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
[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_]
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