Now nothing is plainer than that _Π_ is a member of Class I, as it agrees with _BF_ in the following errors, or what are regarded by Keil as errors. I consider the text of the _Letters_ and not their superscriptions. 60, 15 duplicia] _MVD_ duplicata _ΠBFGa_; 61, 12 confusa adhuc] _MV_ adhuc confusa _ΠBFGa_; 62, 6 doctissime] _MV_ doctissima _ΠBFDa_ et doctissima _G_; 62, 16 nec adficitur] _MVD_ et adficitur _ΠBFGa_; 62, 23 quorum] _MVDGa_ qui horum _ΠBF_; 63, 22 teque et] _MVDG_ teque _ΠBFa_; 64, 3 proferenda] _Doxa_ conferenda _BFu_ CONFERANDA _Π_ (_MV_ lack an extensive passage here); 65, 11 alii quidam minores sed tamen numeri] _DG_ alii quidam minores sed tam innumeri _MV_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_; 65, 12 voluntariis accusationibus] _M_ (uoluntaris) _D_ voluntariis _om. V_ accusationibus uoluntariis _ΠBFGa_; 65, 15 superiore] _MVD_ priore _ΠBFGa_; 65, 24 iam] _MVDG_ _om._ _ΠBFa._ Tastes differ, and not all these eleven readings of Class I may be errors. Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (1912), accepts three of them (60, 15; 62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcoming edition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6; 65, 12; 65, 15). Personally I could be reconciled to them all with the exception of the very two which Aldus could not admit--62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places he had the early editions to fall back on. However, I should concur with Merrill and Kukula in preferring the reading of the other classes in 62, 16 and 65, 24. In 65, 11 I would emend to _alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri_; if this is the right reading, _ΠBF_ agree in the easy error of _quidem_ for _quidam_, and _MVD_ in another easy error, _minores_ for _minoris_--the parent manuscript of _MV_ further changed _tamen numeri_ to _tam innumeri_. Whatever the final judgment, here are five cases in which all recent editors would attribute error to Class I; in the remaining six cases the manuscripts of Class I either agree in error or avoid the error of Class II--surely, then, _Π_ is not of the latter class. There are six other significant errors of _MV_ in the whole passage, no one of which appears in _Π_: 61, 15 si non] sint _MV_; 62, 6 mira illis] mirabilis _MV_; 62, 11 lotus] illic _MV_; cibum] cibos _MV_; 62, 25 fuit--64, 12 potes] _om._ _MV_; 66, 12 amatus] est amatus _MV_. Once the first hand in _Π_ agrees with _V_ in an error easily committed independently: 61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. _m. 2_ _Π_ ornata _V_. _Π_, then, and _MV_ have descended from the archetype by different routes. With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _Π_ clearly has no close association.