Amm.

[tkb-github]

Have too many emendations in early editions been excluded just because they coincide more than a few times with a MS?

[tkb-github]

Gavin Kelly wrote:

As a supplement to my edition I am hoping to provide a catalogue of conjectures, and while I will not go comprehensively into collating all the renaissance manuscripts, I certainly hope to collate some of them and provide something more comprehensive that will make it easier to look for such cases.

… you list three places where the conjectures restore the readings of V. This will have happened often before the readings of the Vatican manuscript became widely known (Eyssenhardt's edition has a collation), and especially in the 17th century, but it is likely to be hard to trace because correct restorations of the manuscript reading will not appear in apparatuses. But examples of this might be found in the variorum commentary of 17th-c. editors most easily accessible in the edition of Wagner and Erfurdt 1808.

… the only case where an authoritative manuscript became available in recent times is the discovery in 1875 of the remains of the Hersfeld manuscript, which was a twin of V. It is published by Nissen in 1876 as Fragmenta Marburgensia and it should be on google books/archive.org. I do not know whether any of its readings confirmed conjectures (there will not be many if so, since it was used by Gelenius for his 1533 edition, and I know that the discovery of a further fragment in 1990 does not change the text in any way).