58 Prof. Rigaud 011 those MSS. in G. Britain^ which contain 
The book is in folio, the paper is all of the same texture, al- 
though the water-marks are not all the same : no date, however, 
appears, and there is no notice, in any part of the volume, of 
when or by whom it was written ; there is no memorandum in 
it of any one, to whom it has ever belonged ; nor are there any 
traces of where it was procured by Sir H. Savile. There is in 
the same library a volume containing some works of Ptolemy, 
Theon and Aristides Quintilianus, which is evidently by the 
same transcriber ; and his hand again appears in a copy of Sim- 
plicius‘’s Commentary of the second of Aristotle's books 
H^ctvov, but no further light can be collected from any of them. 
In No. 3., many of the passages, which were originally deficient, 
have been filled up in pencil ; there are likewise many memo- 
randa written in the margin in pencil ; there are some also in 
ink in a smaller hand, which are most numerous in the begin- 
ning of the 4th book. 
No. 9 . is not by any means so well written as No. 3. The 
mathematical collections occupy the latter part of this volume : 
they are entirely written on separate half sheets of folio paper, 
which have afterwards been pasted on guards, in order that they 
might be bound up with the other manuscripts. The book is 
described in the Catalogus Librorum MSS- above mentioned, as 
Pappi Alexandrini Coll. Math, deest. liber 1. et septimus et 
initium S.” This is copied by Harles in his edition of Biblio- 
theca Graeca, and he probably had not the means, even if he had 
suspected the inaccuracy, of correcting it ; but it is extraordinary 
that a great mistake should have been made in this description. 
The catalogue of the Savilian Library was drawn up for this col- 
lection by Caswell, who published a short treatise on trigonometry 
at the end of Wallis's Algebra, and who became Savilian Professor 
of Astronomy in 1709 ; but he did his work most incorrectly. 
In the present instance the error is remarkable. If he had over- 
looked any deficiency, it might easily have been accounted for ; 
but that he should have gone out of his way to mark a deficiency, 
which never existed, is very extraordinary. The manuscript 
does not want the seventh book ; neither has that book been in- 
serted at any time subsequent to the formation of the catalogue. 
The writing of it agrees exactly with that of the rest of the work ; 
and Wallis in 1688 describes this MSS. as one qui continet 
