376 
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters. 
be shown that the writer of the Xp. 77. was apparently exceedingly faith¬ 
ful to his Enripidean text, and changed it, in all probability, only to 
avoid having more than twelve syllables in his line, and that in conse¬ 
quence his text of the Bacchae was of a most corrupt nature. If this 
is substantiated then it is difficult to place any reliance upon the evi¬ 
dence of the Xp. 77, so far as the text of the Bacchae is concerned. If, 
then, this be the truth in the case of the Bacchae, where the Euripidean 
MSS. are so poor, the testimony of the Xp. II. for plays contained in 
better MSS. will be proved to be almost unworthy of consideration. 
That the author of the Xp. II. followed his text of Euripides faithfully, 
even slavishly, is evident from the following considerations: 
1. The retention of the Doric forms of choral passages. Such are 
fiior&v of 1140 = B. 73 and ipvxdv of 1141 = B. 75. In only one instance 
is this neglected. In 1801 riji is written, where Bacchae 389 shows rus, 
which change is easily explained as due to the effect of the added word 
naXrjS. 
2. Line 1099 is very instructive as to the fidelity of the author of the 
Xp. 17. to his Euripides and also of the liberty he allowed himself with 
the text. Bacch. 993 = 1013 reads, itgo Since cpavepoi, itgo ^icppcpopo^, 
a trimeter although in a choral passage. This contained a resolved foot, 
which was an offense to the writer of the Xp. II. His version is, there¬ 
fore, it go 8 m 1 , it go <pavepG 05 Zuppqiopoi, where he has preserved the Dori- 
cism Since, but treated the final vowel as short and subject to elision. 
He would certainly never have attempted to elide an -p, had he found 
that in his MS. of the Bacchae, so that we may regard the Doric form 
preserved in this instance also. 
3. In 1150 = B. 180, although the author of the Xp. II. has added to 
the sentence the three last words of 1149, while Euripides connected 
their equivalent with the preceding line and began a new sentence with 
this one, the Xp. II. shows the 8 ’ retained from Euripides, although now 
the fifth word in its sentence. 
In 1594 codex V. has preserved k'xovda (nom.), though the construction 
demands the accusative, and the other MSS. have the accusative, exovda 
being the form found in the Bacchae 19. Perhaps this is to be regarded 
rather as an error of V. than as the retention of the Euripidean reading, 
although in several instances V. has preserved the better readings. Cf. 
Braudes’ praefatio to his edition, p. 5. 
t 4 . The preservation of resolved feet. It has already been pointed out 
in several instances that the author of the Xp. 77. has taken the liberty of 
changing the Euripidean text to avoid a resolved foot. It remains to be 
shown how far this influence has been at work in the Xp. 77. Before giv¬ 
ing the complete list of cases, a few deserve special mention, as being 
very instructive of the method taken by this writer. The simplest way 
to avoid a resolved foot was to omit a word from the line. This has taken 
