² The more recent discussions include: Pratt, N. T., ‘The Euripidean Medea 38–43’, CPh 38 (1943), 33–8Google Scholar; Regenbogen, O., ‘Randbemerkungen zur Medea des Euripides’, Eranos 48 (1950), 21–56Google Scholar; Müller, G., ‘Interpolation in der Medea des Euripides’, SIFC 25 (1951), 65–82Google Scholar; Ussher, R. G., ‘Notes on Euripides Medea’, Eranos 59 (1961), 1–7Google Scholar; Christmann, E., Bemerkungen zum Text der Medea (Diss. Heidelberg/Köln, 1962), 32–7Google Scholar; Masullo, R., AFLN 17 (1974–1975), 49–56Google Scholar; Casto, O., AFLL 8–10 (1977–1980), 55–65Google Scholar; Pucci, P., The Violence of Pity in Euripides' Medea (Cornell, 1980), 36, 230f.Google Scholar; Erbse, H., Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie (1984), 107–10Google Scholar.

³ Especially in a play with other suspect repetitions: see Corssen, P., ‘De versibus in Euripidis Medea falso iteratis’, Hermes 40 (1912), 476–80Google Scholar, and Page, D. L., Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge, 1934), 61–3Google Scholar. The first excisions were made by Musgrave (41) and Valckenaer (42 and 379–80); the former was followed, among others, by Fix, Brunck, Elmsley and Porson, the latter by Pierson (except as to 379). Hermann (1841) extended the excision to 41–3, Nauck (1859) to 40–3, and Dindorf (1863) to 38–43. Other proposals involving excision are those of Kayser ([40–1], then μὴ τὴν τύραννον …) and Schenkl ([40–2], then μὴ ἔπει;τα …).

⁴ Euripides, Medea (Oxford, 1938, 1952), 68–9Google Scholar.

⁵ Dindorf, W., Scholia Graeca in Euripidis tragoedias iv (Oxford, 1863), 266Google Scholar, soon followed by Heimsoeth, F., De interpolationibus commentatio iv (Bonn, 1872–1873), 7Google Scholar. Subsequent adherents include (a) before Page: Arnim, Headlam, T. Frank, Wecklein; (b) since Page: Regenbogen, Müller, Christmann, Reeve, (GRBS 13 (1972), 262)Google Scholar, Pucci (with a qualification), Manuwald, B. (WSt 17 (1983), 30 n. 13)Google Scholar, and now Diggle in the new Oxford Text (Euripidis Fabulae i, 1984Google Scholar). Nauck (del. 40–3) has been followed, among others, by Weil, Diehl, Verrall, Heberden, Pohlenz, Méridier and Flacelière; but there has been no recent advocacy of any weight for that deletion, and none at all for any of the earlier, smaller excisions.

⁶ Earlier defenders were Paley and Klotz. Against Page, the paradosis has been defended by Pratt, Ussher, Masullo, Casto and Erbse, but without unanimity as to its interpretation; cf. also Kiefner, W., Die Versparung (Wiesbaden, 1964), 92Google Scholar. Others, e.g. Knox, B. W. M., Word and Action (Baltimore and London, 1979), 298Google Scholar ( = YCIS 25 (1977), 198Google Scholar), have evidently regarded lines 38–43 as authentic at least in part, but without commitment as to the central crux.

⁷ The unpersuasive defence of repeated lines in Euripides by Harsh, P. W. in Hermes 72 (1937), 435–49Google Scholar, was referred to briefly by Page. More recent defence by Baumert, J. (ΕΝΙΟΙ ΑΘΕΤΟΥΣΙΝ, Diss. Tübingen, 1968)Google Scholar has been countered by Reeve (art. cit.).

⁸ The arguments that made a ‘certainty’ out of what would otherwise have been at best a probability are dealt with below. Of these, Page himself wrote: ‘But this is only subsidiary evidence to the main charge…’.

⁹ Text as Diggle (except as to punctuation), with the corrections ἐϕῆκεν (Nauck) for ἀϕῆκεν in 373 and сοοοί (Tate or Dalzel) for сοϕαί in 385.

