the Greek Text of the Mathematical Collections of Pappus. 61 
and some other pages, there are references to Commandine, 
which appear to be written with the same ink as the manuscript ; 
the difference of the Greek character from the Latin, in which 
these references are written, making it impossible to form any 
opinion from the handwriting ; but whether they are or are not 
by the original transcribers, the manuscript is probably not older 
than 1588, when the Latin was first published. 
There are no red letters or ornaments of any kind ; the lines 
are uneven, the margins are rugged, the ink is faded in many 
parts, and in others remains much blacker in some words than 
in the rest. There are frequent erasures, from the words having 
in haste been written wrong, and the pen’s having been dashed 
through it, which is not the case in No. 3. The text, likewise, 
has been corrected in many other places ; in some instances this 
seems to have been done by the transcriber, who has been mem 
tioned as more accurate than his associates ; but many altera- 
tions have been made by later hands, particularly in the begin- 
ning of the 3d book, where the old writing is in some instances 
absolutely effaced by the corrections, and at p. 15. we find hac- 
tenus recensuit Wallisius.” 
Halley says, ‘‘ Graeca Pappi in hisce codicibus saepiuscule 
luxata sunt et depravata.” This is not, indeed, peculiar to the 
Oxford MSS. ; Dr Trail says, that ah ‘‘ which have been ex- 
amined are mutilated, and contain many errors, from the igno- 
rance or carelessness of transcribers and he quotes from Dr 
Simson, “ non pauca in eo codice (Parisiensi Regio sc.) 
vitiata sunt, ut in omnibus fere Pappi propositionibus, et, ut vi- 
detur, in omnibus manuscriptis.” Wallis says more specifically 
of the Savilian Manuscripts, qui elegantius scribitur, est men- 
dosior; quique festinantius et minus eleganter scribitur est 
emendatior ; ex quo alterum fuisse descriptum conjicio.” Now 
if No. 9. is in some respects more accurate than No. 3., the 
cause must be found in its having been taken from a more cor- 
rect original, for it certainly is not from the merits of the tran- 
scribers ; and the conjecture of the one’s being only a fair copy 
of the other is manifestly erroneous. There are indeed many 
remarkable points of coincidence ; the same errors, the same re- 
petitions of words and sentences, and the same lacunae occur in 
innumerable instances ; but after a complete and careful colla- 
