of his work; it may be, however, that our manuscript represents a text which had passed through the hand of some archaeologizing scholar of a later age, like Donatus. At any rate, this feature of our fragment is an indication of genuineness and of antiquity.] A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of correction in _Π_ by either the scribe himself or a second and possibly a third ancient hand. Here Aldus, if he read the pages of our fragment and read them with care, might have seen warrant for following either the original text or the emended form, as he preferred. The most important cases are: 61, 14 sera] _Πa_ SERUA _Π²_ 61, 21 considit] _Π_ CONSIDET _Π²a_ The original reading of _Π_ is clearly CONSIDIT. The second I has been altered to a capital E, which of course is not the proper form for uncial. 62, 5 residit] _Π_ residet _a_ Here _Π_ is not corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case of CONSIDET (_m. 2_) supported what he supposed the better form _residet_. 63, 11 posset] _a_ POSSIT (in _posset m. 1_?) _Π_ Again the corrected E is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in adopting the reading of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] _a_ MODICA EST ETIAM (_corr. m. 2_) _Π_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _Π_ omitted _accepto ut praefectus aerari_,--evidently a line of the manuscript that he was copying, for there are no similar endings to account otherwise for the omission. 66, 2 dissentientis] _a_ _ex_ DISSITIENTIS _m. 1_ (?) _Π_. There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in _Π_, which Aldus himself might easily have corrected or have found the right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conteror quorum] _a_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM _Π B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _Π_ 64, 24 conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _Π_. In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _Π_, most of them corrected but a few not, Aldus may have felt justified in abiding by one of the early editions in the following three cases, where _Π_ might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64,3) modern editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] Π aurium oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA Π 65, 11 et alii] Π etiam alii _a_.