Chapter V: Part II: The Text of the Morgan Fragment (2)

[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