A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger: A Study of Six Leaves of an Uncial Manuscript Preserved; in the Pierpont Morgan Library New YorkRand, Edward Kennard
General
A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger: A Study of Six Leaves of an Uncial Manuscript Preserved; in the Pierpont Morgan Library New York
Rand, Edward Kennard
Manuscripts, Latin -- Facsimiles; Manuzio, Aldo, 1449 or 50-1515; Paleography, Latin; Pliny, the Younger -- Correspondence
2. Technical or recurrent terms which occur in the colophons at the end
of each book and at the end of letters, as:
·EXP· = EXPLICIT
·INC· = INCIPIT
LIB· = LIBER
VAL· = VALE[17]
[Footnote 17: The abbreviation is indicated by a stroke above the
letters as well as by a dot after them.]
3. Purely arbitrary suspensions which occur only in the index of
addresses preceding each book, suspensions which would never occur in
the body of the text, as: SUETON TRANQUE,[18] UESTRIC SPURINN·
[Footnote 18: An ancestor of our manuscript must have had TRANQ·,
which was wrongly expanded to TRANQUE.]
4. Omitted _M_ at the end of a line, omitted _N_ at the end of a line,
the omission being indicated by means of a horizontal stroke, thickened
at either end, which is placed over the space immediately following the
final vowel.[19] This omission may occur in the middle of a word but
only at the end of a line.
[Footnote 19: This is a sign of antiquity. After the sixth century
the _M_ or _N_stroke is usually placed above the vowel. The practice
of confining the omission of _M_ or _N_ to the end of a line is a
characteristic of our very oldest manuscripts. Later manuscripts
omit _M_ or _N_ in the middle of a line and in the middle of a word.
No distinction is made in our manuscript between omitted _M_ and
omitted _N_. Some ancient manuscripts make a distinction. Cf.
Traube, _Nomina Sacra_, pp. 179, 181, 183, 185, final column of each
page; and W.M. Lindsay, _Notae Latinae_, pp. 342 and 345.]
[Sidenote: _Authenticity of the six leaves_]
The sudden appearance in America of a portion of a very ancient
classical manuscript unknown to modern editors may easily arouse
suspicion in the minds of some scholars. Our experience with the
“Anonymus Cortesianus” has taught us to be wary,[20] and it is natural
to demand proof establishing the genuineness of the new fragment.[21] As
to the six leaves of the Morgan Pliny, it may be said unhesitatingly
that no one with experience of ancient Latin manuscripts could entertain
any doubt as to their genuineness. The look and feel of the parchment,
the ink, the script, the titles, colophons, ornamentation, corrections,
and later additions, all bear the indisputable marks of genuine
antiquity.
[Footnote 20: The fraudulent character of the alleged discovery
was exposed in masterly fashion by Ludwig Traube in his
“Palaeographische Forschungen IV,” published in the _Abhandlungen
der K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_, III Klasse, XXIV
Band, 1 Abteilung, Munich 1904.]
[Footnote 21: Cf. E.T. Merrill, “On the use by Aldus of his
manuscripts of Pliny’s _Letters_,” in _Classical Philology_, XIV
(1919), p. 34.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account