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 — Context and Discussion

Paleographic Evidence and Scribal Habits

Lowe's paleographic analysis identifies the fragment as Italian uncial of the early sixth century, with letter forms such as the open a and tall l consistent with that period and region. The flesh sides of the leaves are faded, complicating legibility. The scribe wrote continuously without word separation, a feature Aldus himself noted as requiring practice to decipher. Corrections appear in at least two later hands: the original scribe and a second corrector, with a possible third. These corrections alter readings like sera to serua and considit to considet, showing active textual emendation in antiquity.

The Fragment's Relation to Aldus's Edition

Rand's textual collation compares Π with Aldus's 1508 edition (a) and his presumed source, the lost Parisinus (P). Over forty cases of correction in Π align with Aldus's choices, supporting the hypothesis that Aldus used the complete manuscript. Spellings in Aldus such as aerarii and illustri match Π's forms, while others like sexcenties reflect Renaissance norms. Rand excludes two probable misprints in Aldus and notes that Aldus could have followed either the original or corrected reading of Π. The fragment thus provides a direct link to the textual tradition behind the first printed edition.

Provenience and the Manuscript's Journey

The fragment's path from sixth-century Italy to twentieth-century New York is reconstructed through ownership marks. The fifteenth-century foliation and French note prove the book was in France by the late Middle Ages. A Carolingian probatio pennae on fol. 53r suggests it arrived during the eighth- or ninth-century revival, possibly brought by Charlemagne's emissaries. The last page of the fragment shows no wear, indicating more text followed. The authors infer the manuscript was one of those imported from Italy for the Carolingian scriptoria, later returning to Italy where Aldus accessed it.

Textual Variants and Editorial Decisions

The collation lists dozens of variants where Π diverges from later manuscripts. For example, at 61,14 Π reads sera corrected to serua; Aldus adopted the correction. At 61,21 Π's original considit was altered to considet, which Aldus followed. Other corrections involve spelling normalization: apponitur, existat, implorantes. Rand argues that Aldus's text shows general conformity to Π, with only two probable misprints. The fragment thus offers a check on Aldus's editorial choices and reveals the state of the text before humanist emendation.

Readers approaching this study should note that the authors present their findings as preliminary, based on six leaves of a lost manuscript. The collation is key to evaluating the argument for Aldus's Parisinus. Those unfamiliar with paleography may benefit from consulting the plates and the prefatory note on the Morgan Library's holdings. The work is a model of how fragmentary evidence can illuminate both textual transmission and the history of the book.

Holding those six uncial leaves, I thought of how a fragment can feel like a memory—incomplete yet vivid. The Pliny manuscript’s quiet survival reminded me of Hawthorne’s gentle way of catching time in passing, as he does in Sketches from Memory (From: "The Doliver Romance and Other Pieces: Tales and Sketches") — Inside the Classic. Both leave the reader with a lingering sense of something almost recovered.