A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger Part 1

A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger.

by Elias Avery Lowe and Edward Kennard Rand.

PREFATORY NOTE.

The Pierpont Morgan Library, itself a work of art, contains masterpieces of painting and sculpture, rare books, and illuminated ma.n.u.scripts.

Scholars generally are perhaps not aware that it also possesses the oldest Latin ma.n.u.scripts in America, including several that even the greatest European libraries would be proud to own. The collection is also admirably representative of the development of script throughout the Middle Ages. It comprises specimens of the uncial hand, the half-uncial, the Merovingian minuscule of the Luxeuil type, the script of the famous school of Tours, the St. Gall type, the Irish and Visigothic hands, and the Beneventan and Anglo-Saxon scripts.

Among the oldest ma.n.u.scripts of the library, in fact the oldest, is a hitherto unnoticed fragment of great significance not only to palaeographers, but to all students of the cla.s.sics. It consists of six leaves of an early sixth-century ma.n.u.script of the _Letters_ of the younger Pliny. This new witness to the text, older by three centuries than the oldest codex heretofore used by any modern editor, has reappeared in this unexpected quarter, after centuries of wandering and hiding. The fragment was bought by the late J. Pierpont Morgan in Rome, in December 1910, from the art dealer Imbert; he had obtained it from De Marinis, of Florence, who had it from the heirs of the Marquis Taccone, of Naples. Nothing is known of the rest of the ma.n.u.script.

The present writers had the good fortune to visit the Pierpont Morgan Library in 1915. One of the first ma.n.u.scripts put into their hands was this early sixth-century fragment of Pliny's _Letters_, which forms the subject of the following pages. Having received permission to study the ma.n.u.script and publish results, they lost no time in acquainting cla.s.sical scholars with this important find. In December of the same year, at the joint meeting of the American Archaeological and Philological a.s.sociations, held at Princeton University, two papers were read, one concerning the palaeographical, the other the textual, importance of the fragment. The two studies which follow, Part I by Doctor Lowe, Part II by Professor Rand, are an elaboration of the views presented at the meeting. Some months after the present volume was in the form of page-proof, Professor E.T. Merrill's long-expected edition of Pliny's _Letters_ appeared (Teubner, Leipsic, 1922). We regret that we could not avail ourselves of it in time to introduce certain changes.

The reader will still find Pliny cited by the pages of Keil, and in general he should regard the date of our production as 1921 rather than 1922.

The writers wish to express their grat.i.tude for the privilege of visiting the Pierpont Morgan Library and making full use of its facilities. For permission to publish the ma.n.u.script they are indebted to the generous interest of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. They also desire to make cordial acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness of the Librarian, Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and her a.s.sistant, Miss Ada Thurston. Lastly, the writers wish to thank the Carnegie Inst.i.tution of Washington for accepting their joint study for publication and for their liberality in permitting them to give all the facsimiles necessary to ill.u.s.trate the discussion.

E. K. RAND.

E. A. LOWE.

PART I.

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT

by

E. A. LOWE

THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF THE MORGAN FRAGMENT.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAGMENT.

[Sidenote: _Contents size vellum binding_]

The Morgan fragment of Pliny the Younger contains the end of Book II and the beginning of Book III of the _Letters_ (II, xx. 13-III, v. 4).

The fragment consists of six vellum leaves, or twelve pages, which apparently formed part of a gathering or quire of the original volume.

The leaves measure 11-3/8 by 7 inches (286 x 180 millimeters); the written s.p.a.ce measures 7-1/4 by 4-3/8 inches (175 x 114 millimeters); outer margin, 1-7/8 inches (50 millimeters); inner, 3/4 inch (18 millimeters); upper margin, 1-3/4 inches (45 millimeters); lower, 2-1/4 inches (60 millimeters).

The vellum is well prepared and of medium thickness. The leaves are bound in a modern pliable vellum binding with three blank vellum fly-leaves in front and seven in back, all modern. On the inside of the front cover is the book-plate of John Pierpont Morgan, showing the Morgan arms with the device: _Onward and Upward_. Under the book-plate is the press-mark M.462.

[Sidenote: _Ruling_]

There are twenty-seven horizontal lines to a page and two vertical bounding lines. The lines were ruled with a hard point on the flesh side, each opened sheet being ruled separately: 48v and 53r, 49r and 52v, 50v and 51r. The horizontal lines were guided by knife-slits made in the outside margins quite close to the text s.p.a.ce; the two vertical lines were guided by two slits in the upper margin and two in the lower.

