_Monacensis latinus 384_ and _Mon. lat. 19476_, both dated by editors to the twelfth century, are descended from a common ancestor. This is easily demonstrated by the large number of shared errors not found in other manuscripts[9]. At iv 36 _B_ and _C_ have _intendunt_ for the correct _intendent_, at viii 6 _uolo_ for _uoco_, at viii 18 _perueniemus_ for _inueniemur_ (_-ntur_,_-mus_), at viii 44 _illa_ for _ulla_, at viii 89 _cara_ for _care_, at ix 44 _fingit_ for _finget_, at ix 71 _quod_ for _cum_ (_FILT_) and _ut_ (_HM_), at ix 92 _praestat_ for _perstat_, at ix 97 _et_ for _ut_, at xiii 5 _certe est_ for _certe_, and at xiv 30 _culpatus_ for _culpatis_. In some of these passages _B_'s still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In other passages it is clear from the signs of correction that _B_ originally agreed with _C_ in distinctive readings now preserved in C alone: _subito_ for _sed et_ (iii 27), _erat_ for _eras_ (vi 9), _occidit_ for _occidis_ (vi 11), _suspicit_ for _suscipit_ (ix 90), _parent_ for _darent_ (xvi 31).
[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.