[Footnote 9: The manuscripts were probably produced at the same German centre. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted the presence of the _Ex Ponto_ in book-lists of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries from Blaubeuern, Tegernsee, Bamberg, Egmond, and Cracow (_Texts and Transmission_ 263); he suggests Tegernsee to me as a probable candidate for the production of _B_ and _C_.] _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_. Unlike _C_, _B_ has been quite heavily corrected by later hands. _C_ has more than one hundred readings peculiar to itself. Two of them I have accepted as correct: _summo_ (for _summum_; _H_ has _mundum_) at iii 32, and _horas_ (that is, _oras_) at vii 1; the reading is also given by _I_. It is possible that _C_'s _correptior_ should be read at xii 13 for _correptius_. At xiv 38 _C_'s _sceptius_ is the manuscript reading closest to the correct _Scepsius_ restored by Scaliger. Most of _C_'s errors are trivial, but at some points it departs widely from the usual text. It omits ix 47 and xiv 37, and interchanges the second hemistichs of iii 26 and 28; xvi 30 is inserted by a later hand, perhaps in an erasure. At viii 43 it has _in uita_ for _officio_, at xiii 12 _contra uiam_ for _nouimus_, at xiv 36 _in_ for _loci_, and at xv 31 _colloquio_ for _uerum quid_. _C_ also contains a greater number of purely palaeographical errors than any other manuscript: _hunc_ for _nunc_ (i 25), _humeris_ for _numeris_ (ii 30), _hec_ for _nec_ (ix 30), _lucos_ for _sucos_ (x 19), _hasto_ for _horto_ (xv 7), _ueiiuolique_ for _ueliuolique_ (xvi 21), _pretia_ for _pr(o)elia_ (xvi 23).