authorities for the Parisinus than is Aldus. I admit that Aldus resorted
throughout the text of the _Letters_--in some cases unhappily--to the
customary editorial privilege of emendation. But I nevertheless maintain
that for the entire text he is a much better authority than the Bodleian
volume as a whole, and that he should be given, not absolute confidence,
but far more confidence than editors have thus far allowed him. Nor is
the section of text preserved in the fragment of small significance for
our purpose. Indeed, both for Aldus and in general, I think it even more
valuable than a corresponding amount of Book X would be. We could wish
that it were longer, but at least it includes a number of crucial
readings and above all vouches for the existence of the indices some two
hundred years before the date previously assigned for their compilation.
It also supplies a final confirmation of the value of Class I; indeed,
_B_ and _F_, the manuscripts of this class, appear to have descended
from the very manuscript of which _Π_ was a part. We see still more
clearly than before that _BF_ can be used elsewhere in the _Letters_ as
a test of Aldus, and we also note that these manuscripts contain errors
not in the Parisinus. This is a highly important factor for forming a
true estimate of Aldus and one that we could not deduce from a fragment
of Book X, which _BF_ do not contain.
[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]
I conclude, then, that the Morgan fragment is a piece of the Parisinus,
and that we may compare with Aldus’s text the very words which he
studied out, carefully collated, and treated with a decent respect. On
the basis of the new information furnished us by the fragment, I shall
endeavor, at some future time, to confirm my present judgement of Aldus
by testing him in the entire text of Pliny’s _Letters_. Further, despite
Merrill’s researches and his brilliant analysis, I am not convinced that
the last word has been spoken on the nature of the transcript made for
Budaeus and incorporated in the Bodleian volume. I will not, however,
venture on this broad field until Professor Merrill, who has the first
right to speak, is enabled to give to the world his long-expected
edition. Meanwhile, if my view is right, we owe to the acquisition of
the ancient fragment by the Pierpont Morgan Library a new confidence in
the integrity of Aldus, a clearer understanding of the history of the
_Letters_ in the early Middle Ages, and a surer method of editing their
text.
DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.
Nos. I-XII. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462. A
fragment of 12 pages of an uncial manuscript of the early sixth century.
The fragment contains Pliny’s _Letters_, Book II, xx. 13--Book III, v.
4. For a detailed description, see above, pp. 3 ff. The entire fragment
is here given, very slightly reduced. The exact size of the script is
shown in Plate XX.
XIII-XIV. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. Ashburnham R 98, known as
Codex Bellovacensis (_B_) or Riccardianus (_R_), written in Caroline
minuscule of the ninth century. See above, p. 44. Our plates reproduce
fols. 9 and 9v (slightly reduced), containing the end of Book II and the
beginning of Book III.
XV-XVI. Florence, Laurentian Library MS. San Marco 284, written in
Caroline minuscule of the tenth century. See above, pp. 44 f. Our plates
reproduce fols. 56v and 57r, containing the end of Book II and the
beginning of Book III.
XVII-XVIII. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. L 4. 3. See above, pp. 39 f.
The lacuna in Book VIII (216, 27-227, 10 Keil) is indicated by a cross
(+) on fol. 136v (plate XVIIa). The missing text is supplied on added
leaves by the hand shown on plate XVIIb (= fol. 144). The variants are
in the hand of Budaeus. Plate XVIII contains fols. 32v and 33, showing
the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.
XIX. Aldine edition of Pliny’s _Letters_, Venice 1508. Our plate
reproduces the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III.
XX. Specimens of three uncial manuscripts:
(_a_) Berlin, Königl. Bibl. Lat. 4º 298, _circa a._ 447.
(_b_) New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M. 462, _circa
a._ 500 (exact size).
(_c_) Fulda, Codex Bonifatianus 1, _ante a._ 547.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
{Transcriber’s Corrections:
PART I:
Footnote 29:
Steffens, _Lateinische Paläographie²_
_text reads_ Palaographie
_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.5
...Über den Ältesten...
_text reads_ uber den altesten
_Oldest group of uncial manuscripts_ B.9
Les manuscrits latins du Ve au XIIIe siècle conservés...
_text reads_ conserves
Footnote 32:
Recueil de Fac-similés
_text reads_ Receuil
PART II:
Footnote 28:
Briefe des Plinius
_text reads_ Plinus }