Astronomicon

dislike the labour, for which they are ill qualified, of patient and impartial examination—critics who thirty years ago would have accepted G's lections in the lump—now wish to believe that all these readings are conjectures. But a great many of them are incredibly good for the 11th century, and some of them are demonstrably drawn from an ancient source.

That source may sometimes be $β$. In IV 414, where L has minoribus, G minor with a blank space following, and Ven. nothing, L² writes ouit overhead. This, being meaningless, can be no conjecture, and it is in fact part of the reading of M, minor ibi touit. In II 372, where GL have inclinat anne, L² underlines anne and writes uel ac above an: this makes no sense, but is nearly identical with the inclinata cue of M. In I 520, where GL have ponto, L² writes puncto, which is meaningless with the currat of L and is part of M's true reading puncto curuat. The same tale is told by IV 422 ponti L² et corr. ex pontu M, christi GL, II 744 uires L²M, om. GL, IV 573 animus L²M, om. GL. It is therefore arbitrary to suppose that the following lections of L² are not also a part of the tradition: I 470 conditur L²M, caeditur GL, 616 uestigia L²M, fastigia GL, 820 torridus L²M, cordibus GL, 863 cum L²M, ne GL, II 728 quia L²M, que L, quae G, 756 per L²M, et G, t L, IV 541 reuocet L²M, reticet L, retitet G, V 528 perfundit L²M, perfunto L, perfuncto G; I do not add II 880 monte sub aethna L², montes subetna M, montes ceteris omissis GL, for there the true emendation was not hard to find.

At IV 245 the reading of L Ven., and therefore presumably of $α$, is flumina: GL² have munera. This is the reading of $β$ or of the archetype, corrupted in M to numera. At IV 851

luna uotum tantum deficit in orbes L the moon by a vow so much fails into circles
luna nouum tantum defecit in orbem Ven. the moon by a new [sign] so much failed into a circle,

whatever the reading of $α$ may have been, it certainly was not

luna suo tunc tantum deficit orbe GL² the moon then so much fails by its own circle;

but this is virtually the same as

lunas uotum tantum deficit orbe M.

At V 41 L has pectus erit puppim and Ven. had uectus . . . puppi: by comparing the pector . . . puppi of M it can be inferred that $α$ had pectus . . . puppi. GL² have rector . . . puppis. This, if a correction, is a correction not of $α$'s reading but of $β$'s; and it is more probably the reading of $β$ itself or of the archetype, transmitted without mistake.