Similarly we may note two omissions in _B_, though not in _F_, which may be due originally to the error of _P¹_ in copying _P_. 68, 5 electorumque commentarios centum sexaginta mihi reliquit, opisthographos] -torumque--opisthographos _om. B_. Allowing the abbreviation of QUE, we have 59 letters and one dot here. The omitted words are written by the first hand of _B_ at the foot of the page. Of course the omission may correspond to a line of _P¹_ dropped by _B_ in copying, but it is equally possible that _P¹_ committed the error and corrected it by the marginal supplement, _F_ noting the correction in time to include the omitted words in his text, _B_ copying them in the margin as he found them in _P¹_. 87, 12 tacitus suffragiis impudentia inrepat. nam quoto cuique eadem honestatis] suffragiis--honestatis _om. m. 1, add. in mg. m. 2_ _B_ (54 letters, with QUE abbreviated). This may be like the preceding, except that the correction was done not by the original scribe of _B_, but by a scribe in the same monastery. The presence of _homoioteleuta_, we must admit, adds an element of uncertainty. So, of the passages here brought forward, 94, 20; 123, 10 and 69, 28 are best explained by supposing that _B_ and _F_ descend from a manuscript that like _Π_ had from 24 to 32 letters in a line, while 32, 19 and 130, 16 fit this supposition as well as they do any other. One orthographic peculiarity is perhaps worth noting: we saw that _B_ did not agree with _Π_ in the spellings _karet_ and _karitas_.[49] We do, however, find _karitate_ elsewhere in _B_ (109, 8), and the curious reading _Kl_ [.’.] _facere_, mg. _calfacere_, for _calfacere_ (56, 12). This is an additional bit of evidence for supposing that a copy (_P¹_) intervened between _P_ and _B_; _P_ had the spelling _Karitas_ consistently, _P¹_ altered it to the usual form, and _B_ reproduced the corrections in _P¹_, failing to take them all, unless, as may well be, _P¹_ had failed to correct all the cases. [Footnote 49: See above, pp. 42, n. 1, and 50, n. 1.] Thus the evidence contained in the portion of _BF_ outside the text of _Π_ corroborates our working hypothesis deduced from the fragment itself. We have found nothing yet to overthrow our surmise that a bit of the ancient Parisinus is veritably in the city of New York. EDITORIAL METHODS OF ALDUS. [Sidenote: _Aldus’s methods; his basic text_]