The horizontal lines were drawn across the open sheets and extended occasionally beyond the slits, more often just beyond the perpendicular bounding lines. The written s.p.a.ce was kept inside the vertical bounding lines except for the initial letter of each epistle; the first letter of the address and the first letter of the epistle proper projected into the left margin. Here and there the scribe transgressed beyond the bounding line. On the whole, however, he observed the limits and seemed to prefer to leave a blank before the bounding line rather than to crowd the syllable into the s.p.a.ce or go beyond the vertical line.

[Sidenote: _Relation of the six leaves to the rest of the ma.n.u.script_]

One might suppose that the six leaves once formed a complete gathering of the original book, especially as the first and last pages, folios 48r and 53v have a darker appearance, as though they had been the outside leaves of a gathering that had been affected by exposure. But this darker appearance is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that both pages are on the hair side of the parchment, and the hair side is always darker than the flesh side. Quires of six leaves or trinions are not unknown. Examples of them may be found in our oldest ma.n.u.scripts. But they are the exception.[1] The customary quire is a gathering of eight leaves, forming a quaternion proper. It would be natural, therefore, to suppose that our fragment did not const.i.tute a complete gathering in itself but formed part of a quaternion. The supposition is confirmed by the following considerations:

[Footnote 1: For example, in the fifth-century ma.n.u.script of Livy in Paris (MS. lat. 5730) the forty-third and forty-fifth quires are composed of six leaves, while the rest are all quires of eight.]

In the first place, if our six leaves were once a part of a quaternion, the two leaves needed to complete them must have formed the outside sheet, since our fragment furnishes a continuous text without any lacuna whatever. Now, in the formation of quires, sheets were so arranged that hair side faced hair side, and flesh side flesh side. This arrangement is dictated by a sense of uniformity. As the hair side is usually much darker than the flesh side the juxtaposition of hair and flesh sides would offend the eye. So, in the case of our six leaves, folios 48v and 53r, presenting the flesh side, face folios 49r and 52v likewise on the flesh side; and folios 49v and 52r presenting the hair side, face folios 50r and 51v likewise on the hair side. The inside pages 50v and 51r which face each other, are both flesh side, and the outside pages 48r and 53v are both hair side, as may be seen from the accompanying diagram.

(47) 48 49 50 51 52 53 (54) : | | | : | | | : : | | | Flesh : Flesh | | | : : | | +-------:-------+ | | : : | | Hair : Hair | | : : | | : | | : : | | Hair : Hair | | : : | +------------:------------+ | : : | Flesh : Flesh | : : | : | : : | Flesh : Flesh | : : +-----------------:-----------------+ : : Hair : Hair : : : : : Hair : Hair : : - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - : Flesh Flesh

From this arrangement it is evident that if our fragment once formed part of a quaternion the missing sheet was so folded that its hair side faced the present outside sheet and its flesh side was on the outside of the whole gathering. Now, it was by far the more usual practice in our oldest uncial ma.n.u.scripts to have the flesh side on the outside of the quire.[2] And as our fragment belongs to the oldest cla.s.s of uncial ma.n.u.scripts, the manner of arranging the sheets of quires seems to favor the supposition that two outside leaves are missing. The hypothesis is, moreover, strengthened by another consideration. According to the foliation supplied by the fifteenth-century Arabic numerals, the leaf which must have followed our fragment bore the number 54, the leaf preceding it having the number 47. If we a.s.sume that our fragment was a complete gathering, we are obliged to explain why the next gathering began on a leaf bearing an even number (54), which is abnormal. We do not have to contend with this difficulty if we a.s.sume that folios 47 and 54 formed the outside sheet of our fragment, for six quires of eight leaves and one of six would give precisely 54 leaves. It seems, therefore, reasonable to a.s.sume that our fragment is not a complete unit, but formed part of a quaternion, the outside sheet of which is missing.

[Footnote 2: In an examination of all the uncial ma.n.u.scripts in the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, it was found that out of twenty ma.n.u.scripts that may be ascribed to the fifth and sixth centuries only two had the hair side on the outside of the quires. Out of thirty written approximately between A.D. 600 and 800, about half showed the same practice, the other half having the hair side outside. Thus the practice of our oldest Latin scribes agrees with that of the Greek: see C.R. Gregory, "Les cahiers des ma.n.u.scrits grecs" in _Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_ (1885), p. 261. I am informed by Professor Hyvernat, of the Catholic University of Washington, that the same custom is observed by Coptic scribes.]