¹⁰ τρεῖс … νεκροὺс θήсω. Medea appears to be making a definite prediction which is not in the event fulfilled (as to Jason). But such future tenses can be modal (equivalent to a Latin subjunctive), cf. Kühner-Gerth ii.422. It is proper therefore to speak of suggestio falsi (on the part of the dramatist), rather than ‘false prediction’. Euripides habitually plays fair, avoiding definite misstatements as to the future; cf. my commentary (Oxford, 1986) on Or. 1536.

¹¹ Cf. also standard rhetorical ‘hesitations’ like El. 907–8.

¹² Cf. Wilamowitz, , Analecta Euripidea 205–7Google Scholar, Jachmann, G., Binneninterpolation i (NGG 1936, 123Google Scholar = Textgeschkhtliche Studien, 528), Page, , Actors' Interpolations, 51Google Scholar, Biehl, W., Textprobleme in Euripides Orestes (Diss. Göttingen, 1955), 11–13Google Scholar on Or. 51.

^12b Seaford, R. partly anticipates me in JHS 107 (1987), 122–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, proposing the same excision here (without mentioning Valckenaer), while defending both 40 and 41. For the πότερον …;; deliberation without ἤ…; he compares I.T. 884ff. Against his defence of 41, see p. 321 n. 30a.

¹³ See Diggle on Phaethon 54. δόμουс following δῶμα ‘house’ naturally and appropriately has the force ‘private rooms’.

¹⁴ Cf. Arrigoni, G., ‘Amore sotto il manto e iniziazione nuziale’, CUCC 15 (1983), 7ff., esp. llfGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ εὐθεῖαν has attracted suspicion on that score (ὁθνεῖον Herwerden, 〈μὴ〉 εὐθεῖαν anon. in the margin of a second-hand Oxford Text). The word should not mean ‘straightforward’ in the sense ‘easy’. Its antonym in the context of a ὁδόс-metaphor should be ‘devious’.

¹⁶ Σ^B (on 379 according to Dindorf, on 380 according to Schwartz): ὡδε καλῶс κεῖται Δίδυμοс сημειοῦται ὅτι κακῶс οἱ ὑποκριταὶ τάссουсιν (·) ἐπὶ τῶν δύο τὸ сιγῆι δόμουс εἰсβᾶсα · καύсω ἣ сϕάξω αὐτούс (Dindorf gives no punctuation after τάссουсιν, Schwartz writes ‘: –’). There are various possible interpretations, the uncertainty being aggravated by the absence of a lemma; but there is little to be said for Zuntz's view that Didymus on his own authority foolishly transferred 380 to a new position after 356 (see next n.), or for Verrall's emendation of τῶν δύο. The most natural interpretations of the scholion are either that Didymus, like Paley, favoured 378–80–79 against the vulgate (and actors') 378–79–80 or that he contributed towards establishing the vulgate 378–79–80 against the actors' 378–80–79. I incline to prefer the latter (against Dobree): the false alternative will then have been originally interpolated after, not in the middle of, the πότερον-question.

¹⁷ Σ^B (on 356): οὐ γάρ τι δράсειс: Δίδυμοс μετὰ τοῦτο ϕέρει τὸ сιγῆι δόμουс εἰсβᾶс' ἵν' ἔсτρωται λέχοс καὶ μέμϕεται τοῖс ὑποκριταῖс ὡс ἀκαίρωс αὐτὸν τάссουсιν. That simply means, pace Zuntz, (An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1965), 254 n. †)Google Scholar, that the text on which Didymus was commenting ‘carried’ the line сιγῆι … δόμουс after 356 (cf. the standard use of (οὐ) ϕέρεται), and that he correctly diagnosed histrionic ‘bad τάξιс’. He should have athetized 355–6 as well (del. Nauck), but it is unlikely that he did; and it may well be due to Didymus that our MSS. include 355–6, but not 356a. The point is of some importance, since Zuntz builds further inferences as to Didymus' editorial behaviour on his interpretation of these scholia.

