiam tibi vel iudicium meum
vel errorem?) primum ego] in summa--primum (59 letters) _om. F_. As
there are no _homoioteleuta_ here at all, we surely are concerned with
the omission of a line or lines. Perhaps 59 letters would make up a line
in _P¹_ or _P²_. Perhaps two lines of _P_ were dropped.
Similarly we may note two omissions in _B_, though not in _F_, which may
be due originally to the error of _P¹_ in copying _P_.
68, 5 electorumque commentarios centum sexaginta mihi reliquit,
opisthographos] -torumque--opisthographos _om. B_. Allowing the
abbreviation of QUE, we have 59 letters and one dot here. The omitted
words are written by the first hand of _B_ at the foot of the page. Of
course the omission may correspond to a line of _P¹_ dropped by _B_ in
copying, but it is equally possible that _P¹_ committed the error and
corrected it by the marginal supplement, _F_ noting the correction in
time to include the omitted words in his text, _B_ copying them in the
margin as he found them in _P¹_.
87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. nam quoto cuique eadem
honestatis] suffragiis--honestatis _om. m. 1, add. in mg. m. 2_ _B_ (54
letters, with QUE abbreviated). This may be like the preceding, except
that the correction was done not by the original scribe of _B_, but by a
scribe in the same monastery. The presence of _homoioteleuta_, we must
admit, adds an element of uncertainty.
So, of the passages here brought forward, 94, 20; 123, 10 and 69, 28 are
best explained by supposing that _B_ and _F_ descend from a manuscript
that like _Π_ had from 24 to 32 letters in a line, while 32, 19 and
130, 16 fit this supposition as well as they do any other.
One orthographic peculiarity is perhaps worth noting: we saw that _B_
did not agree with _Π_ in the spellings _karet_ and _karitas_.[49] We
do, however, find _karitate_ elsewhere in _B_ (109, 8), and the curious
reading _Kl_ [.’.] _facere_, mg. _calfacere_, for _calfacere_ (56, 12).
This is an additional bit of evidence for supposing that a copy (_P¹_)
intervened between _P_ and _B_; _P_ had the spelling _Karitas_
consistently, _P¹_ altered it to the usual form, and _B_ reproduced
the corrections in _P¹_, failing to take them all, unless, as may well
be, _P¹_ had failed to correct all the cases.
[Footnote 49: See above, pp. 42, n. 1, and 50, n. 1.]
Thus the evidence contained in the portion of _BF_ outside the text of
_Π_ corroborates our working hypothesis deduced from the fragment
itself. We have found nothing yet to overthrow our surmise that a bit
of the ancient Parisinus is veritably in the city of New York.
EDITORIAL METHODS OF ALDUS.
[Sidenote: _Aldus’s methods; his basic text_]
We may now return to Aldus and imagine, if we can, his method of
critical procedure. Finding his agreement with _Π_ so close, even in
what editors before and after him have regarded as errors, I am disposed
to think that he studied his Parisinus with care and followed its
authority respectfully. Finding that his seemingly extravagant
statements about the antiquity of his book are essentially true, I am
disposed to put more confidence in Aldus than editors have granted him
thus far. I should suppose that, working in the most convenient way, he
turned over to his compositor, not a fresh copy of _P_, but the pages of
some edition corrected from _P_--which Aldus surely tells us that he
used--and from whatever other sources he consulted. It may be beyond our
powers to discover the precise edition that he thus employed. It does
not at first thought seem likely that he would select the Princeps,
which does not include the eighth book at all, and contains errors that
later were weeded out. In the portion of text included in _Π_, _P_
has thirty-two readings which Aldus avoids. In most of these cases
_p_ commits an error, sometimes a ridiculous error, like _offam_ for
_officia_ (62, 25); the manuscript on which _p_ was based apparently
made free use of abbreviations. Keil’s damning estimate of _r_[50] is
amply borne out in this section of the text; Aldus differs from _r_ in
sixty-five cases, most of these being errors in _r_. He agrees with _ς_
in all but twenty-six readings.[51] Aldus would have had fewest changes
to make, then, if his basic text was ς. This is apparently the view of
Keil,[52] who would agree at any rate that Aldus made special use of the
ς editions and who also declares that _p_ is the _fundamentum_ of _r_ as
_r_ is of the edition of Pomponius Laetus.[53]
[Footnote 50: See the introduction to his edition, p. xviii.]
