A Sixth-Century Fragment of the Letters of Pliny the Younger Part 2

No distinction is made in our ma.n.u.script between omitted _M_ and omitted _N_. Some ancient ma.n.u.scripts 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 cla.s.sical ma.n.u.script unknown to modern editors may easily arouse suspicion in the minds of some scholars. Our experience with the "Anonymus Cortesia.n.u.s" has taught us to be wary,[20] and it is natural to demand proof establis.h.i.+ng 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 ma.n.u.scripts could entertain any doubt as to their genuineness. The look and feel of the parchment, the ink, the script, the t.i.tles, 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 fas.h.i.+on by Ludwig Traube in his "Palaeographische Forschungen IV," published in the _Abhandlungen der K. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_, III Kla.s.se, XXIV Band, 1 Abteilung, Munich 1904.]

[Footnote 21: Cf. E.T. Merrill, "On the use by Aldus of his ma.n.u.scripts of Pliny's _Letters_," in _Cla.s.sical Philology_, XIV (1919), p. 34.]

But it may be objected that a clever forger possessing a knowledge of palaeography would be able to reproduce all these features of ancient ma.n.u.scripts. This objection can hardly be sustained. It is difficult to believe that any modern could reproduce faithfully all the characteristics of sixth-century uncials and fifteenth-century notarial writing without unconsciously falling into some error and betraying his modernity. Besides, there is one consideration which to my mind establishes the genuineness of our fragment beyond a peradventure. We have seen above that the leaves of our ma.n.u.script are so arranged that hair side faces hair side and flesh side faces flesh side. The visible effect of this arrangement is that two pages of clear writing alternate with two pages of faded writing, the faded appearance being caused by the ink scaling off from the less porous surface of the flesh side of the vellum.[22] As a matter of fact, the flesh side of the vellum showed faded writing long before modern time. To judge by the retouched characters on fol. 53r it would seem that the original writing had become illegible by the eighth or ninth century.[23] Still, a considerable period of time would, so far as we know, be necessary for this process. It is highly improbable that a forger could devise this method of giving his forgery the appearance of antiquity, and even if he attempted it, it is safe to say that the present effect would not be produced in the time that elapsed before the book was sold to Mr.

Morgan.

[Footnote 22: That the hair side of the vellum retained the ink better than the flesh side may be seen from an examination of facsimiles in the Leyden series _Codices graeci et latini photographice depicti_.]

[Footnote 23: That the ink could scale off the flesh side of the vellum in less than three centuries is proved by the condition of the famous Tacitus ma.n.u.script in Beneventan script in the Laurentian Library. It was written in the eleventh century and shows retouched characters of the thirteenth. See foll. 102, 103 in the facsimile edition in the Leyden series mentioned in the previous note.]

But let us a.s.sume, for the sake of argument, that the Morgan fragment is a modern forgery. We are then constrained to credit the forger not only with a knowledge of palaeography which is simply faultless, but, as will be shown in the second part, with a minute acquaintance with the criticism and the history of the text. And this forger did not try to attain fame or academic standing by his nefarious doings, as was the case with the Roman author of the forged "Anonymus Cortesia.n.u.s," for nothing was heard of this Morgan fragment till it had reached the library of the American collector. If his motive was monetary gain he chose a long and arduous path to attain it. It is hardly conceivable that he should take the trouble to make all the errors and omissions found in our twelve pages and all the additions and corrections representing different ages, different styles, when less than half the number would have served to give the forged doc.u.ment an air of verisimilitude. The a.s.sumption that the Morgan fragment is a forgery thus becomes highly unreasonable. When you add to this the fact that there is nothing in the twelve pages that in any way arouses suspicion, the conclusion is inevitable that the Morgan fragment is a genuine relic of antiquity.

[Sidenote: _Archetype_]

As to the original from which our ma.n.u.script was copied, very little can be said. The six leaves before us furnish scanty material on which to build any theory. The errors which occur are not sufficient to warrant any conclusion as to the script of the archetype. One item of information, however, we do get: an omission on fol. 52v goes to show that the ma.n.u.script from which our scribe copied was written in lines of 25 letters or thereabout.[24] The scribe first wrote EXCUCURIS SEM COMMEATU. Discovering his error of omission, he erased SEM at the beginning of line 8 and added it at the end of line 7 (intruding upon margin-s.p.a.ce in order to do so), and then supplied, in somewhat smaller letters, the omitted words ACCEPTO UT PRAEFECTUS AERARI. As there are no _h.o.m.oioteleuta_ to account for the omission, it is almost certain that it was caused by the inadvertent skipping of a line.[25] The omitted letters number 25.

[Footnote 24: On the subject of omissions and the clues they often furnish, see the exhaustive treatise by A.C. Clark ent.i.tled _The Descent of Ma.n.u.scripts_, Oxford 1918.]

