The thirteenth-century Holkhamicus 322, now British Library add. 49368, contains (with I) the correct hanc at i 16, the other manuscripts having ha, ah (B), or a (C). At xvi 30, where I have printed leuis, the reading of most manuscripts, H has leui, the conjecture of Heinsius; Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that the same reading is found in Othob. lat. 1469. At iv 45 H's qua libet is the manuscript reading closest to Heinsius' correct quamlibet; most manuscripts have quod licet.
Most other variants in H are trivial errors, although there seems to have been deliberate scribal alteration at x 18 (sucus amarus erat for lotos amara fuit), xiv 38 (Celsius for the usual Septius; Scaliger restored Scepsius), xvi 3 (ueniet for uenit et; presumably the intermediate step was uenit), and perhaps at xiv 31 (miserabilis for uitabilis).
I
The thirteenth-century Laurentianus 36 32, Lenz's and André's m, has the correct perstas at x 83 for praestas; its reading is also found in P and as a variant of F2. At vii 1 it shares with C the reading horas (=oras), which I have printed in preference to the usual undas.
At viii 15 I has the hypercorrect nil for nihil, and at xiii 26 ethereos ... deos for aetherias ... domos, but in general has few signs of deliberate alteration.
L
Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7, of the thirteenth century, has haec at ix 103 for the other manuscripts' et. Haec restores sense to the passage, and was the preferred reading of Heinsius; I consider it a scribal conjecture, now rendered obsolete by Professor R. J. Tarrant's more elegant quae. L's text has clearly been tampered with at xiv 41 (populum ... uertit in iram for populi ... concitat iram), but in general seems to have suffered little from interpolation. It is, however, of little independent value as a witness to the text.
T
Turonensis 879, written around the year 1200, was first fully collated by André for his edition; Lenz had earlier reported its readings for IV xvi and part of I i. At ix 119 only T and F2 of the manuscripts collated have the correct laeuus, although other manuscripts come close, and the reading could have been recovered by conjecture. At xv 40 T reads transierit saeuos for transit nostra feros; clearly nostra was at some point lost from the text, and metre forcibly restored.