[Footnote 51: See below, pp. 60 ff.]
[Footnote 52: _Op. cit._, p. xxv: illis potissimum Aldum usum esse
vidi.]
[Footnote 53: _Op. cit._, pp. xviii, xx.]
It would certainly be natural for Aldus to start with his immediate
predecessors, as they had started with theirs. The matter ought to be
cleared up, if possible, for in order to determine what Aldus found in
_P_ we must know whether he took some text as a point of departure and,
if so, what that text was. But the task should be undertaken by some
one to whom the early editions are accessible. Keil’s report of them,
intentionally incomplete,[54] is sufficient, he declares,[55] “_ad fidem
Aldinae editionis constituendam_,” but, as I have found by comparing our
photographs of the edition of Beroaldus in the present section, Keil has
not collated minutely or accurately enough to encourage us to undertake,
on the basis of his apparatus, an elaborate study of Aldus’s relation to
the editions preceding his own.
[Footnote 54: _Op. cit._, p. 2: Ex ς pauca adscripta sunt.]
[Footnote 55: _Op. cit._, p. xxxii.]
[Sidenote: _The variants of Budaeus in the Bodleian volume_]
We may now test Aldus by the evidence of the Bodleian volume with its
variants in the hand of Budaeus. For the section included in _Π_, their
number is disappointingly small. The only additions by Budaeus (= _i_)
to the text of Beroaldus are: 61, 14 sera] _MVDoa_, (_m. 1_) _Π_ serua
_BFuxi_, (_m. 2_) _Π_; 62, 4 ambulat] _i cum plerisque_ ambulabat _r
Ber._ (ab _del._) _M_; 62, 25 quoque] _i cum ceteris_ p̷ouq (ue) _Ber._;
64, 23 Quamvis] q Vmuis _Ber._ _corr. i._
This is all. Budaeus, who, according to Merrill, had the Parisinus at
his disposal, has corrected two obvious misprints, made an inevitable
change in the tense of a verb--with or without the help of the ancient
book--and introduced from that book one unfortunate reading which we
find in the second hand of _Π_.
There is one feature of Budaeus’s marginal jottings that at once arouses
the curiosity of the textual critic, namely, the frequent appearance of
the _obelus_ and the _obelus cum puncto_. These signs as used by
Probus[56] would denote respectively a surely spurious and a possibly
spurious line or portion of text. But such was not the usage of Budaeus;
he employed the obelus merely to call attention to something that
interested him. Thus at the end of the first letter of Book III we find
a doubly pointed obelus opposite an interesting passage, the text of
which shows no variants or editorial questionings. Budaeus appears to
have expressed his grades of interest rather elaborately--at least I can
discover no other purpose for the different signs employed. The simple
obelus apparently denotes interest, the pointed obelus great interest,
the doubly pointed obelus intense interest, and the pointing finger of a
carefully drawn hand burning interest. He also adds catchwords. Thus on
the first letter he calls attention successively[57] to _Ambulatio_,
_Gestatio_, _Hora balnei_, _pilae ludus_, _Coena_, and _Comoedi_. The
purpose of the doubly pointed obelus is plainly indicated here, as it
accompanies two of these catchwords. Just so in the margin opposite 65,
17, a pointing finger is accompanied by the remark, “_Beneficia
beneficiis aliis cumulanda_,” while 227, 5 is decorated with the moral
ejaculation, “_o hominem in diuitiis miserum_.” Incidentally, it is
obvious that the Morgan fragment was once perused by some thoughtful
reader, who marked with lines or brackets passages of special interest
to him. For example, the account of how Spurinna spent his day[58] is so
marked. This passage likewise called forth various marginal notes from
Budaeus,[59] and other coincidences exist between the markings in _Π_
and the marginalia in the Bodleian volume. But there is not enough
evidence of this sort to warrant the suggestion that Budaeus himself
added the marks in _Π_.
[Footnote 56: See Ribbeck’s Virgil, _Prolegomena_, p. 152.]
[Footnote 57: See plate XVIII.]
[Footnote 58: _Epist._ III, i (plate IV).]
