DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

Euripides Medea 1056-80 

Michael Dyson 

SINCE THE RENEWAL of an old attack on the authenticity of Medea 
1056-80, above all in an influential article by M. D. Reeve, the 
conviction that the lines are spurious bids fair to become the new 

orthodoxy and has been incorporated into the recent Oxford text of 
Euripides. 1 The attack carries the warning that arguments in support 
of authenticity drawn from interpretation of the whole play are cir­
cular if the passage in question contributes to that interpretation, and 
the matter can only be solved by independent examination of indi­
vidual problems. Accordingly I propose to discuss five major points 
that constitute the main targets of attack. For three of these I believe 
that a precise answer is available; for the others I support proposals 
that are reasonable if not entirely compelling. Finally I indulge briefly 
in the prohibited type of argument, with a comment on what is lost 
aesthetically by the excision. 

I 

A disruption of logic between lines 1058 and 1059 is alleged as one 
of the strongest arguments against authenticity (1056-64): 

<;' <;' 

a a' 
\!I:~ () , \ , ", '!I: p.1] u1]Ta, vp.£, p.1] UV Y £pyauTI Tau£' 

" ,,?, \ A,. ~ , 
£auov aVTOVS, 00 Ta"av, 't'HuaL T£KVooV' 

EK£L p..E(J' ~p.wv (WVTES Ev<ppavovu{ UE. 
\ \ , (fA ~ , , " ' p.a, TOVS 7Tap Lun VEpTEpOVS a"auTopas, 

060 '! , " "" ()' CI , () ~ , \ 1 OVTOL 7TOT EUTaL TOV 07TooS EX pOLS £yoo 
~!I: ' \, \ (J Q ' 7TaLuas 7Tap1]UOO TOVS £P.OVS Ka v,...pLuaL. 

1M. D. Reeve, CQ N.S. 22 (1972) 51-61, with references to earlier discussions; for 
further criticism of lines 1078-80 see O. Zwierlein, LiteraturwissJb 19 (1978) 27-63. 
Subsequent attempts at rehabilitation are criticised by B. Manuwald, WS 17 N.F. 
(1983) 56-61; U. Hubner, Hermes 112 (1984) 401-18, regards the point at which the 
spurious passage begins as the only problem, and would delete everything after line 
1039; J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae I (Oxford 1984), deletes 1056-80 with reference to 
Reeve. The most substantial contribution to the defence has, I believe, been made by 
H. Lloyd-Jones, WurzJbb 6a (1980) 51-59, with the essential point about 1078-80 
(32 infra); H. Erbse, Archaiognosia 2 (1981) 66-82, is too optimistic in basing his in­
terpretation of the speech on the defence as it stands at the moment. 

23 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

24 EURIPIDES MEDEA 1056-80 

I .f." I (J ~ , '5:' I 
?TaVTOOS (1"" avaYK7J KaT aVHV' f?TH uf XP7J, 

~,.dis KTEVOVftfV O't?TEP Eff<pvUaftfV. 
I I ~, '.f. 't 

?TaVToos ?TE?TpaKTat TaVTa KOVK EK""Ev~fTat. 

1 062-63 del. Pierson 

Medea begs her (JVft0S to spare the children and for a second time (cf 
1045) contemplates taking them with her into exile, but at once rejects 
the idea. Why so? Because, say the critics, she refuses to allow the 
children to fall into the hands of the Corinthians. And so we can point 
to a contradiction: the Corinthians will not kill them if she takes them 
with her, so that this particular fear cannot logically be the basis of her 
decision not to take them.2 

The inconsistency has, however, been imported into the text by a 
misunderstanding: in lines 1059-61 Medea does not say that she will 
not allow her children to be put to death cruelly by her enemies the 
Corinthians, but that she will not allow her children to be humiliated 
by enemies in general-that is, to be subjected to the treatment which 
orphans could expect in exile. And this does constitute a logical reason 
for her decision. 3 

It is moreover a reason that carries great weight. For even before the 
action starts we are told that the family were displaced persons, both 
parents being in exile (35, 166f, 551). It is to escape from the 
helplessness and poverty of their situation that Jason forms his new 
connection with the Corinthian royal house (551-56). His action, he 
says, might have saved Medea and the family (595-97); and although 
Medea repudiates his decision, she does not disagree with his assess­
ment of their predicament as that of friendless exiles (8800. Thus 
when he betrays her, her position is one of extreme isolation, for she 
cannot, as other women might do, fall back on her kin for support 

2 Erbse (supra n.l) 70-72 avoids the non sequitur by regarding 1 057f as containing 
not a real project but a seductive illusion. In his view the illusion is not rejected on 
the grounds of Corinthian threats to the children, but presumably-he is not 
explicit-because Medea recognises it for what it is and dismisses it accordingly. She 
then goes on to declare that she will not let the Corinthians kill them, on the assump­
tion that their death must follow the attack on the princess. However, this sequence 
of thought is unacceptable, since the oath and OiiTO' • • • must be a counter to the 
otherwise unrejected appeal of 1056. Incidentally, the alleged inconsistency occurs 
within the suspect passage, which does not enhance its role as a sign of interpolation; 
cf Manuwald (supra n.1) 48, who has the interpolator 'forget' that Medea could take 
the children with her at line 1045. 

