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
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_]
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