G
The fragmentum Guelferbytanum, Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4°, generally dated to the fifth or sixth century, is the oldest manuscript witness to any of Ovid's poems. Part of the collection of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, it was discovered by Carl Schoenemann, who published his discovery in 1829; details of his monograph will be found in the bibliography. The two pieces of parchment are a palimpsest, having been reused in the eighth century for a text of Augustine; later they were incorporated into a bookbinding. As a result of this treatment they are in extremely poor condition.
G contains all or part of ix 101-8, ix 127-33, xii 15-19, and xii 41-44. To make it perfectly clear when G is a witness to the text, I have not grouped it with other manuscripts, but have always specified it by name. If G is not mentioned in an apparatus entry, it is not extant for the text concerned.
G is written in uncial script, with no division between words but with indentation of the pentameters. Its one contribution to the establishment of the text is at ix 103, where it reads quamquam ... sit instead of the more usual quamquam ... est found in the other manuscripts. In general, the text offered by G is surprisingly poor. At ix 108 it reads fato for facto, at ix 130 it has the false and unmetrical spelling praeces, at ix 132 it has misscelite for misi caelite, at xii 17 it reads lati for dilati, and at xii 19 naia for nota. These errors demonstrate that the rest of the tradition does not descend from G.
Korn gives an accurate transcription of the fragment in the introduction to his edition; photographs of parts of the fragment can be found at Chatelain, Paléographie des classiques latins, tab. xcix, 2 and E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. IX, p. 40, no. 1377.
B and C
Monacensis latinus 384 and Mon. lat. 19476, both dated by editors to the twelfth century, are descended from a common ancestor. This is easily demonstrated by the large number of shared errors not found in other manuscripts[9]. At iv 36 B and C have intendunt for the correct intendent, at viii 6 uolo for uoco, at viii 18 perueniemus for inueniemur (-ntur,-mus), at viii 44 illa for ulla, at viii 89 cara for care, at ix 44 fingit for finget, at ix 71 quod for cum (FILT) and ut (HM), at ix 92 praestat for perstat, at ix 97 et for ut, at xiii 5 certe est for certe, and at xiv 30 culpatus for culpatis. In some of these passages B's still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In other passages it is clear from the signs of correction that B originally agreed with C in distinctive readings now preserved in C alone: subito for sed et (iii 27), erat for eras (vi 9), occidit for occidis (vi 11), suspicit for suscipit (ix 90), parent for darent (xvi 31).
B and C on the whole offer a better text than any other manuscript. At iii 44 B1 and C omit the lost pentameter, where the other manuscripts offer interpolations. At iv 11 they alone give the probably correct solus for tristis, at xii 3 aut for ast, and at xvi 31 tyrannis (conjectured by Heinsius) for tyranni. At v 40 C and B2 alone have the correct mancipii ... tui for mancipium ... tuum.
Both manuscripts naturally have readings peculiar to themselves. B has about fifty unique readings. It places iii 11-12 after 13-14, omits v 37-40, and interchanges viii 49-50 and 51-52. At iv 34 B alone has erunt (for erit), conjectured by Heinsius; C omits the word. Similarly, at xi 21 B and F1 have mihi, omitted by C; the other manuscripts have tibi. B has ab at i 9 for the other manuscripts' in; ab is possibly the true reading.
Under the influence of Ehwald, modern editors have wrongly taken some of B's other readings to be correct, placing aspicerem in the text for prospicerem at ix 23, ara for ora at ix 115, and illi for illum at ix 126. At ix 73 editors print B and T's quem, which is clearly an interpolation for the awkward transmitted reading qua.