Page images
PDF
EPUB

it at an auction in Oxford in 1708, and as, though mentioning the rarity of the edition in a note on the same page, he makes no allusion to the MS. part of it, I imagined at first that some previous owner had, to make a complete copy of Pliny, copied the missing letters in MS. from some later edition. But when out of curiosity I endeavoured to discover what edition he had used, I was struck (1) with several readings in which the MS. agrees with the first Aldine, but which have never been repeated in later editions, a fact which seemed to show that the original of the MS. was not later than the first Aldine, and (2) what was more important, that in a number of cases it differed both from the first Aldine and from all later editions, and (3) that it contained correct readings in anticipation of conjectures made by Casaubon, Perizonius, Schaeffer, and Orelli. Beginning then to suspect that the MS. was older than the first Aldine edition, I examined it with greater care, and all the more so, as I found on the last page of the edition of Avantius the following words written in the same handwriting as the marginal readings throughout the book. 'Hae Plinii iunioris epistolae ex vetustissimo exemplari Parisiensi et restitutae et emendatae sunt opera et industria Ioannis Iucundi praestantissimi architecti hominis imprimis antiquarii.' The real value of this Bodleian copy can of course be properly estimated only by a thorough collation of all its marginal readings, as well as of the MS. letters in Book viii and the Pliny-Trajan letters, with Aldus. The results and analysis of this collation I have given in the Journal of Philology, vol. xvii, No. 33, where I claim to have made out the following points (1) that the MS. portion of the book is the oldest authority extant for the letters contained in it, being taken from Iucundus' copy of the Parisian codex; (2) that the marginal readings, chiefly though not exclusively found in the printed parts of the book are also taken from this copy; and (3) that the book in its present form is the copy of Aldus himself, from which the first proof of his edition was printed.

The first point is established by a collation of the MS. letters with Aldus, who in the case of the Pliny-Trajan letters has hitherto been the earliest authority.

tiens

4, § 2. B. (Bodleian copy) quadragiens: Ald. quadringen-
quadragiens confirmed by Budaeus.
6, § 2. B. esse eum: Ald. eum scilicet.

§ 3. B. Kalendis Septembribus: Ald. Kal Septembris: B.'s reading was conjectured by G. H. Schaeffer.

10, § 1. B. institutiones: Ald. institutionem.

10, § 2. B. ecce autem: Ald. esse autem: B's. error is clearly due to misreading of a MS.

17 B, § 5. B, quam cum maxime tracto: Ald. quam cum Maximo tracto: the Ald. reading was followed by all editions till that of Cortius who adopted 'cum maxime' from Perizonius.

18, § 1. B. et navigationi: Ald. ut navigationi: the real reading being no doubt 'ei navigationi.'

23, § 1. B. itaque tamen aestimamus novum fieri quod : Ald. id itaque indulgentia tua restituere desiderant. Ego tamen aestimans novum fieri-see note ad loc.

29, § 2. B. ut iam dixerant sacramento ita nondum: Ald. ut iam dixerant sacramento militar i nondum.

37,

39,

2. B. peragenda erit: Ald. agenda erit.

1. B. desedit: Ald. descendit.

39, § 5. B. quam buleutae addit: Ald. quam buleutae addunt: B. is nearer to the correct reading 'additi,' first suggested by Casaubon.

With regard to the MS. letters of Book viii it must suffice here to say that they differ from Aldus in twenty-one readings, four being mere errors of the scribe: of the remaining seventeen, B. is in twelve confirmed by the Medicean Codex, which contains these letters in three others by citations in Budaeus, who, as we have seen, used the Parisian codex: and in two by both M. and Budaeus. Thus in both sets of MS. letters, B. proves to be nearer to the original readings than Aldus.

With regard to the marginal readings to the two printed editions of Beroaldus and Avantius, of which there are altogether 207, the most striking point is that no less than 173 of them appear in the Aldine edition, the divergences between the marginal commentator and Aldus being fewer in the IX Books than in the Pliny-Trajan letters. Of the thirty-four cases of difference between the marginal reading and Aldus, about half are to be explained by the fact that Aldus mostly followed previous editions, while in other cases he has clearly added interpolations of his own. Taking into account (1) the overwhelming preponderance of cases of agreement between the marginal readings and Aldus; (2) the express statement of

Aldus that he was indebted to Iucundus for a copy of the codex; and (3) the similar mention of Iucundus on the last page of the Bodleian copy. I think there is little doubt but that these marginal readings are taken from the copy of the codex which Iucundus supplied. In the six following passages the readings in the margin, though differing from Aldus, are clearly nearer to the original reading, and in several cases anticipate late conjectures.

78, § 2. B. (i.e. Avantius corrected by margin), quanto infirmiores erunt, idem petent. Aldus interpolates a number of words and omits 'idem.'

96, § 10. B. pastumque venire victimarum: Ald. passimque

venire victimas.

102. B. diem quo in te tutela; Ald. diem in quem tutela; B.'s reading was first conjectured by J. F. Gronovius.

I 14, 1. B. dum ne quem earum civitatum: Ald. dum civitatis non sint alienae, sed suarum quisque matrum civitatum. B's reading was conjectured by Orelli, and is an obvious correction of Avantius, 'dum neque merum,' etc.

