Gestatio, Hora balnei, pilae ludus, Coena, and Comoedi.  The purpose of the doubly pointed obelus is plainly indicated here, as it accompanies two of these catchwords.  Just so in the margin opposite 65, 17, a pointing finger is accompanied by the remark, “Beneficia beneficiis aliis cumulanda,” while 227, 5 is decorated with the moral ejaculation, “o hominem in diuitiis miserum.”  Incidentally, it is obvious that the Morgan fragment was once perused by some thoughtful reader, who marked with lines or brackets passages of special interest to him.  For example, the account of how Spurinna spent his day[58] is so marked.  This passage likewise called forth various marginal notes from Budaeus,[59] and other coincidences exist between the markings in _{Pi}_ and the marginalia in the Bodleian volume.  But there is not enough evidence of this sort to warrant the suggestion that Budaeus himself added the marks in _{Pi}_.

  [Footnote 56:  See Ribbeck’s Virgil, Prolegomena, p. 152.]

  [Footnote 57:  See plate XVIII.]

  [Footnote 58:  Epist. III, i (plate IV).]

  [Footnote 59:  See plate XVIII.]

[Sidenote:  Aldus and Budaeus compared]

It is of some importance to consider what Budaeus might have done to the text of Beroaldus had he treated it to a systematic collation with the Parisinus.  Our fragment allows us to test Budaeus; for even if it be not the Parisinus itself, its readings with the help of B, F, and Aldus show what was in that ancient book.  I have enumerated above[60] eleven readings of _{Pi}BF_ which are called errors by Keil, but of which nine were accepted by Aldus and five by the latest editor, Professor Merrill.  In two of these (62, 33 and 64, 3), Budaeus, like Aldus, wisely does not harbor an obvious error of P.  In two more (62, 16 and 65, 12), Beroaldus already has the reading of P.  Of the remaining seven, however, all of which Aldus adopted, there is no trace in Budaeus.  There are also nineteen cases of obvious error in the {sigma} editions, which Aldus corrected but Budaeus did not touch.  I give the complete apparatus[61] for these twenty-six places, as they will illustrate the radical difference between Aldus and Budaeus in their use of the Parisinus.

[Footnote 60:  See above, p. 47.]

[Footnote 61:  The readings of manuscripts are taken from Merrill,
those of the editions from Keil; in the latter case, I use
parentheses if the reading is only implied, not stated.]

60, 15 duplicia] MVDr{sigma}
duplicata _{Pi}BFGpa_

61, 12 confusa adhuc] MV{sigma}
adhuc confusa _{Pi}BFGpra_

18 milia passuum tria nec] _{Pi}BFMV_(p?)_a_
milia passum tria et nec D
mille pastria nec r
mille pas. nec _{sigma}_

62, 6 doctissime] MV{sigma}
et doctissime r
doctissima _{Pi}BFDa_
et doctissima p