No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The above is the text of Medea 922–33 and a selection of the critical apparatus from the Oxford text edited by J. Diggle. In his discussion of the variant readings at 926 Diggle leaves open the choice between θήσομαι and θήσω. It seems to me worth noticing that an old proposal of Theodor Ladewig to transpose 926–8 and 929–31, which has in any case much to commend it, has a bearing on the solution of this problem.
1 Euripidis Fabulae i (Oxford, 1984), pp. 132–3Google Scholar.
2 CQ 33 (1983), 349–51Google Scholar.
3 N. Jahr.f. Phil. 99 (1869), 192Google Scholar.
4 Ladewig in his brief note confines his criticism of the traditional order to the point that one expects a new topic to follow Medea's remarks about womanly weakness, and that Jason's return to the earlier question is striking. I quote the relevant paragraph: ‘Da Iason also hört, der Gedanke an die Kinder bringe die Medeia zu Thränen, nimmt er die Sache leicht und beruhigt die Trauernde durch die Versicherung, er werde f¨r die Kleincn sorgen. Medeia erklärt sich dadurch vollig zufrieden gestellt und entschuldigt sich wegen ihre Schwäche. Man sollte meinen, dieser Gegenstand sei nun gänzlich abgemacht und das Gespräch werde auf ein anderes Thema ¨bergehen. Um so mehr wird man uberrascht, wenn man sieht dass Iason im Gegenteil auf sein fr¨here Frage zur¨;ckkommt.’ This is of course the crucial observation. Ladewig makes no comment on particles or on the source of the corruption.
5 Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles, 2nd. ed. (Oxford, 1966), p. 269Google Scholar.
6 This text is in Weil, H., Sept tragέdies d’ Euripide (Paris, 1879), pp. 168–9. This order of lines is inGoogle ScholarVerrall, A. W., The Medea of Euripides (London, 1881)Google Scholar; Wecklein, N., Ausgewählte Tragödien i, 3rd. ed. (Leipzig, 1891), pp. 101–2Google Scholar, with reference to earlier discussions on p. 148; and Prinz, R. and Wecklein, N., Euripidis Fabulae i, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 42–3Google Scholar. The transposition is not discussed by Page, D. L., Euripides Medea (Oxford, 1938)Google Scholar.
7 τί δή in tragedy in questions asking for further information: ίδού καλῶ θεούς ή τί δή λέγεις, γέρον; E. El. 566; cf. Ion 1332, A. Pers. 727, P.V. 118. Expressing surprise or something similar: τί δή τὁ Νείλου μεμπτóν έστί σοι γὰνος; E. Hel. 462; cf. LA. 1439 (δῆτα MSS.), A. Cho. 569, S. Phil. 730 (τί δή ποθ'), Trach. 403 (είς τί δή); E. Ion 525 (ώς τί δή), cf. IT. 557, LA. 1342. The last two of these passages introduce follow-up questions as at Medea 929.
8 Diggle (above, n. 2), 350. See also Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus Agamemnon ii (Oxford, 1950), p. 414, and Page (above, n. 6), pp. 141–2Google Scholar.
9 Additional corruption intended to accommodate disturbed lines in an alien location is a feature of Held. 945ff.: see Jackson, J., Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford, 1955), pp. 6–9Google Scholar, whose conjecture ὰξίωσας for the manuscript reading ήξίωσας is printed by Diggle.
10 Since the repetition is necessary in order to explain the corruption, a consequence of accepting the transposition is that πέρι (926) should not be emended. Thus acceptance of the transposition entails toleration of the intransitive use of εῢ τίθεσθαι, which (as with τιθέναι also) is not found elsewhere.
11 See n. 9 above.
12 I wish to thank my colleague Dr M. J. Apthorp and the CQ referee for comments on earlier drafts of this article.