Of the other manuscripts, _I_ agrees with _C_ in reading _horas_ (=_oras_) for _undas_ at vii 1, while _T_ is the only manuscript collated to have the correct _laeuus_ at ix 119 in the original hand (_F2_ gives it as a variant reading). Similarly, _H_ and _L_ each have a few peculiar variants. As a group _MFHILT_ offer a good picture of the readings current in the later mediaeval period, and only rarely have I been obliged to cite a vulgate manuscript from the editions of Heinsius, Burman, or Lenz as testimony for a variant. _M_ Heinsius did not have knowledge of _B_ or _C_, and seems to have considered his _codex Moreti_ (preserved at the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp as 'Latin, n° 68 [anc. 43] [salle des reliures, n° 32]' in Denucé's catalogue of the museum's collection) to be the best of the poor selection of manuscripts available; at xvi 33, understandably despairing of restoring the true reading, he accepted _M_'s reading pending the discovery of better manuscripts. _M_ was dated by Heinsius to the twelfth or thirteenth century; Denucé assigns it to the twelfth century. At viii 85 _M_ alone has the correct _ullo_ for the other manuscripts' _illo_; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1 it has _cumerio_, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to the correct _Cimmerio_; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that _Cimmerio_ is also found in _British Library Harley 2607_. _M_ has suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6 there is the spurious distich _set cum nostra malis uexentur corpora multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori_. At ii 9 _Falerno_ is a deliberate alteration of _Falerna_. At x 49 _Niphates_ is an interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47 _duorum_ (also given as a variant reading by _F2_) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic transmitted reading _deorum_, and at xv 15 _tellus regnata_ is presumably a metrical correction following the loss of _-que_ from _regnataque terra_, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25 _eticiusque_ looks to be a deliberate alteration of _Trinacriusque_, but I am not sure what the interpolation means. _F_ _Francofurtanus Barth 110_, used by Burman, shows some signs of independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost, _B_ and _C_ omit the line, while the other manuscripts, including _M_, have the interpolation _indigus effectus omnibus ipse magis_; _F_ has the separate interpolation _Achillas Pharius abstulit ense caput_, also found in Heinsius' _fragmentum Louaniense_. _F_ omits viii 51-54, at xi 1 reads _Pollio_ for _Gallio_, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat different from those offered by the other manuscripts.