[Footnote 59: See plate XVIII.]
[Sidenote: _Aldus and Budaeus compared_]
It is of some importance to consider what Budaeus might have done to the
text of Beroaldus had he treated it to a systematic collation with the
Parisinus. Our fragment allows us to test Budaeus; for even if it be not
the Parisinus itself, its readings with the help of _B_, _F_, and Aldus
show what was in that ancient book. I have enumerated above[60] eleven
readings of _ΠBF_ which are called errors by Keil, but of which nine
were accepted by Aldus and five by the latest editor, Professor Merrill.
In two of these (62, 33 and 64, 3), Budaeus, like Aldus, wisely does
not harbor an obvious error of _P_. In two more (62, 16 and 65, 12),
Beroaldus already has the reading of _P_. Of the remaining seven,
however, all of which Aldus adopted, there is no trace in Budaeus. There
are also nineteen cases of obvious error in the ς editions, which
Aldus corrected but Budaeus did not touch. I give the complete
apparatus[61] for these twenty-six places, as they will illustrate the
radical difference between Aldus and Budaeus in their use of the
Parisinus.
[Footnote 60: See above, p. 47.]
[Footnote 61: The readings of manuscripts are taken from Merrill,
those of the editions from Keil; in the latter case, I use
parentheses if the reading is only implied, not stated.]
60, 15 duplicia] _MVDrς_
duplicata _ΠBFGpa_
61, 12 confusa adhuc] _MVς_
adhuc confusa _ΠBFGpra_
18 milia passuum tria nec] _ΠBFMV_(_p_?)_a_
milia passum tria et nec _D_
mille pastria nec _r_
mille pas. nec _ς_
62, 6 doctissime] _MVς_
et doctissime _r_
doctissima _ΠBFDa_
et doctissima _p_
26 igitur eundem mihi cursum, eundem] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_
igitur et eundem mihi cursum et eundem _rς_
fuit (25)--potes (64, 12) _om. MV_
63, 2 MAXIMO] _ΠBFDG_(_pr?_)_a_
Valerio Max. _ς_
Gauio Maximo _Catanaeus_
4 Arrianus Maturus] _ΠBFDra_
arianus maturus _Gp_
Arrianus Maturius _ς_
5 est] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ _om. r Ber._
9 ardentibus dicere] _ΠBFDG_(_r_?)_a_
dicere ardentius _pς_
12 excolendusque] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_
extollendusque _Grς_
15 conferas in eum] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_
in eum conferas _Grς_
17 excipit] _ΠBFD_(_p_?)_a_
accipit _rς_
quam si] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_
quasi si _r_
quasi _Laet._, _Ber._
20 CORELLIAE HISPULLAE SUAE] CORELLIAE _ΠB_
AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE _ind. ΠB_
CORELLIE ISPULLAE _F_ CORELLIAE HISPULLAE _a_
corneliae (Coreliae _Catanaeus_) hispullae (suae _add. Do_)
_DGprς_
22 teque et] _DG_(_p_?)_[sigma]_
teque _ΠBFra_
23 et in] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_
et _rς_
diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_
diligam et cupiam necesse est etiam _r_
diligam atque etiam cupiam nececesse (_sic_) est etiam _Ber._
64, 2 erroribus modica vel etiam nulla] _BFDG_(_p_?)_a_
(_ex_ ERRORIB·MODICAESTETIAMNULLA _m. 2_)_Π_
erroribus uel modica uel nulla _r_
erroribus modica uel nulla _Ber._
uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla _vulgo_
5 fortunaeque] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_
form(a)eque _r_ _Ber._
65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali _D_) _DGp_
alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_
alii quidam (quidem _Catanaeus_) minores sed tam
(tamen _rς_) innumeri _MVrς_
15 superiore] _MVDς_
priore _ΠBFGra_ prior _p_
24 iam] _MVDG_(_pr_?)_ς_ _om._ _ΠBFa_
66, 7 sint omnes] _ΠBFMVDG_(_pr_?)_a_
sint _ς_
9 haec quoque] _ΠBFDVGra_
hoc quoque _M_
hic quoque _p_
haec _ς_
11 Pomponi] _ΠBMVo_
Pomponii _FDpra_
Q. Pomponii _ς_
12 amatus] _ΠFDG_(_pr_?)_a_
est amatus _MVς_
amatus est _corr. m. 1_ _B_
Here is sufficient material for a test. Aldus, it will be observed,
whether or not he started with some special edition, refuses to
follow the latest and best texts of his day (i.e., _ς_) in these
twenty-six readings. In one sure case (60, 15) and eleven possible[62]
