For B contains a significant collection of errors which are not present in _{Pi}_.  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 _{Pi}_ would furnish incontrovertible proof that a manuscript not containing them was independent of _{Pi}_; 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 of _{Pi}_, not merely to its scriptura continua, a source of misunderstanding that any majuscule would present, but to the fading of the writing on the flesh side of the pages in _{Pi}_, and to the possibility that some of the corrections of the second hand may be the private inventions of that hand.[42] We are hampered, of course, by the comparatively small amount of matter in _{Pi}_, nor are we absolutely certain that this is characteristic of the entire manuscript of which it was once a part.  But my reasoning is correct, I believe, for the material at our disposal.

  [Footnote 42:  See above, pp. 48 f.]

[Sidenote:  The probable stemma]

Our tentative stemma thus far, then, is No. 1 below, not No. 2 and not
No. 3.

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3

_{Pi}_            _{Pi}_              X
|                 |                /   \
|                 |               /     \
_{Pi}{1}_         _{Pi}{1}_        /       \
/ \                |            X{1}   _{Pi}_
/   \               |             / \
B    \             B           /   \
F            |          B    \
|                 F
F

Robbins put P in the position of _{Pi}_ in this last stemma, but on the assumption that it did not contain the indices.  That is not true of _{Pi}_.

[Sidenote:  Further consideration of the external history of P, {Pi}, and B]