Affiliation:
1. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Nikolausberger Weg 23, 37073 Göttingen, Germany Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Nikolausberger Weg 23 37073 Göttingen Germany
Abstract
Abstract
This paper focuses on the presumed existence of two versions of Medea and Heracles in the Euripidean corpus that circulated in antiquity. After a brief review of the main papyrological evidence, namely P.Oxy. LXXVI 5093 for the Medea and P.Hibeh II 179 for the Heracles, I discuss the implications of adding another Medea and another Heracles to the Euripidean corpus in the light of the extant ancient testimonies on the number of works in Euripides’ oeuvre. Moreover, I examine the clues provided by the headings of the hypotheses of the extant Medea and the extant Heracles as preserved in P.IFAO inv. PSP 248 and P.Oxy. LXXXI 5284. On these grounds, I argue that the supposed evidence for the existence of two distinct Medea and two distinct Heracles plays should not be interpreted as evidence of double authorial versions.
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Linguistics and Language,History,Language and Linguistics,Classics
Reference65 articles.
1. Euripides, Heracles, ed. G. W. Bond, Oxford 1981.
2. Euripides, Medea, ed. N. Wecklein, Leipzig 31891.
3. Euripidis Fabulae, tom. I, ed. J. Diggle, Oxford 1984.
4. Euripides, Medea, ed. D. J. Mastronarde, Cambridge 2002.
5. Euripidis Medea, in usum studiosae iuventutis, ed. P. E. Elmsley, Leipzig 1822.