But we have now to note an intimate connection between _I_ and _r_. They collaborate on the same notes. Plate V (fol. 285^{v}) shows us an enlargement that begins in the hand (= _r^{3}_) that writes the text. It extends through _substantiam_ (1.3), then is succeeded by _I_ (_ex his--horum est_), then returns (_Ibi--superans_), and finally gives way to _I_ once more (_dum--esse_). The interesting possibility and enlargements taken from _O_. Possibly two or more stages are represented by _O_, _r_ starting with an earlier, and _I_ supplementing from a more complete form--but into that _terra incognita_ of fresh hypothesis we need not enter. _I_'s procedure, at any rate, seems exactly like that of _r_. Thus his practice of calling in a variety of _r_ to complete a note too large for the space is paralleled by _r^{4}_, the writer of the text on fol. 231^{v} (Plate II), who uses up a legitimate amount of his margin and then has _r^{5}_ finish it, with signs of references, on the following page. The latter scribe uses a finer hand, and has no difficulty in completing the note with a decent margin to spare.[9] Surely in the scribal play illustrated in Plate V, _I_ is acting more like a fellow-worker than the author of the work. Likewise on another page, we note corrections and minor enlargements by the text-hand, then similar changes by _I_, and, finally, corrections of _I_ by the text-hand.[10] If Johannes wished to change _cogitationes_ to _operationes_, it is strange that he did not do it himself rather than beckon to some scribe to insert the word; another correction, _nisi_, added above the line, is made in the hand of _I_. In short, _r_ and _I_ are two different scribes collaborating on what would appear to be a rather difficult original or set of originals. Moreover, if _I_ is Johannes, he does not understand his own text. In _De Divisione Naturae_ i. 49 (Migne _P.L._ cxxii, 491 A) we read: Omnium hominum una eademque [Greek: ousia] est. Omnes enim unam participant essentiam, ac per hoc, quia omnibus communis est, nullius proprie est. Corpus autem commune omnium hominum non est. Nam unusquisque suum proprium possidet corpus, non et [Greek: ousian]. Igitur communis est, et corpus commune non est. This passage forms part of one of the enlargements of _I_. In it he writes _omnis_ for _omnes_, and _Non et [Greek: ousiae] igitur communis est_ for _non et [Greek: ousian]. Igitur communis est_. These are understandable errors for any scribe, but not for the author of the work, to make. Others occur elsewhere in the Insular hand; I have not recorded many, but I made no systematic search.