¹⁸ It is arguable that all Greek dramatic texts (and Greek poetry in general) benefit from such simplified punctuation. We are accustomed to the double use of (·) as equivalent to either colon (:) or semi-colon (;) and one soon gets used to the more flexible interpretation required if (·) may be equivalent also to bracket, dash or full-stop. The editor is spared many awkward decisions (the more so if he strives for consistency); and the result of his efforts, however well-intentioned, can be misleading. Sir Peter Hall interestingly observed on television that for Shakespearian productions he always begins by preparing a typescript with no punctuation at all.

¹⁹ Cf. Or. 314–15, 454–5, 805–6 (with comm.).

²⁰ For the emendations πολίταιс and αὐτῶι, see Diggle, , CQ 32 (1982), 50–1Google Scholar. As to ϕυγῆι he then wrote ‘The truth, I think, is still to seek’; but he tells me that he now accepts ϕυγάс. Hübner, U. (Philologus 128 (1984), 21ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar) excises 11–15; but these lines indispensably establish both that Jason and Medea have been married long enough to have children (in preparation for 17), and that Medea as a good wife and mother has earned the good will of the Corinthian citizens, despite her dubious past (thus preparing us for the sympathetic attitude of the Corinthian chorus).

²¹ According to Page ‘ἁνδάνουсα μέν and αὐτῶι τε are opposed to the understood sentiment μιсουμένη δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρόс. νῦν δέ in v. 16 is opposed to vv. 14–15’; but his citation of S. O.C. 271 (after Wecklein) does not support either statement. There too νῦν δέ (‘but as it is’) is antithetic to a preceding ‘would not’. As to 11–12, we cannot be expected to ‘understand’ anything adverse about Jason before we have heard 16ff.

²² Cf. Smith, W. D., ‘Disease in Euripides' Orestes’, Hermes 95 (1967), 291ff.Google Scholar, and further in my comm. on Or. (pp. xliif., 78ff., etc.).

²³ Not ‘my dearest’ (Pucci).

²⁴ Cf. my comm. on Or. 2 (etc.).

²⁵ Enjambment with overlapping emphatic word: cf. Or. 527–8, Collard, on Su. 11–16Google Scholar, etc.

²⁶ Too common indeed to merit comment: cf. Diggle, , CR 29 (1979), 208Google Scholar. Verrall also mistakenly objected to οἶδα + acc. pers. Page could have refuted that more effectively by citing H.F. 1, S. Phil. 249, Od. 4.551, Pl, . Rep. 365e, etcGoogle Scholar. (Ellendt ibid., LSJ *εἴδω B. 1).

²⁷ Il. 18. 34 is cited by Σ as a comparable ‘ambiguity’ (ἀμϕιβολία). If that was the intention of whoever first adduced the Homeric parallel, one can only say that he misunderstood both passages.

²⁸ Probably in an interpolated passage; but Geel's correction still merits acceptance: the otherwise competent style of the suspect lines suggests ancient expansion of a shorter text. Diggle accepts Nauck's, excision of El. 685–9Google Scholar with transposition of 693.1 prefer Broadhead's excision of 685–92 (possibly as a complex of interpolations). 694–8 is a sufficient scene-conclusion following 684 ΗΛ. πάντ', οἶδα πρὸс τάδ' ἄνδrgr;α γίγνεсθαί сε χρή, economically implying that Electra intends suicide with her sword if Orestes perishes in his sword-enterprise. For this motivation, cf. Or. 1041 οὐδὲν сοῦ ξίϕουс λελείφομαι, and Hel. 837 ταὐτῶι ξίϕει γε · κείсομαι δὲ сοῦ πέλαс.