cases (61, 18; 62, 26; 63, 5, 12, 15, 17 _bis_, 23 _bis_; 64, 2, 5), his
reading agrees with the Princeps. In four sure cases (63, 4, 22; 65, 15;
66, 9) and one possible one (63, 9), he agrees with the Roman edition;
in two sure (61, 12; 66, 11) and three possible (63, 2; 66, 7, 12)
cases, with both _p_ and _r_. Once he breaks away from all editions
reported by Keil and agrees with _D_ (62, 6). At the same time, all
these readings are attested by _ΠFB_ and hence were presumably in the
Parisinus. In two cases (65, 11, 24), we know of no source other than
_P_ that could have furnished him his reading. Further, in the
superscription of the third letter of Book III (63, 20), he might have
taken a hint from Catanaeus, who was the first to depart from the
reading CORNELIAE, universally accepted before him, but again it is only
_P_ that could give him the correct spelling CORELLIAE.[63]
[Footnote 62: I say “possible” because the reading is implied, not
stated, in Keil’s edition. The reading of Beroaldus on 63, 23 I get
from our photograph, not from Keil, who does not give it.]
[Footnote 63: I have purposely omitted to treat Aldus’s use of the
superscriptions in _P_, as that matter is best reserved for a
consideration of the superscriptions in general.]
If all the above readings, then, were in the Parisinus, how did Aldus
arrive at them? Did he fish round, now in the Princeps, now in the Roman
edition, despite the repellent errors that those texts contained,[64]
and extract with felicitous accuracy excellent readings that coincided
with those of the Parisinus, or did he draw them straight from that
source itself? The crucial cases are 65, 11 and 24. As he must have gone
to the Parisinus for these readings, he presumably found the others
there, too. Moreover, he did not get his new variants by a merely
sporadic consultation of the ancient book when he was dissatisfied with
the accepted text of his day, for in the two crucial cases and many of
the others, too, that text makes sense; some of the readings, indeed,
are accepted by modern editors as correct.[65] Aldus was collating.
He carefully noted minutiae, such as the omission of _et_ and _iam_,
and accepted what he found, unless the ancient text seemed to him
indisputably wrong. He gave it the benefit of the doubt even when it may
be wrong. This is the method of a scrupulous editor who cherishes a
proper veneration for his oldest and best authority.
[Footnote 64: See above, p. 58.]
[Footnote 65: See above, pp. 47 f.]
Budaeus, on the other hand, is not an editor. He is a vastly interested
reader of Pliny, frequently commenting on the subject-matter or calling
attention to it by marginal signs. As for the text, he generally finds
Beroaldus good enough. He corrects misprints, makes a conjecture now and
then, or adopts one of Catanaeus, and, besides supplementing the missing
portions with transcripts made for him from the Parisinus, inserts
numerous variants, some of which indubitably come from that
manuscript.[66] In the present section, occupying 251 lines in _Π_,
there is only one reading of the Parisinus--a false reading, it
happens--that seems to Budaeus worth recording. Compared with what Aldus
gleaned from _Π_, Budaeus’s extracts are insignificant. It is
remarkable, for instance, that on a passage (65, 11) which, as the
appended obelus shows, he must have read with attention, he has not
added the very different reading of the Parisinus. Either, then, Budaeus
did not consult the Parisinus with care, or he did not think the great
majority of its readings preferable to the text of Beroaldus, or, as I
think may well have been the case, he had neither the manuscript itself
nor an entire copy of it accessible at the time when he added his
variants in his combined edition of Beroaldus and Avantius.[67]
[Footnote 66: See Merrill, “Zur frühen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des
Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan,” in _Wiener Studien_ XXXI
(1909), p. 257; _C.P._ II, p. 154; XIV, p. 30 f. Two examples (216,
23 and 227, 18) will be noted in plate XVII a.]
