diligam, cupiam necesse est atque etiam] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ diligam et cupiam necesse est etiam _r_ diligam atque etiam cupiam nececesse (_sic_) est etiam _Ber._ 64, 2 erroribus modica vel etiam nulla] _BFDG_(_p_?)_a_ (_ex_ ERRORIB·MODICAESTETIAMNULLA _m. 2_)_Π_ erroribus uel modica uel nulla _r_ erroribus modica uel nulla _Ber._ uel erroribus modica uel etiam nulla _vulgo_ 5 fortunaeque] _ΠBFDG_(_p_?)_a_ form(a)eque _r_ _Ber._ 65, 11 alii quidem minores sed tamen numeri] (ali _D_) _DGp_ alii quidem minoris sed tamen numeri _ΠBFa_ alii quidam (quidem _Catanaeus_) minores sed tam (tamen _rς_) innumeri _MVrς_ 15 superiore] _MVDς_ priore _ΠBFGra_ prior _p_ 24 iam] _MVDG_(_pr_?)_ς_ _om._ _ΠBFa_ 66, 7 sint omnes] _ΠBFMVDG_(_pr_?)_a_ sint _ς_ 9 haec quoque] _ΠBFDVGra_ hoc quoque _M_ hic quoque _p_ haec _ς_ 11 Pomponi] _ΠBMVo_ Pomponii _FDpra_ Q. Pomponii _ς_ 12 amatus] _ΠFDG_(_pr_?)_a_ est amatus _MVς_ amatus est _corr. m. 1_ _B_ Here is sufficient material for a test. Aldus, it will be observed, whether or not he started with some special edition, refuses to follow the latest and best texts of his day (i.e., _ς_) in these twenty-six readings. In one sure case (60, 15) and eleven possible[62] cases (61, 18; 62, 26; 63, 5, 12, 15, 17 _bis_, 23 _bis_; 64, 2, 5), his reading agrees with the Princeps. In four sure cases (63, 4, 22; 65, 15; 66, 9) and one possible one (63, 9), he agrees with the Roman edition; in two sure (61, 12; 66, 11) and three possible (63, 2; 66, 7, 12) cases, with both _p_ and _r_. Once he breaks away from all editions reported by Keil and agrees with _D_ (62, 6). At the same time, all these readings are attested by _ΠFB_ and hence were presumably in the Parisinus. In two cases (65, 11, 24), we know of no source other than _P_ that could have furnished him his reading. Further, in the superscription of the third letter of Book III (63, 20), he might have taken a hint from Catanaeus, who was the first to depart from the reading CORNELIAE, universally accepted before him, but again it is only _P_ that could give him the correct spelling CORELLIAE.[63] [Footnote 62: I say “possible” because the reading is implied, not stated, in Keil’s edition. The reading of Beroaldus on 63, 23 I get from our photograph, not from Keil, who does not give it.] [Footnote 63: I have purposely omitted to treat Aldus’s use of the superscriptions in _P_, as that matter is best reserved for a consideration of the superscriptions in general.]