²⁹ ‘Sword or noose’ is the standard formulation for envisaged suicide in Euripides (often developed as a topos): Alc. 228–30, Andr. 811–13, 841–4, Tro. 1012–13, Ion 1064–5, Hel. [229–30] (del. Hartung), 353–6, Or. 953–4, 1035–6, Erechtheus fr. 362.26; cf. Katsouris, A. G., ‘The Suicide-motif in Ancient Drama’, Dioniso 47 (1976), 5–36Google Scholar. In itself the sword method is ‘a horrifyingly masculine way to die’ (Gould, J., JHS 100 (1980), 57)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and special considerations apply in the relatively few cases in tragedy where a woman actually adopts it (Deianira, Eurydice, Jocasta in E. Ph., (?) Phaedra in the first Hippolytus) or more or less explicitly commits herself to it (last n.).

³⁰ The likelihood is obviously greater if the false ἢ θηκτὸν ὢсω…was already in the text at 379. The temptation to make 40–1 like 379–80 will also have been stronger.

^30a Pace Seaford (n. 12a above) there is an impossible conflict, if suicide is meant, between сιγῆι δόμουс ἐсβᾶсα…and the actual situation. Medea is already indoors, loudly lamenting, and recumbent, presumably on her marriage-bed (21–6). As to ἵν' ἔсτρωται λέχοс, he refers to the ‘extra pathos that the bed has been prepared to receive a new bride’; but Jason has already consummated his royal marriage and is now domiciled elsewhere (18f., 76f., 378ff., 886ff., 1000f., etc.).

³¹ Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford, 1934, 1954), 306Google Scholar.

³² Adnotationes ad Medeam ab Elmsleio editam (cf. Diggle, , CQ (1982), 50¹Google Scholar). It is regrettable that Hermann later changed his mind.

³³ For the erroneous -ον before τόν, cf. also Diggle's parallels for the error -των before ὡν in 12 (n. 20 above).

³⁴ It is hard to understand why Page, after mentioning τυράννουс, argued as though μή τήν τύραννον was the only available emendation (in conjunction with excision of 40–1). Nor (now) is it a valid objection that, where adjacent interpolation is proved, ‘emendation is a suspicious remedy’. Good emendations often enough come in pairs; and compound remedìes are the more justifiable if there is a causal connection between the errors.

³⁵ Verrall even included the supposedly weak phrasing of 43 among his arguments for excising 40–3.

³⁶ Denniston did not classify οὔτοι (μήτοι)…γε, but it is evidently the negative counterpart of γἑ τοι (Tro. 234, etc.; Greek Particles 550–1); cf. 178, Alc. 54, 718, Held. 64, 438, El. 363, Hel. 579.

³⁷ Cf. Stinton, T. C. W., JHS 77 (1977), 140Google Scholar. If there is a suggestion of colloquialism (suitably poeticized, in Euripides' manner), that is appropriate to the ἦθοс of the prologist (cf. A, . Ag. 32ff.Google Scholar).

³⁸ To take καλλίνικον with ἔχθραν (Verrall) cannot be right. The acc. has been taken in two other ways:(a) sc. ὠιδάν or ὕμνον (Weil an d others); but ὁ καλλίνικοс (SC. ὕμνοс) gives no support for the sense ‘victory song’ in the absence of a definite article, (b) Stinton: ‘he will not sing “καλλίνικοс”’; but the parallels for that are true substantives: Ph. 1155 βοᾶι πῦρ καὶ δικέλλαс, A, . Ag. 48Google Scholar κλάζοντεс “αρη, S.c.T. 386, P.V. 355 (φόβον).

³⁹ Reeve sees merit in making δεινή γάρ directly sequential to 36 δέδοικα δ'…νέον, comparing Or. 102–3. But (a) the text of Or. 103 is uncertain; (b) this is not stichomythia; and the connection of thought is otherwise different here, since the Nurse is not afraid for herself. We need the intervening passage, if we are not to have an unnatural ellipse of thought.

⁴⁰ For other instances of misdirection in Euripidean prologues see Barrett, on Hipp. 42Google Scholar (who compares Ion 71–3) and Dodds, on Ba. 52Google Scholar; cf. n. 10 above.

⁴¹ Page was elsewhere unreasonable about repetitions, cf. my comm. on Or. 136–9, also Easterling, , ‘Repetition in Sophocles’, Hermes 101 (1973), 14–34Google Scholar.