We may corroborate this reasoning by evidence drawn from the portions of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_. We note, above all, a number of omissions in _BF_ that indicate the length of line in some manuscript from which they descend. This length of line is precisely what we find in _Π_. Our fragment has lines containing from 23 to 33 letters, very rarely 23, 24, or 33, and most frequently from 27 to 30, the average being 28.4. These figures tally closely with those given by Professor A.C. Clark[47] for the Vindobonensis of Livy, a codex not far removed in date from _Π_. Supposing that _Π_ is a typical section of _P_--and after Professor Clark’s studies[48] we may more confidently assume that it is--_P_ had the same length of line. The important cases of omission are as follows: [Footnote 47: _The Descent of Manuscripts_, 1918, p. 16. Professor Clark counts on two pages chosen at random, 23-31 letters in the line. My count for _Π_ includes the nine and a third pages on which full lines occur. If I had taken only foll. 52r, 52v, 53r and 53v, I should have found no lines of 32 or 33 letters. On the other hand, the first page to which I turned in the Vindobonensis of Livy (133v) has a line of 32 letters, and so has 135v, while 136v has one of 33. The lines of _Π_ are a shade longer than those of the Vindobonensis, but only a shade.] [Footnote 48: _Ibidem_, pp. vi, 9-18. There is some danger of pushing Professor Clark’s method too far, particularly when it is applied to New Testament problems. For a well-considered criticism of the book, see Merrill’s review in the _Classical Journal_ XIV (1919), pp. 395 ff.] 32, 19 atque etiam invisus virtutibus fuerat evasit, reliquit incolumen optimum atque] etiam--atque _om. BF_. _P_ would have the abbreviation for _bus_ in _virtutibus_ and for _que_ in _atque_. There would thus be in all 61 letters and dots, or two lines, arranged about as follows: ATQ· ETIAMINUISUSUIRTUTIB·FUERATEUA (30) SITRELIQUITINCOLUMEMOPTIMUMATQ· (31) The scribe could easily catch at the second ATQ· after writing the first. It will be at once objected that the repeated ATQ· might have occasioned the mistake, whatever the length of the line. Thus in 82, 2 (aegrotabat Caecina Paetus, maritus eius, aegrotabat] Caecina-- aegrotabat _om. BF_), the omitted portion comprises 34 letters--a bit too long, perhaps, for a line of _P_. The following instances, however, can not be thus disposed of.