University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The State of Wisconsin Collection

Page View

Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters
volume VIII (1888-1891)

Van Cleef, F. L.
The pseudo-Gregorian drama Christus Patiens in its relation to the text of Euripides,   pp. 363-378 PDF (5.7 MB)


Page 369


           The Pseudo-Gregorian Drama Christus Pcaiens.      4 369
               7taCvyes, seems extremely probable, in which case the
               Euripidean MSS. have preserved the reading better than
               the Xp. 11., although both have been corrupted by the in
               corporation of the gloss, ztapoeV0o, into the text.
    The remainder of the cases are from the portion of the play preserved
  only in codex P.
    4. 778. P. reads -qectrrraz. But the Xp. I. 2227 iAdrezraz. (But
               codex V. of the Xp. II. shows the same corruption
               3zrrtz-az.)
    5. 1031. di om. codex. But the Xp. IT. 2100 and 2542 retains d6v, though
              the order of the words is changed. Kirchhoff is followed in
              the insertion of d6v by Nauck and Bruhn. Other editors
              have suggested other methods of restoring either the
              dochmiacs or a trimeter. At the best the reading of the
              Xp. 11. cannot be regarded as very much superior to that
              of the Palatinus.
    6. 1041. P. riesz. But Xp. 11. 653 rirz.
    7. 1049. P. eizoc. Xp. 11. 677 ex iodcir.
    8. 1096. P.  tp(xarca36ov5. Xp. 11. 667 xparz/36?iov5.
    9. 1151. P. orvcxa y'. Xp. 11. 1146 and Orion, Anth. 4,55 ozluaz 6'.
              [Here again K. ignores the additional 'testimony of the
              Xp. 11.] Reiske changed to rav'ro, which Paley follows.
   10. 1161. P. et8itpo~caro. Xp. IT 1050 tenpdtaere. Scaliger had sug-
              gested the change, to whom K. and W. ascribe the reading.
  11. 1344. P. Azdd6,u6Oa. Codex V. of Xp. 11. 2557 ALz66 ,ue6Oa, the re-
              mainin, bodices agree with the Palatinus. Musurus
              changed to tzd6 ued6a, to whom the emendation is as-
              cribed by K. and W. with no reference to the Xp. T._
  12. 182. This verse seems rightly rejected here, as Dobree has done,
             not only because it is a paraphase ot 860 but because the
             Xp. 11., which quotes the whole passage from 178 to 187 in
             verses 1148-1157, entirely ignores -the existence of this
             verse. Evidently it was not to be found in his MS. of the
             Bacchae, else he had made use of it for his theme.
  13. 1213. P. 7itXexrG3Y Xp. IY. 1263 zirxrc, from which Barnes drew
             the emendation ri7xraoy. The passage will be treated
             again.
  14. 1345. P. iuAeW' which Musurus corrected to lgauee92. The mis-
             take is not to be found in Xp. 11. 2560, where the form given
             is fudOopsy.
 B. Verses in which the reading presented by the Xp. 11. seems at least
as good as that of our MSS. of the Bacchae.
  1. 1048. P. izxppov, which Musurus emended to 71ozupiY. The Xp. 11.,
             676 reads X;ovpov.   The passage is ably treated by
             Doering (Phil. XXV. (1867) ). zozqpo5 is found twice in
                    24-A. & L.
h777WI'lll'l)ll'll'Tl'l177-M NII 77aTFrv,-IKII        W  Tly T7,     ".,
   "TWw        "I


Go up to Top of Page