of _B_, nor is there any provocation for it in the way in which the word is written in _Π_. This detail, therefore, may be added to the indications that a copy in minuscules intervened between _B_ and _Π_; the curious _i_, faithfully reproduced, as usual, by _B_, may have occurred in such a copy. [Footnote 38: _C.P._ V, pp. 467 ff. and 476 ff., and for the supposed lack of indices in _P_, p. 485.] [Footnote 39: I venture to disagree with Dr. Lowe’s view (above, p. 25) that the addition is by the first hand.] [Footnote 40: See above, p. 11.] [Footnote 41: See plate XIV.] These details prove an intimate relation between _Π_ and _BF_, and fit the supposition that _B_ and _F_ are direct descendants of _Π_. This may be strengthened by another consideration. If _Π_ and _B_ independently copy the same source, they inevitably make independent errors, however careful their work. _Π_ should contain, then, a certain number of errors not in _B_. As we have found only three such cases in 12 pages, or 324 lines, and as in all these three the right reading in _B_ could readily have been due to emendation on the part of the scribe of _B_ or of a copy between _Π_ and _B_, we have acquired negative evidence of an impressive kind. It is distinctly harder to believe that the two texts derive independently from a common source. Show us the significant errors of _Π_ not in _B_, and we will accept the existence of that common source; otherwise the appropriate supposition is that _B_ descends directly from its elder relative _Π_. It is not necessary to prove by an examination of readings that _Π_ is not copied from _B_; the dates of the two scripts settle that matter at the start. Supposing, however, for the moment, that _Π_ and _B_ were of the same age, we could readily prove that the former is not copied from the latter. For _B_ contains a significant collection of errors which are not present in _Π_. Six slight mistakes were made by the first hand and corrected by it, three more were corrected by the second hand, and twelve were left uncorrected. Some of these are trivial slips that a scribe copying _B_ might emend on his own initiative, or perhaps by a lucky mistake. Such are 64, 26 iudicium] indicium _B_; 64, 29 Caecili] caecilii _B_; 65, 13 neglegere] neglere _B_. But intelligent pondering must precede the emendation of _praeceptoria quo_ into _praeceptori a quo_ (64, 19), of _beaticis_ into _Baeticis_ (65, 15), and of _optimae_ into _optime_ (65, 26), while it would take a Madvig to remedy the corruptions in 63, 9 (_praestatam ad me_) and 65,7 (_reputare_ into _patres conscripti putare_). These are the sort of errors which if found in _Π_ would furnish incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was independent of _Π_; but there is no such evidence of independence in the case of _B_. Our case is strengthened by the consideration that various of the errors in _B_ may well be traced to idiosyncrasies