[Footnote 43: See above, p. 44, n. 2.]
[Footnote 44: "Zur fruehen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des
Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan," in _Wiener Studien_ XXXI
(1909), p. 258.]
[Footnote 45: See above, pp. 21, 41.]
[Footnote 46: See above, p. 22.]
Our stemma, then, becomes,
_P_ (the whole manuscript), of which _{Pi}_ is a part.
|
|
_P{1}_
/ \
/ \
_B_ \
_F_
[Sidenote: _Evidence from the portions of BF outside the text of {Pi}_]
We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions
of _BF_ outside the text of _{Pi}_. We note, above all, a number of
omissions in _BF_ that indicate the length of line in some manuscript
from which they descend. This length of line is precisely what we find
in _{Pi}_. Our fragment has lines containing from 23 to 33 letters, very
rarely 23, 24, or 33, and most frequently from 27 to 30, the average
being 28.4. These figures tally closely with those given by Professor
A.C. Clark[47] for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed in
date from _{Pi}_. Supposing that _{Pi}_ is a typical section of _P_--and
after Professor Clark's studies[48] we may more confidently assume that
it is--_P_ had the same length of line. The important cases of omission
are as follows:
[Footnote 47: _The Descent of Manuscripts_, 1918, p.
Pages:
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113