Astronomicon

In some cases the source seems to lie even beyond the common parent of α and β. In vol. I p. xxv I gave a small selection from the many readings offered by G alone which are accepted, and must be, by all editors; and together with them I cited three significant corruptions.

II 494—6 :
    Cancer et aduerso Capricornus conditus astro Cancer and Capricorn, established with an opposite star
    in semet uertunt oculos, in mutua tendunt turn their eyes upon themselves, toward mutual [things] they reach
    auribus.

uertitur oculis in muta M, uertitur oculis immutaque L; whence it appears that not only β but the archetype had the same as M, and that L or rather α made a faint attempt to better the metre. The 11th century, continuing the effort, made the transposition uertitur in semet L². G has uertunt oculusque (-us corr. in -os) in mutua. This is not a conjecture, for the scribe himself could not interpret it: he has underlined uertunt and written the sign of query in the margin. It is a slight corruption of the true and original reading, otherwise and worse corrupted in the source of α and β.

IV 282 :
    iamque huc atque illuc agilem conuertere clauum. and now hither and thither to turn the agile rudder.

illuc aligem G, huc caliginem L, huc caligine M. α and the archetype had the same as L, β or M subtracted a letter. The reading of G is an earlier stage of the corruption.

V 545 sq. :
    hic hymenaeus erat, solataque publica damna here was the marriage song, and public losses consoled
    priuatis lacrimans ornatur uictima poenae. the victim, weeping for private [losses], is adorned for punishment.

solaque G, solaque in LM. The unmetrical reading of G was the first error, and the reading of LM is an attempt to correct it.

It is therefore clear that G preserves truth not preserved elsewhere; and when, for instance, G alone offers the true reading Iouis et Jupiter and for iuuisse at II 15 or peploque fluenti and with a flowing robe for populoque fluentis at V 392, those are much rather portions of this truth than emendations anticipating in the 11th century the perspicacity and deftness of the 15th; or again when GL² offer exterius mirantur they admire externally for exterminantur at II 168 or uictricem Ebusum the victorious Ebusus for uictrice mebus usum at IV 640 (where M² even in the 15th century could do no better than melius) or terga backs for aer air at V 104.

If any future editor should seriously attempt what van Wageningen merely professed to do, and try to carry out in his recension the precepts of Vollmer and Mr Thielscher, he would find a formidable