called to the divergence in a footnote, and the actual Greek words of the variant text are quoted.
Into the question of MSS. authority I do not here venture to digress at any length. The majority of English readers probably take small interest in such investigations; while the few who do pursue them further, will naturally have good critical editions within reach, and in these a full discussion of this subject more usefully finds a place. Those, however, who, without making a special study of the MSS., wish to see shortly on what authority any particular play of our poet rests, cannot perhaps do better than read the few remarks offered by Mr. Gow on this subject in his excellent volume, entitled, "Companion to School Classics" (Macmillan, 1888). From his concise summary and from Paley's more exhaustive essay in Vol. III. of his large annotated edition of Euripides, I extract the following very brief account of the Euripidean MSS., omitting all superfluous details:—
(2) Seven others rest on the authority of two MSS. only, the Palatinus in the Vatican and Florentinus 2 (both 14th century), viz.—Heracleidæ, Supplices, Ion, Bacchæ, Iphigenia in Tauris, Iphigenia in Aulide, Cyclops.
(3) Three plays, Helena, Hercules Furens, and Electra are found only in Florentinus 2.Another point requiring explanation, perhaps, is my treatment of corrupt passages. Only those who have set themselves carefully to examine the text of an ancient classic, more especially that of a Greek dramatist, can be fully aware of the difficulties that beset the student from first to last. The ravages of time, the ignorance of copyists, the more
