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
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.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account