[Footnote 67: Certain errors of the scribe who wrote the additional
pages in the Bodleian book warrant the surmise that he was copying
not the Parisinus itself, but some copy of it. Thus in 227, 14
(see plate XVII b) we find him writing _Tamen_ for _tum_, Budaeus
correcting this error in the margin. A scribe is of course capable
of anything, but with an uncial _tum_ to start from, _tamen_ is not
a natural mistake to commit; it would rather appear that the scribe
falsely resolved a minuscule abbreviation.]
But I do not mean to present here a final estimate of Budaeus; for that,
I hope, we may look to Professor Merrill. Nor do I particularly blame
Budaeus for not constructing a new text from the wealth of material
disclosed in the Parisinus. His interests lay elsewhere; _suos quoique
mos_. What I mean to say, and to say with some conviction, is that for
the portion of text included in our fragment, the evidence of that
fragment, coupled with that of _B_ and _F_, shows that as a witness to
the ancient manuscript Aldus is overwhelmingly superior to either
Budaeus or any of the ancient editors.
Our examination of the Morgan fragment, therefore, leads to what I deem
a highly probable conclusion. We could perhaps hope for absolute proof
in a matter of this kind only if another page of the same manuscript
should appear, bearing a note in the hand of Aldus Manutius to the
effect that he had used the codex for his edition of 1508. Failing that,
we can at least point out that all the data accessible comport with the
hypothesis that the Morgan fragment was a part of this very codex. We
have set our hypothesis running a lengthy gauntlet of facts, and none
has tripped it yet. We have also seen that _Π_ is most intimately
connected with manuscripts _BF_ of Class I, and indeed seems to be a
part of the very manuscript whence they are descended. Finally, a
careful comparison of Aldus’s text with _Π_ shows him, for this much
of the _Letters_ at least, to be a scrupulous and conscientious editor.
His method is to follow _Π_ throughout, save when, confronted by its
obvious blunders, he has recourse to the editions of his day.
[Sidenote: _The latest criticism of Aldus_]
Since the publication of Otto’s article in 1886,[68] in which the author
defended the _F_ branch against that of _MV_, to which, as the elder
representative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred,
critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearance
of _B_ greatly helped, as it corroborates the testimony of _F_. _B_ and
_F_ head the list of the manuscripts used by Kukula in his edition of
1912,[69] and _B_ and _F_ with Aldus’s Parisinus make up Class I, not
Class II, in Merrill’s grouping of the manuscripts. Obviously, the value
of Class I mounts higher still now that we have evidence in the Morgan
fragment of its existence in the early sixth century. This fact helps us
to decide the question of glosses in our text. We are more than ever
disposed to attribute not to _BF_ but to what has now become the
younger branch of the tradition, Class II, the tendency to interpolate
explanatory glosses. The changed attitude towards the _BF_ branch has
naturally resulted in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seen
in the portion included in _Π_ that of the eleven readings which Keil
regarded as errors of the _F_ branch, three are accepted by Kukula and
five by Merrill.[70]
[Footnote 68: “Die Ueberlieferung der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius,”
in _Hermes_ XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff.]
[Footnote 69: See p. iv.]
[Footnote 70: See above, pp. 47 f.]
Since Class I has thus appreciated in value, we should expect that
Aldus’s stock would also take an upward turn. In Aldus’s lifetime,
curiously, he was criticized for excessive conservatism. His rival
Catanaeus finds his chief quality _supina ignorantia_ and adds:[71]
“Verum enim uero non satis est recuperare venerandae vetustatis
exemplaria, nisi etiam simul adsit acre emendatoris iudicium:
quoniam et veteres librarii in voluminibus describendis saepissime
falsi sunt, et Plinius ipse scripta sua se viuo deprauari in
quadam epistola demonstrauerit.”
[Footnote 71: See the prefatory letter in his edition of 1518.]
