But the evidence for allying _Π_ with _B_ and _F_, the manuscripts of Class I, is by no means exhausted. In 61, 14, _BFux_ have the erroneous emendation, which Budaeus includes among his variants, of _serua_ for _sera_. A glance at _Π_ shows its apparent origin. The first hand has SERA correctly; the second hand writes U above the line.[32] If the second hand is solely responsible for the attempt at improvement here, and is not reproducing a variant in the parent manuscript of _Π_, then _BF_ must descend directly from _Π_. The following instances point in the same direction: 61, 21 considit] considet _BF_. _Π_ has CONSIDIT by the first hand, the second hand changing the second I to a capital E.[33] In 65, 5, however, RESIDIT is not thus changed in _Π_, and perhaps for this very reason is retained by the careful scribe of _B_; _F_, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with _G_, _residet_. 63, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me _B_. Here the letters of the _scriptura continua_ in _Π_ are faded and blurred; the error of _B_ would therefore be peculiarly easy if this manuscript derived directly from _Π_. If one ask whether the page were as faded in the ninth century as now, Dr. Lowe has already answered this question; the flesh side of the parchment might well have lost a portion of its ink considerably before the Carolingian period.[34] In any case, the error of _praestatam ad me_ seems natural enough to one who reads the line for the first time in _Π_. _B_ did not, as we shall see, copy directly from _Π_; a copy intervened, in which the error was made and then, I should infer, corrected above the line, whence _F_ drew the right reading, _B_ taking the original but incorrect text. [Footnote 32: I have not always followed Dr. Lowe in distinguishing first and second hands in the various alterations discussed here (pp. 48-50).] [Footnote 33: See above, p. 42.] [Footnote 34: See above, pp. 11 f.] There are cases in plenty elsewhere in the _Letters_ to show that _B_ is not many removes from the _scriptura continua_ of some majuscule hand. In the section included in _Π_, apart from the general tightness of the writing, which led to the later insertion of strokes between many of the words,[35] we note these special indications of a parent manuscript in majuscules. In 61, 10 me autem], _B_ started to write _mea_ and then corrected it. 64, 19 praeceptori a quo] praeceptoria quo _B_, (_m. 1_) _F_. If _B_ or its parent manuscript copied _Π_ directly, the mistake would be especially easy, for PRAECEPTORIA ends the line in _Π_. 64, 25 integra re]. After _integra_, a letter is erased in _B_; the copyist, it would seem, first mistook _integra re_ for one word. [Footnote 35: See plates XIII-XIV.]