[Footnote 25: Our scribe's method is as patient as it is unreflecting. Apparently he does not commit to memory small intelligible units of text, but is copying word for word, or in some places even letter for letter.]

A glance at the abbreviations used in the index of addresses on foll.

48v-49r teaches that the original from which our ma.n.u.script was copied must have had its names abbreviated in exactly the same form. There is no other way of explaining why the scribe first wrote AD IULIUM SERUIANUM (fol. 49, l. 12), and then erased the final UM and put a point after SERUIAN.

THE DATE AND LATER HISTORY OF THE Ma.n.u.sCRIPT.

Our ma.n.u.script was written in Italy at the end of the fifth or more probably at the beginning of the sixth century.

The ma.n.u.scripts with which we can compare it come, with scarcely an exception, from Italy; for it is only of more recent uncial ma.n.u.scripts (those of the seventh and eighth centuries) that we can say with certainty that they originate in other than Italian centres. The only exception which occurs to one is the Codex Bobiensis (k) of the Gospels of the fifth century, which may actually have been written in Africa, though this is far from certain. As for our fragment, the details of its script, as well as the ornamentation, disposition of the page, the ink, the parchment, all find their parallels in authenticated Italian products; and this similarity in details is borne out by the general impression of the whole.

The ma.n.u.script may be dated at about the year A.D. 500, for the reason that the script is not quite so old as that of our oldest fifth-century uncial ma.n.u.scripts, and yet decidedly older than that of the Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F) written in or before A.D. 546.

[Sidenote: _On the dating of uncial ma.n.u.scripts_]

In dating uncial ma.n.u.scripts we must proceed warily, since the data on which our judgments are based are meagre in the extreme and rather difficult to formulate.

The history of uncial writing still remains to be written. The chief value of excellent works like Chatelain's _Uncialis Scriptura_ or Zangemeister and Wattenbach's _Exempla Codic.u.m Latinorum Litteris Maiusculis Scriptorum_ lies in the ma.s.s of material they offer to the student. This could not well be otherwise, since clear-cut, objective criteria for dating uncial ma.n.u.scripts have not yet been formulated; and that is due to the fact that of our four hundred or more uncial ma.n.u.scripts, ranging from the fourth to the eighth century, very few, indeed, can be dated with precision, and of these virtually none is in the oldest cla.s.s. Yet a few guide-posts there are. By means of those it ought to be possible not only to throw light on the development of this script, but also to determine the features peculiar to the different periods of its history. This task, of course, can not be attempted here; it may, however, not be out of place to call attention to certain salient facts.

The student of ma.n.u.scripts knows that a law of evolution is observable in writing as in other aspects of human endeavor. The process of evolution is from the less to the more complex, from the less to the more differentiated, from the simple to the more ornate form. Guided by these general considerations, he would find that his uncial ma.n.u.scripts naturally fall into two groups. One group is manifestly the older: in orthography, punctuation, and abbreviation it bears close resemblance to inscriptions of the cla.s.sical or Roman period. The other group is as manifestly composed of the more recent ma.n.u.scripts: this may be inferred from the corrupt or barbarous spelling, from the use of abbreviations unfamiliar in the cla.s.sical period but very common in the Middle Ages, or from the presence of punctuation, which the oldest ma.n.u.scripts invariably lack. The ma.n.u.scripts of the first group show letters that are simple and unadorned and words unseparated from each other. Those of the second group show a type of ornate writing, the letters having serifs or hair-lines and flourishes, and the words being well separated.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this rough cla.s.sification is correct as far as it goes; but it must remain rough and permit large play for subjective judgement.

A scientific cla.s.sification, however, can rest only on objective criteria--criteria which, once recognized, are acceptable to all. Such criteria are made possible by the presence of dated ma.n.u.scripts. Now, if by a dated ma.n.u.script we mean a ma.n.u.script of which we know, through a subscription or some other entry, that it was written in a certain year, there is not a single dated ma.n.u.script in uncial writing which is older than the seventh century--the oldest ma.n.u.script with a _precise_ date known to me being the ma.n.u.script of St. Augustine written in the Abbey of Luxeuil in A.D. 669.[26] But there are a few ma.n.u.scripts of which we can say with certainty that they were written either before or after some given date. And these ma.n.u.scripts which furnish us with a _terminus ante quem_ or _post quem_, as the case may be, are extremely important to us as being the only relatively safe landmarks for following development in a field that is both remote and shadowy.

[Footnote 26: See below, p. 16.]

The Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels, mentioned above, is our first landmark of importance.[27] It was read by Bishop Victor of Capua in the years A.D. 546 and 547, as is testified by two entries, probably autograph. From this it follows that the ma.n.u.script was written before A.D. 546. We may surmise--and I think correctly--that it was shortly before 546, if not in that very year. In any case the Codex Fuldensis furnishes a precise _terminus ante quem_.

[Footnote 27: See below, p. 16.]