Nowadays, however, editors hesitate to accept an unsupported reading of
Aldus as that of the Parisinus, since they believe that he abounds in
those very conjectures of which Catanaeus felt the lack. The attitude of
the expert best qualified to judge is still one of suspicion towards
Aldus. In his most recent article,[72] Professor Merrill declares that
Keil’s remarks[73] on the procedure of Aldus in the part of Book X
already edited by Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus might safely have
been extended to cover the work of Aldus on the entire body of the
_Letters_. He proceeds to subject Aldus to a new test, the material for
which we owe to Merrill’s own researches. He compares with Aldus’s text
the manuscript parts of the Bodleian volume, which are apparently
transcripts from the Parisinus (= _I_);[74] in them Budaeus with his own
hand (= _i_) has corrected on the authority of the Parisinus itself,
according to Merrill, the errors of his transcriber. In a few instances,
Merrill allows, Budaeus has substituted conjectures of his own. This
material, obviously, offers a valuable criterion of Aldus’s methods as
an editor. There is a further criterion in the shape of Codex _M_, not
utilized till after Aldus’s edition. As this manuscript represents Class
II, concurrences between _M_ and _Ii_ against _a_ make it tolerably
certain that Aldus himself and no higher authority is responsible for
such readings. On this basis, Merrill cites twenty-five readings in the
added part of Book VIII (viii, 3 _quas obvias_--xviii, II _amplissimos
hortos_) and nineteen readings in the added part of Book X (letters
iv-xli), which represent examples “wherein Aldus abandons indubitably
satisfactory readings of his only and much belauded manuscript in favor
of conjectures of his own.”[75] Letter IX xvi, a very short affair,
added by Budaeus in the margin, contains no indictment against Aldus.
[Footnote 72: _C.P._ XIV (1919), pp. 29 ff.]
[Footnote 73: _Op. cit._, p. xxxvii: nam ea quae aliter in Aldina
editione atque in illis (i.e., Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus)
exhibentur ita comparata sunt omnia, ut coniectura potius inventa
quam e codice profecta esse existimanda sint et plura quidem in
pravis et temerariis interpolationibus versantur.]
[Footnote 74: But see above, p. 62, n. 2.]
[Footnote 75: Pp. 31 ff.]
[Sidenote: _Aldus’s methods in the newly discovered parts of Books VIII,
IX, and X_]
The result of this exposure, Professor Merrill declares, should convince
“any unprejudiced student” of the question that “Aldus stands clearly
convicted of being an extremely unsafe textual critic of Pliny’s
_Letters_.”[76] “This conclusion does not depend, as that of Keil
necessarily did, on any native or acquired acuteness of critical
perception. The wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.”[77]
I speak as a wayfarer, but nevertheless I must own that Professor
Merrill’s path of argument causes me to stumble. I readily admit that
Aldus, in editing a portion of text that no man had put into print
before him, fell back on conjecture when his authority seemed not to
make sense. But Merrill’s lists need revision. He has included with
Aldus’s “willful deviations” from the true text of _P_ certain readings
that almost surely were misprints (218, 12; 220, 3), some that may well
be (as 217, 28; 221, 12), one case in which Aldus has retained an error
of _P_ while _I_ emends (221, 11), and several cases in which Aldus and
_I_ or _i_ emend in different ways an error of _P_ (222, 14; 226, 5;
272, 4--not 5). In one case he misquotes Aldus, when the latter really
has the reading that both Merrill and Keil indicate as correct (276,
21); in another he fails to remark that Aldus’s erroneous reading is
supported by _M_ (219,17). However, even after discounting these and
possibly other instances, a significant array of conjectures remains.
Still, it is not fair to call the Parisinus Aldus’s _only_ manuscript.
We know that he had other material in the six volumes of manuscripts and
collated editions sent him by Giocondo, as well as the latter’s copy of
_P_. There could hardly have been in this number a source superior to
the Parisinus, but Giocondo may have added here and there his own or
others’ conjectures, which Aldus adopted unwisely, but at least not
solely on his own authority; the most apparent case of interpolation
(224, 8) Keil thought might have been a conjecture of Giocondo’s.
Further, if the general character of _P_ is represented in _Π_, Book
X, as well as the beginning of Book III, may have had variants by the
second hand, sometimes taken by Aldus and neglected, wisely, by
Budaeus’s transcriber.
[Footnote 76: P. 33.]
[Footnote 77: P. 30.]
[Sidenote: _The Morgan fragment the best criterion of Aldus_]
With the discovery of the Morgan fragment, a new criterion of Aldus is
offered. I believe that it is the surest starting-point from which to
investigate Aldus’s relation to his ancient manuscript. I admit that for