A study of our collation will also show some forty cases of correction in _{ Pi}_ by either the scribe himself or a second and possibly a third ancient hand. Here Aldus, if he read the pages of our fragment and read them with care, might have seen warrant for following either the original text or the emended form, as he preferred. The most important cases are: 61, 14 sera] _{ Pi}a_ SERUA _{ Pi}{ 2}_ 61, 21 considit] _{ Pi}_ CONSIDET _{ Pi}{ 2}a_ The original reading of _{ Pi}_ is clearly CONSIDIT. The second I has been altered to a capital E, which of course is not the proper form for uncial. 62, 5 residit] _{ Pi}_ residet _a_ Here _{ Pi}_ is not corrected, but Aldus may have thought that the preceding case of CONSIDET (_m. 2_) supported what he supposed the better form _residet_. 63, 11 posset] _a_ POSSIT (in _posset m. 1_?) _{ Pi}_ Again the corrected E is capital, not uncial, but Aldus would have had no hesitation in adopting the reading of the second hand. 64, 2 modica vel etiam] _a_ MODICA EST ETIAM (_corr. m. 2_) _{ Pi}_ 64, 28 excurrissem accepto, ut praefectus aerari, commeatu] _a_ Here _{ Pi}_ omitted _accepto ut praefectus aerari_,--evidently a line of the manuscript that he was copying, for there are no similar endings to account otherwise for the omission. 66, 2 dissentientis] _a_ _ex_ DISSITIENTIS _m. 1_ (?) _{ Pi}_.
There are also a few careless errors of the first hand, uncorrected, in _{ Pi}_, which Aldus himself might easily have corrected or have found the right reading already in the early editions. 62, 23 conteror quorum] _a_ CONTEROR QUI HORUM _{ Pi} B F_ 63, 28 si] _a_ SIBI _{ Pi}_ 64, 24 conprobasse] COMPROUASSE _{ Pi}_.
In view of these certain errors of the first hand of _{ Pi}_, most of them corrected but a few not, Aldus may have felt justified in abiding by one of the early editions in the following three cases, where _{ Pi}_ might well have seemed to him wrong; in one of them (64,3) modern editors agree with him: 62, 20 aurium oculorum vigor] { Pi} aurium oculorumque uigor _a_ 64, 3 proferenda] _a_ CONFERANDA { Pi} 65, 11 et alii] { Pi} etiam alii _a_.
There is only one case of possible emendation to note: 64, 29 questuri] { Pi} quaesturi _MVa_ Aldus's reading, as I learn from Professor Merrill, is in the anonymous edition ascribed to Roscius (Venice, 1492?), but not in any of the editions cited by Keil. This may be a conscious emendation, but it is just as possibly an error of hearing made by either Aldus or his compositor in repeating the word to himself as he wrote or set up the passage. Once in the text, _quaesturi_ gives no offense, and is not corrected by Aldus in his edition of 1518. An apparently more certain effort at emendation is reported by Keil on 62, 13, where Aldus is said to differ from all the manuscripts and the editions in reading _agere_ for _facere_. So he does in his second edition; but here he has _facere_ with everybody else. The changes in the second edition are few and are largely confined to the correction of obvious misprints. There is no point in substituting _agere_ for _facere_. I should attribute this innovation to a careless compositor, who tried to memorize too large a bit of text, rather than to an emending editor. At all events, it has no bearing on our immediate concern.