3 lowe this interpretation to a suggestion made by Professor A. Thornton of Otago 
University. Close is J. Baumert, ENIOI A0ETOynN (Tiibingen 1968) 190 n.2, who 
says that, since at divorce children legally belong to the father, Medea's children 
would be under threat at Athens; but I believe that he still means threats on their 
Ii ves from the Corinthians. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

MICHAEL DYSON 25 

(255-58). And when, on top of this, comes her expulsion from 
Corinth, she has nowhere to tum; the chorus sympathetically develops 
the hopelessness of her plight (357-63,435-45); they would sooner die 
than face such a life (645-53). Obviously we are meant to see exile as a 
terrible part of Medea's calamity. 

And the children are to share this affliction. Jason's apparent readi­
ness to permit this shocks others (740, and Creon yields against his 
better judgement to the appeal by Medea for time to make some 
provision for their needs (340-47). This is the culminating point of 
Medea's abuse of Jason (512-15), and he himself wants to offer help to 
her and the children in their desperate plight (461-63,610-14). 

The prospects of the children in exile are, then, uniformly regarded 
as wretched in the extreme. No substantial alleviation is envisaged in 
Aegeus' offer of a refuge to Medea, for the children are not mentioned 
in this connection, and the insecurity of her own dependent status is 
vividly brought out in her insistence that he take a formal oath (735-
41). Enemies who might humiliate the children in exile certainly exist: 
she specifies the house of Pelias as well as the Corinthians (7340; but 
the miseries of orphans and exiles is a general theme in Greek 
literature, and it is the degradation of such a life for her sons that in her 
eyes makes their survival no viable alternative.4 As her sense of pride 
contributes to her demand for revenge (404-06), so it diminishes the 
force of this counter-argument. She envisages nothing but humiliation 
for them should they remain in Corinth with their father, and would 
reject that (7810; all the more, given the great emphasis developed in 
the previous scenes, ought an audience be ready to feel the validity of 
this consideration in Medea's mind as an objection to the plan to save 
them by taking them with her out of Corinth. It is not, of course, meant 
as sufficient reason for killing them: revenge on Jason is her only 
motive for that; yet it does serve to exclude the alternative suggested 
by motherly love. Medea holds a view in common with Megara at 
Heracles 302ff, who also considers pleading for the lives of her 
children with the tyrant intent on murdering them, but discards the 
plan (302-07): 

4 For the helplessness of orphans see II. 22.487-99: even if Astyanax survives the 
war, as an orphan he will be cut off from his fellows, must rely on scant charity from 
his father's friends, and will be bullied by those with parents to back them. The 
dangers of children in exile, or at home while their fathers are exiled, are vividly 
portrayed at Lysias 12.97-99, with a use of fJ{3p,(fiCT8at very pertinent to our passage 
(98) < ~\ ~~ < ~ II \' 8'~· < \ , ~ <Q'I". "" \ t' 

: Ot ufi 'lTatufiS' ViJ.WV, UCTOt iJ.fiV fiV aufi 71CTav, V'lTO TOVTWV av V~Pt'l.0VTO, Ot u fi'lTt r,;£V71S' 
iJ.tICpwv av ~vfiICa CTViJ.{3oAal.wv €OOVA£VOV €P71iJ.I.C[- TWV €1TtICOVP71CTOVTWV. For exile in Euripi­
des see Phoen. 388-407, esp. 400. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

26 EURIPIDES MEDEA 1056-80 

"'I> '1>" """6' , , , 6 1/01/ () EU1/A ElL EL 7rapaLT1/uaLILE a 
'" " .... '1>' '",,' , ''1>'''6'' ."v)'as TEKVWV TWVu • aAAa Kat TOu a ALOV, 

, , , .... {3" .... , 
7rEVL{l UVV OLKTP{l 7rEpL aAELV uWT7JpLav' 

305 ' ,~ , , '" ' '" '" ws Ta ~EVWV 7rpOUW7ra ."EV)'OVULV ."LAOLS 
(\ ~ ''I>' {3'" ,,, "" , EV 1/p.ap 1/uV AEP.P. EXELV ."auLv p.ovov. 

