English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

The First Medea and the Other Heracles: On Alleged Double Versions of Euripidean Plays