The beginning of the second entry of Apollonius Sophista's Lexicon Homericum reads as follows in the codex Coislinianus gr. 345, the only direct witness to this section : ἀάατος· ὁ ἀβλαβὴς καὶ εὐχερὴς καὶ δι’ οὗ ἄνευ ἄτης. ἐνίοτε δὲ τὸν ἐπιβλαβῆ καὶ δυσχερῆ …ἀάατος: ‘harmless’ and ‘easy’, and δι’ οὗ ‘without ἄτη’. But sometimes ‘hurtful’ and ‘difficult’ ….

This article re-examines the scholium on Euripides, Andromache 445, which several scholars have used to support the claim that Andromache premiered outside Athens, and concludes that both the scholium itself and a remark in the play's hypothesis rather suggest that the play was produced in Athens as part of a dramatic competition.

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. (shrink)

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. (shrink)