116, § 2. B. confirmed by Budaeus, 'concedendum iussisti invitationes.' Aldus has concedendum iussi invitationes.'

[ocr errors]

116, 2. B. dianomes: Avantius Diamoeries'; Aldus 'diamones'; dianomes was conjectured by Casaubon.

That this Bodleian copy belonged to Aldus himself who corrected the printed editions from Iucundus' copy and the codex, and had the missing letters copied in from the same source, is tolerably evident from what has been said, and as I have shown in the Journal of Philology, it is confirmed by various little corrections and marks evidently intended as printer's directions, which run through the whole book, and agree with the Aldine edition.

If this is the correct account of the matter, some fresh light is thrown on the way in which Aldus used his authorities, and Keil's judgment upon him must be modified. Wherever Aldus and B. agree, as they do in the great majority of cases, Aldus has conscientiously followed the copy of the codex, while in cases of disagreement he either (1) took the reading of previous editions, or (2) inserted interpolations and conjectures of his own, or possibly (3) made alterations from the original codex, when he received it from Mocenigo.

However that may be, the discovery of this Bodleian volume, based as I have shown it to be on the Parisian codex as copied by Iucundus, makes it impossible to assign the highest authority to Avantius for Epp. 41-121; and to Aldus for 1-40, as Keil has done in his critical edition; for evidently Avantius + Iucundus is a better authority than Avantius alone; while the MS. letters, as we have seen, are clearly earlier and nearer to the codex than Aldus. I therefore take the Bodleian copy as my principal authority for the text of all the letters, adopting in some cases, however, the Aldine reading in preference, and also modern conjectures in some of the corrupt passages. In all such cases the readings will be justified in the notes. In a very few passages I have ventured to adopt conjectures of my own: 63 § 3, 'ad Asiam'; 113, 'ut praestatione ceteris praeferantur'; 116 § 2, 'at' for 'ita'; 121, ' quae dubitanda fuisset.'

In the critical notes I have used the following abbreviations: B. Bodleian copy; Ald.1 1st Aldine; Ald. 2 = 2d Aldine; Avant. = Avantius; Cat. = Catanaeus, 1506; Or. Orelli ; K. Keil.

ORDER OF THE LETTERS

In this I have followed Keil's edition, which again has merely reverted to the order of Avantius and Aldus. This, if not in every case the strict chronological order of the letters, at least approximates to it. Thus Epp. 1-14 were all written, probably from Rome, in the earlier part of Trajan's reign, the latest event referred to in them being Trajan's victory in either the first or the second Dacian war (Ep. 14); while of the later letters, all written from Bithynia, 17 mentions his arrival in the province September III; 35 was written in Jan 3, 112; 45 probably soon after the beginning of the new year, when the old diplomata would expire; 52 on the dies imperii, Jan. 27, 112; 88 on Sept. 15, 112; and 100 on Jan. 3, 113; 102 on Jan. 27, 113: all the letters with certain dates being thus in chronological order. Henricus Stephanus was the first to alter the order of the letters by putting all the single letters of Pliny together at the beginning of the book, and

those to which Trajan replied at the end. The single letters, 19 in number, are 1, 2, 4 (3); 5 (4); 10 (5); II (6); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 25 (10); 26 (11); 51 (12); 63 (13); 64 (14); 67 (15); 74 (16); 85 (17); 86 (18); 87 (19); after which the Pliny-Trajan letters fall into their places, 3 and 36 being 20 and 21; 6 and 7, 22 and 23; and so on.

EDITIONS CONTAINING THE PLINY-TRAJAN

LETTERS

(1) Hieronymus Avantius of Verona, 1502; containing 41-121 (xxvii-lxxiii), no commentary; Bodleian.

(2) Philippus Beroaldus, Bononiae, 1502; containing the same letters; no commentary; published merely as a supplement to his edition of 1498; no copy in England.

(3) Ioannes Maria Catanaeus, Mediolani, 1506; containing the IX books, with the 10 Epp. of viii wanting, and the same letters (41-121) of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence. The letters have an elaborate and often valuable commentary, of which I have frequently made use. The Greek words and phrases in particular, so faulty in Avantius, have received careful correction. British Museum.

(4) Ist Aldine edition, Venetiae, 1508; containing for the first time all the letters, the Pliny-Trajan letters being inscribed, probably not on the authority of the codex, Book x. The letters are not numbered, but are headed by Lemmata, probably taken from the margin of the codex, as the edition of Avantius also has them, and also the MS. letters in the Bodleian copy; no commentary. British Museum and Bodleian.

(5) Reprint of Catanaeus, unchanged; Venetiis, 1510. (6) 2nd Aldine edition, Rheneniana, 1518; differs only slightly from former edition. Bodleian and British Museum.

(7) 2nd edition of Catanaeus, containing all the letters, 1518, follows the Aldine edition very closely, and giving up a number of the conjectures and interpolations of the ed. of 1506; no copy in England. See Orelli, Historia Critica.

Later editions containing the text and commentary of Catanaeus were published in 1519; 1553 Par. apud Ascensium; 1552 Basil. apud Froen.; 1600 apud Paul. Stephanum.

« PreviousContinue »