, " 6".... 6' (\" <I TOAp.a P.E 7Jp.wv avaTOV, os P.EVEL U OP.WS. 

The life of exiles, for which alone they might be saved, is not worth 
living. Both women are proud and have high traditions to live up to. 
On similar grounds they reject a softer altemati ve before pressing on 
with the course that principle dictates. The parallel from Heracles 
clearly shows that the consideration should be accorded sufficient 
weight to figure at this crucial stage of Medea's deliberations. 

Nor is there anything in details of language that rules out this inter­
pretation. Admittedly Medea's particular enemies are Jason and Cre­
on, and she has just used the words fX6poVs .•. TOVS fP.OVS (1050) in a 
way that naturally refers to them. But it is doctrinaire to exclude a 
wider reference at line 1060. Indeed, Jason cannot be included any­
way, for he is no threat to his children, so that the audience would be 
less inclined to take fx6pOLS in the more restricted sense, and the wider 
is helped by the absence of the definite article. The oath at line 1059 
properly introduces her declaration: to swear by the spirits of ven­
geance is to proclaim that the supreme principle they represent will not 
be betrayed for so little gain. 5 And now Ka6v{3pluaL has its proper sense 
of , degrade' or 'dishonour', as it has at lines 782 and 1380, without the 
extra implication of 'put to death' with which it has been saddled in 
this passage on the reading of the scholiast. Medea refuses to expose 
her children to a life in which they would be vulnerable to the sort of 
shameful and insufferable outrage to which she herself has been sub­
jected (255: f)'W S' fp7Jp.os li7rOALS o~u' v{3pl(op.aL). 

II 

Line 1060 is, however, only too easily misunderstood, and someone 
who jumped to the obvious but wrong conclusion that it refers to the 
Corinthians had to explain why Medea thought that they would mis­
treat the children. A reason was not far to seek, for later in the play 
revenge from that quarter is regarded as inevitable should the children 
fall into their hands (1238f, 1301-05); this gives a motive that can be 

5 The inappropriate use of this oath as an introduction to the declaration that she 
will not let the Corinthians kill the children is an important part of the criticism of 
these lines; see G. Miiller, St/ta125 (1951) 76. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

MICHAEL DYSON 27 

read back into Medea's monologue, buttressed by the marginal quota­
tion at this point of the couplet from 1240f, which in due course 
becomes incorporated into the text as lines 1062f. The result is a strain 
on the sense of Ka()v{3p{erat and on the sequence of thought: what 
prompts Medea to think of Corinthian revenge at this stage? 

Lines 1 062f are, of course, at home only in the later passage, where 
the context explains why she will kill the children herself. She is going 
to kill them anyway-they must die for the sake of revenge (1240)­
but if she delays she will be caught and the children killed by others 
more cruelly (12370. This is the way in which, when the deed is 
actually upon her, she steels herself to do it. But once one sees that line 
1061 does not refer to the death of the children at all, then her dec­
laration at 1062f that she, as their mother, will kill them herself, is 
unmotivated and is clearly adrift from its proper context: it only 
makes sense if other killers are envisaged, as in the later speech. Thus 
lines 1 062f are rightly removed. 

What is the effect on the sequence of Medea's thought? The meaning 
of '7TaVTWS '7TE'7TpaKTat TaVTa KOVK EK</>n';,€Tat (1064) is literally: "In any 
case this has been done and will not get away." TaVTa refers to her plan 
as so far completed, the most important element of which is the ac­
ceptance of the poisoned gifts by the princess. The word is vague, 
certainly, but is helped by the similar usage at line 1013: TavTa yd.p Owl. 
Kayw KaKws </>povover' E/J-TJxaVTJera/J-TJv. Here it is also the subject of EK­
</>n';,€Tat, which should be understood in the sense in which it is used 
several times in Demosthenes with, as subjects, Td. '7TpaY/J-aTa, (Jera 
E{3ovA~()TJT€, '7T€pl. 6)V {3oVA€V€er()€.6 The use of EKf/>€V,€Tat in situations 
involving success or failure in achieving goals and carrying out proj­
ects makes it suitable for the present context; and since TaVTa has 
already been used as the subject of a verb denoting action, it fits 
perfectly here also. There is no problem with Kat. o~ ... (10650, which 

