[Sidenote: _The latest criticism of Aldus_]
Since the publication of Otto's article in 1886,[68] in which the author defended the _F_ branch against that of _MV_, to which, as the elder representative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred, critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearance of _B_ greatly helped, as it corroborates the testimony of _F_. _B_ and _F_ head the list of the manuscripts used by Kukula in his edition of 1912,[69] and _B_ and _F_ with Aldus's Parisinus make up Class I, not Class II, in Merrill's grouping of the manuscripts. Obviously, the value of Class I mounts higher still now that we have evidence in the Morgan fragment of its existence in the early sixth century. This fact helps us to decide the question of glosses in our text. We are more than ever disposed to attribute not to _BF_ but to what has now become the younger branch of the tradition, Class II, the tendency to interpolate explanatory glosses. The changed attitude towards the _BF_ branch has naturally resulted in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seen in the portion included in _{ Pi}_ that of the eleven readings which Keil regarded as errors of the _F_ branch, three are accepted by Kukula and five by Merrill.[70]
[Footnote 68: "Die Ueberlieferung der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius," in _Hermes_ XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff.]
Since Class I has thus appreciated in value, we should expect that Aldus's stock would also take an upward turn. In Aldus's lifetime, curiously, he was criticized for excessive conservatism. His rival Catanaeus finds his chief quality _supina ignorantia_ and adds:[71]
"Verum enim uero non satis est recuperare venerandae vetustatis exemplaria, nisi etiam simul adsit acre emendatoris iudicium: quoniam et veteres librarii in voluminibus describendis saepissime falsi sunt, et Plinius ipse scripta sua se viuo deprauari in quadam epistola demonstrauerit."
[Footnote 71: See the prefatory letter in his edition of 1518.]
Nowadays, however, editors hesitate to accept an unsupported reading of Aldus as that of the Parisinus, since they believe that he abounds in those very conjectures of which Catanaeus felt the lack. The attitude of the expert best qualified to judge is still one of suspicion towards Aldus. In his most recent article,[72] Professor Merrill declares that Keil's remarks[73] on the procedure of Aldus in the part of Book X already edited by Avantius, Beroaldus, and Catanaeus might safely have been extended to cover the work of Aldus on the entire body of the _Letters_. He proceeds to subject Aldus to a new test, the material for which we owe to Merrill's own researches. He compares with Aldus's text the manuscript parts of the Bodleian volume, which are apparently transcripts from the Parisinus (= _I_);[74] in them Budaeus with his own hand (= _i_) has corrected on the authority of the Parisinus itself, according to Merrill, the errors of his transcriber. In a few instances, Merrill allows, Budaeus has substituted conjectures of his own. This material, obviously, offers a valuable criterion of Aldus's methods as an editor. There is a further criterion in the shape of Codex _M_, not utilized till after Aldus's edition. As this manuscript represents Class II, concurrences between _M_ and _Ii_ against _a_ make it tolerably certain that Aldus himself and no higher authority is responsible for such readings. On this basis, Merrill cites twenty-five readings in the added part of Book VIII (viii, 3 _quas obvias_--xviii, II _amplissimos hortos_) and nineteen readings in the added part of Book X (letters iv-xli), which represent examples "wherein Aldus abandons indubitably satisfactory readings of his only and much belauded manuscript in favor of conjectures of his own."[75] Letter IX xvi, a very short affair, added by Budaeus in the margin, contains no indictment against Aldus.