We may now examine a most important bit of testimony to the close connection existing between _BF_ and _Π_. _B_ alone of all manuscripts hitherto known is provided with indices of the _Letters_, one for each book, which give the names of the correspondents and the opening words of each letter. Now _Π_, by good luck, preserves the end of Book II, the beginning of Book III, and between them the index for Book III. Dr. F.E. Robbins, in a careful article on _B_ and _F_, and one on the tables of contents in _B_,[38] concluded that _P_ did not contain the indices which are preserved in _B_, and that these were compiled in some ancestor of _B_, perhaps in the eighth century. Here they are, in the Morgan fragment, which takes us back two centuries farther into the past. A comparison of the index in _Π_ shows indubitably a close kinship with _B_. A glance at plates XIII and XIV indicates, first of all, that the copy _B_, here as in the text of the _Letters_, is not many removes from _scriptura continua_. Moreover, the lists are drawn up on the same principle; the _nomen_ and _cognomen_ but not the _praenomen_ of the correspondent being given, and exactly the same amount of text quoted at the beginning of each letter. The incipit of III, xvi (AD NEPOTEM--ADNOTASSE UIDEOR FATADICTAQ·) is an addition in _Π_, and the lemma is longer than usual, as though the original title had been omitted in the manuscript which _Π_ was copying and the corrector of _Π_ had substituted a title of his own making.[39] It reappears in _B_, with the easy emendation of _facta_ from _fata_. The only other case in the indices of a right reading in _B_ that is not in _Π_ is in the title of III, viii: AD SUETON TRANQUE _Π_ Adsu&on tranqui. _B_. In both these instances the scribe of _B_ needed no external help in correcting the simple error. Far more significant is the coincidence of _B_ and _Π_ in very curious mistakes, as the address of III, iii (AD CAERELLIAE HISPULLAE for AD CORELLIAM HISPULLAM) and the lemma of III, viii (FACIS ADPROCETERA for FACIS PRO CETERA). _ΠBF_ agree in omitting SUAE (III, iii) and SUO (III, iv), but in retaining the pronominal adjectives in the other addresses preserved in _Π_. The same unusual suspensions occur in _Π_ and _B_, as AD SUETON TRANQUE (tranqui _B_); AD UESTRIC SPURINN·; AD SILIUM PROCUL.[40] In the first of these cases, the parent of _Π_ evidently had TRANQ·, which _Π_ falsely enlarges to TRANQUE; this form and not TRANQ· is the basis of _B_’s correction--a semi-successful correction--TRANQUI. This, then, is another sign that _B_ depends directly on _Π_. Further, _B_ omits one symbol of abbreviation which _Π_ has (POSSUM IAM PERSCRIB̅), the lemma of the ninth letter), and in the lemma of the tenth neither manuscript preserves the symbol (COMPOSUISSE ME QUAED). In the first of these cases, it will be observed, _B_ has a very long _i_ in _perscrib_.[41] This long _i_ is not a feature of the script