Verse 38 is so given by P and G and most MSS: V (saec. XII) has ‘prima mihi uultus’. The sense is poor, and the repetition of ‘uultus’, first plural, then singular, is poorer. ∥ To all intents and purposes the verse has already been emended by Mr Palmer: ‘prima mihi uulnus nuntia fama tulit’: see the metaphor of the next distich. But in writing mihi Mr Palmer abandons better MSS for a worse, and in writing tulit he abandons all MSS: I would sooner follow them where they agree and desert them where they differ:

‘tui’ depends on ‘nuntia’. I suppose the archetype had

and fuit and mihi are alternative corrections of this manifest error.

From 38 to 145 all good ancient MSS fail us and leave us to the mercies of the 15 th century. Accordingly the very next verse is corrupt, oporteat is not even grammar; the oportuit actum or oportet ab arcu of Heinsius has no sufficient sense; Bentley rightly expels the couplet and proposes Apollinis for oporteat, but I think the original form of the interpolation can be recovered with less ado: