On the other hand, Christopher Baswell attempts to interpret the "Aeneid" commentary through comparison to a commentary in Cambridge manuscript Peterhouse 158, seeing this as an important link between manuscripts of the commentary and the Silvestris commentary. By placing the passages in two columns it is clear to the reader as it is to Baswell that the interpretations are congruent, although the notes in the Peterhouse MS appear to be shortened and simpler versions of notes in the Silvestris commentary. Baswell wants here to conclude that the Peterhouse MS represents the earlier work of Silvestris. Jones sets this conclusion aside to continue to exhibit differences that occur – which in his opinion are more important than the striking similarities. By pointing to differences in organization among other things, Jones casts doubt on Baswell's earlier hypothesis. What becomes clear is that there is agreement between Baswell and Jones in that they both see Silvestris as the "Aeneid" commentator, but Jones cannot agree with the connection to the Peterhouse MS. The commentary on the "Aeneid" is the longest medieval commentary on that work, although it is incomplete, ending about two-thirds of the way through book six. It is also viewed as the most elaborate commentary from the Middle Ages.