[Sidenote: _Original size of the ma.n.u.script_]

In the fifteenth century, as the previous demonstration has made clear, our fragment was preceded by 47 leaves that are missing to-day. With this clue in our possession it can be demonstrated that the ma.n.u.script began with the first book of the _Letters_. We start with the fact that not all the 47 folios (or 94 pages) which preceded our six leaves were devoted to the text of the _Letters_. For, from the contents of our six leaves we know that each book must have been preceded by an index of addresses and first lines. The indices for Books I and II, if arranged in general like that of Book III, must have occupied four pages.[3] We also learn from our fragment that s.p.a.ce must be allowed for a colophon at the end of each book. One page for the colophons of Books I and II is a reasonable allowance. Accordingly it follows that out of the 94 pages preceding our fragment 5 were not devoted to text, or in other words that only 89 pages were thus devoted.

[Footnote 3: The confused arrangement of the indices for Books I and II in the Codex Bellovacensis may well have been found in the ma.n.u.script of which the Morgan fragment is a part. The s.p.a.ce required for the indices, however, would not have greatly differed from that taken by the index of Book III in both the Morgan fragment and the Codex Bellovacensis.]

Now, if we compare pages in our ma.n.u.script with pages of a printed text we find that the average page in our ma.n.u.script corresponds to about 19 lines of the Teubner edition of 1912. If we multiply 89 by 19 we get 1691. This number of lines of the size of the Teubner edition should, if our calculation be correct, contain the text of the _Letters_ preceding our fragment. The average page of the Teubner edition of 1912 of the part which interests us contains a little over 29 lines. If we divide 1691 by 29 we get 58.3. Just 58 pages of Teubner text are occupied by the 47 leaves which preceded our fragment. So close a conformity is sufficient to prove our point. We have possibly allowed too much s.p.a.ce for indices and colophons, especially if the former covered less ground for Books I and II than for Book III. Further, owing to the abbreviation of _que_ and _bus_, and particularly of official t.i.tles, we can not expect a closer agreement.

It is not worth while to attempt a more elaborate calculation. With the edges matching so nearly, it is obvious that the original ma.n.u.script as known and used in the fifteenth century could not have contained some other work, however brief, before Book I of Pliny's _Letters_. If the ma.n.u.script contained the entire ten books it consisted of about 260 leaves. This sum is obtained by counting the number of lines in the Teubner edition of 1912, dividing this sum by 19, and adding thereto pages for colophons and indices. It would be too bold to suppose that this calculation necessarily gives us the original size of the ma.n.u.script, since the ma.n.u.script may have had less than ten books, or it may, on the other hand, have had other works. But if it contained only the ten books of the _Letters_, then 260 folios is an approximately correct estimate of its size.

It is hard to believe that only six leaves of the original ma.n.u.script have escaped destruction. The fact that the outside sheet (foll. 48r and 53v) is not much worn nor badly soiled suggests that the gathering of six leaves must have been torn from the ma.n.u.script not so very long ago and that the remaining portions may some day be found.

[Sidenote: _Disposition_]

The pages in our ma.n.u.script are written in long lines,[4] in _scriptura continua_, with hardly any punctuation.

[Footnote 4: Many of our oldest Latin ma.n.u.scripts have two and even three columns on a page, a practice evidently taken over from the roll. But very ancient ma.n.u.scripts are not wanting which are written in long lines, _e.g._, the Codex Vindobonensis of Livy, the Codex Bobiensis of the Gospels, or the ma.n.u.script of Pliny's _Natural History_ preserved at St. Paul in Carinthia.]

Each page begins with a large letter, even though that letter occur in the body of a word (cf. foll. 48r, 51v, 52r).[5]

[Footnote 5: This is an ear-mark of great antiquity. It is found, for example, in the Berlin and Vatican Schedae Vergilianae in square capitals (Berlin lat. 2 416 and Rome Vatic. lat. 3256 reproduced in Zangemeister and Wattenbach's _Exempla Codic.u.m Latinorum_, etc., pl.

14, and in Steffens, _Lateinische Palaographie_, pl. 12b), in the Vienna, Paris, and Lateran ma.n.u.scripts of Livy, in the Codex Corbeiensis of the Gospels, and here and there in the palimpsest ma.n.u.script of Cicero's _De Re Publica_ and in other ma.n.u.scripts.]

Each epistle begins with a large letter. The line containing the address which precedes each epistle also begins with a large letter. In both cases the large letter projects into the left margin.

The running t.i.tle at the top of each page is in small rustic capitals.[6] On the verso of each folio stands the word EPISTVLARVM; on the recto of the following folio stands the number of the book, _e.g._, LIB. II, LIB. III.

[Footnote 6: In many of our oldest ma.n.u.scripts uncials are employed.

The Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia agrees with our ma.n.u.script in using rustic capitals. For facsimiles see J. Sillig, _C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae_, Libri x.x.xVI, Vol. VI, Gotha 1855, and Chatelain, _Paleographie des Cla.s.siques Latins_, pl.

Cx.x.xVI.]