The text may be roughly divided into three sections. Chapters one to fourteen give the various offices held by Augustus, and the honors bestowed upon him; chapters fifteen to twenty-four recount his expenditures for the good of the state and the people; and the remaining chapters, twenty-five to thirty-five, give the statement of his various achievements in war, and his works of a more peaceful character. This classification will not hold rigorously, but is true in the main. The division into chapters or paragraphs is marked in the Latin text by making the first line of each chapter project a little to the left of the remaining lines. Each such paragraph is relatively complete. And the use of such a topical method marks a new manner of composition quite different from the old annalistic style of Roman historiography. IV. THE GREEK VERSION. George Kaibel has made a special study of the Greek version, and is led to the opinion that it was made by a Roman rather than by a Greek. It is a grammar and dictionary rendering, rather than the idiomatic work of one quite at home in the use of Greek. This conclusion is based upon linguistic grounds. A further question remains as to where this translation was made, whether at Rome or in the provinces. The fact of the identity of the two copies at Apollonia and at Ancyra would seem to indicate a common Roman source. V. THE SUPPLEMENT. This is poorly written both in the Latin and in the Greek; and it is also a very imperfect summary of the document, summing up only what was spent upon games, donations and buildings. The fact that it is in the third person also proves that it is not the work of Augustus. The reckoning by denarii rather than by sesterces points to a Greek origin, and the mention of favors shown by Augustus to provincial towns (cf. c. 4 and notes) would indicate one outside of Rome. VI. TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE INSCRIPTION. The corroborations of the inscription by other inscriptions, coins and later historians, as well as by allusions in contemporary literature, form an interesting study. And the trustworthiness of the record becomes more manifest the more one compares its statements with those of other writers. Only one point has been found where Augustus makes what might be challenged as a perversion of fact. (Cf. c. 2, note 16.) VII. MASONS’ BLUNDERS.