^{321 1} C.R. xvi. p. 98. I hope to return before long to the subject of Vind. F, and I do not at all despair of convincing Mr. Adam that I am right about it. I should, like, however, to point out at once that his interesting criticism of my views in C.R. xvi. p. 215 ignores altogether what is to me the chief part of the argument, namely the frequency in Vind. F of errors which can arise only from the misreading of uncials. Mr. Adam complains that I have not proved Flor. x to be a copy of Vind. F (C.R. xvi. p. 216). I never even attempted to do so in print, though I believe that I could if necessary. I thought that, as I was not immediately concerned with Flor. x, I might assume that Schanz had proved the point (Plato codex, pp. 105, 106). As, however, his affiliation is doubted, I shall do my best to settle the matter at an early date. Flor. x was written in 1420, and we learn from Kollarius' edition of Lambccius, vol. i. pp. 409 sqq. that Vind. F was in the possession of Franciscus Barbaras in that very year. I am not so sure that Ang. v is copied from Flor. x as Schanz seems to be; but I believe that I can prove its descent from Vind. F. I have to thank Mr. Adam for the courteous way in which he has expressed his dissent from my theory.