The other landmark of importance is furnished by a Berlin fragment containing a computation for finding the correct date for Easter Sunday.[28] Internal evidence makes it clear that this _Computus Paschalis_ first saw light shortly after A.D. 447. The presumption is that the Berlin leaves represent a very early copy, if not the original, of this composition. In no case can these leaves be regarded as a much later copy of the original, as the following purely palaeographical considerations, that is, considerations of style and form of letters, will go to show.

[Footnote 28: See below, p. 16.]

Let us a.s.sume, as we do in geometry, for the sake of argument, that the Fulda ma.n.u.script and the Berlin fragment were both written about the year 500--a date representing, roughly speaking, the middle point in the period of about one hundred years which separates the extreme limits of the dates possible for either of these two ma.n.u.scripts, as the following diagram ill.u.s.trates:

Berlin Paschal Computus Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels A D 447 <-----------------+-------------------> ca A D 546 A.D. 500

If our hypothesis be correct, then the script of these two ma.n.u.scripts, as well as other palaeographical features, would offer striking similarities if not close resemblance. As a matter of fact, a careful comparison of the two ma.n.u.scripts discloses differences so marked as to render our a.s.sumption absurd. The Berlin fragment is obviously much older than the Fulda ma.n.u.script. It would be rash to specify the exact interval of time that separates these two ma.n.u.scripts, yet if we remember the slow development of types of writing the conclusion seems justified that at least several generations of evolution lie between the two ma.n.u.scripts. If this be correct, we are forced to push the date of each as far back as the ascertained limit will permit, namely, the Fulda ma.n.u.script to the year 546 and the Berlin fragment to the year 447. Thus, apparently, considerations of form and style (purely palaeographical considerations) confirm the dates derived from examination of the internal evidence, and the Berlin and Fulda ma.n.u.scripts may, in effect, be considered two dated ma.n.u.scripts, two definite guide-posts.

If the preceding conclusion accords with fact, then we may accept the traditional date (circa A.D. 371) of the Codex Vercellensis of the Gospels. The famous Vatican palimpsest of Cicero's _De Re Publica_ seems more properly placed in the fourth than in the fifth century; and the older portion of the Bodleian ma.n.u.script of Jerome's translation of the _Chronicle_ of Eusebius, dated after the year A.D. 442, becomes another guide-post in the history of uncial writing, since a comparison with the Berlin fragment of about A.D. 447 convinces one that the Bodleian ma.n.u.script can not have been written much after the date of its archetype, which is A.D. 442.

[Sidenote: _Dated uncial ma.n.u.scripts_]

Asked to enumerate the landmarks which may serve as helpful guides in uncial writing prior to the year 800, we should hardly go far wrong if we tabulate them in the following order:[29]

[Footnote 29: For the pertinent literature on the ma.n.u.scripts in the following list the student is referred to Traube's _Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen_, Vol. I, pp. 171-261, Munich 1909, and the index in Vol. III, Munich 1920. The chief works of facsimiles referred to below are: Zangemeister and Wattenbach, _Exempla codic.u.m latinorum litteris maiusculis scriptorum_, Heidelberg 1876 & 1879; E.

Chatelain, _Paleographie des cla.s.siques latins_, Paris 1884-1900, and _Uncialis scriptura codic.u.m latinorum novis exemplis ill.u.s.trata_, Paris 1901-2; and Steffens, _Lateinische Palaographie_, Treves 1907. (Second edition in French appeared in 1910.)]

1. Codex Vercellensis of the Gospels (a). ca. a. 371

Traube, l.c., No. 327; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XX.

2. Bodleian Ma.n.u.script (Auct. T. 2. 26) of Jerome's translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius (older portion). post a. 442

Traube, l.c., No. 164; J.K. Fotheringham, _The Bodleian ma.n.u.script of Jerome's version of the Chronicle of Eusebius reproduced in collotype_, Oxford 1905, pp. 25-6; Steffens, pl. 17; also Schwartz in _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, XXVI (1906), c. 746.

3. Berlin Computus Paschalis (MS. lat. 4. 298). ca. a. 447

Traube, l.c., No. 13; Th. Mommsen, "Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre 447" in _Abhandl. der Berliner Akad. aus dem Jahre 1862_, Berlin 1863, pp. 539 sqq.; "Liber Paschalis Codicis Cicensis A.

CCCCXLVII" in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi_, IX, 1, pp. 502 sqq.; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl. XXIII.

4. Codex Fuldensis of the Gospels (F), Fulda MS. Bonifat. 1, read by Bishop Victor of Capua. ante a. 546

Traube, l.c., No. 47; E. Ranke, _Codex Fuldensis, Novum Testamentum Latine interprete Hieronymo ex ma.n.u.scripto Victoris Capuani_, Marburg and Leipsic 1868; Zangemeister-Wattenbach, pl.

x.x.xIV; Steffens, pl. 21a.