6 Since EICcpn;ffTaL is not passive in Attic, the only other plausible subject is the 
princess, but she is virtually ruled out because she is not mentioned until the next 
lines. For the Demosthenic sense, perhaps a metaphor from hunting, see J. E. Sandys, 
The First Philippic and Olynthiacs of Demosthenes (London 1897) 187; cf 3.3, 14.15, 
18.33, 19.123. I quote 5.2: uVfLfJal.VfL ... Ta 7TpaYfLaTa KaL 7TfPL ~v fJOVAtl)fU8' EICCPfVYfLV 
vfL<k The context is always political, and the verb is always transitive; neither point 
seems to be a serious objection, since it is clearly an imaginative expression in 
Demosthenes, and the verb is frequently intransitive. Alternatively one could write 
KOl! fL' EKcpfvffTaL if necessary. There is a somewhat similar idea of something sought 
'getting away' at Soph. OT 111. The context of planning and action in Demosthenes 
readily explains 7Ti7TpaICTaL-this much at any rate has been done and will not slip 
through her fingers-whereas with other interpretations the meaning is problematic; 
see Reeve, GRBS 13 (1972) 260. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

28 EURIPIDES MEDEA 1056-80 

follows on correctly, vividly expressing Medea's conviction that the 
death ofthe princess is already taking place. 

Given this, it can hardly be said that excision of 1062f spoils the 
clarity of the passage by removing the most explicit reference to the 
murder of the children, thus leaving Medea's change of mind unde­
clared. Surely what we have is sufficient: "I will sacrifice them; ah, 
spare them, they will be your joy in exile; by the spirits of vengeance, 1 
will not surrender them to humiliation by enemies; the thing has been 
done and will not fail, the princess is dying." This is not explicit; but 
hearing it, an audience whose minds are not mesmerised by the pros­
pect of Corinthian vengeance in line 1 061 would have no difficulty at 
all in following the logic of Medea's thought. 

III 
1071 '9'~,\ 1 1 ~/,\ !:ol 1 

W ."tI\TaT1J XELP, ."LI\TaTOV uE I-I.0t UT0I-I.a 
,,.. " , \ I 

Kat uX1JI-I.a Kat 7TPOUW7TOV EV)'EVES' TEKVWV. 
, !:o ~ , '\ ,\" ~ '!:o" 8 l!:o 

Evuatl-l.oVOLTOV, al\l\ EKEt· Ta u EV auE 
, , ~ 1,\ , 

-rraT1Jp a."ELI\ET • 

Fault has been found with EKli and Ev8aaE as being incompatible with 
the implications of the first part of the monologue. By "there" Medea 
and the audience understand 'in death', and by "here" they under­
stand 'on earth'; but the words must also have an acceptable meaning 
for the children to whom they are addressed and who believe, as we 
know from lines 1021-24, that they are to continue living in Corinth. 
They must hear the words, for Medea is embracing them as she speaks, 
but at first sight it looks as if "here" should mean 'in Corinth', which 
runs counter to their earlier assumption and leaves no intelligible 
reference for "there." And so it has been claimed that the two parts of 
the monologue must be the work of different hands.7 

A survey of locations in the play shows, however, that "here" does 
not inevitably mean for the children 'in Corinth', but refers naturally 
to the house in front of which they are standing, which has been their 
family home until now; "there" refers to their father's new home in 
which they will live when Medea has gone. They will understand her 
words to mean: 'My blessings on you, but in the other house;Father has 
put an end to our life together in this house'. 

Jason is in fact already married (19) and living elsewhere with his 
new bride (378-82). He may be occupying a part of the palace com­
plex, since the robes are to be taken to a "rich house" (969, although 

7 See Reeve (supra n.l) 60. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

MICHAEL DYSON 29 

Creon himself seems to be at some distance, to judge by line 1177). In 
any event, at the end of the play Medea tells Jason to "go home" and 
bury his wife (1394). It is clear that Jason is living elsewhere and that, 
since the children have just made a visit, they know it. It is almost 
inescapable to suppose that when they are released from exile, they 
will go to live with their father. There is no sign in the text of the new 
wife moving into Medea's house, which, in the family's straitened 
circumstances, should hardly be visualised as grand. The children, 
then, may well take a coming move for granted, and EKE' for them will 
have the same reference as does TaKli8Ev (1117) for Medea: that is, the 
house called VVP.t/>tKOI. Mp.ot (1137), which includes women's quarters 
with the princess installed (1143), and from which one of Jason's 
servants brings Medea news (1118). 

The likely supposition is in any case supported by indications in the 
text that Euripides wants his audience to understand the situation in 
this way. When the tutor has been sent inside to see to the children's 
daily needs, an expression which itself may be thought to point beyond 
today in particular, Medea tells them that they have a city and a home, 
in which they will live when they have left her (1022f: awp", EV cP 
At'lTOVTES a8ALav E/J-£ OLK~(TET' aLE£), while she will go into exile. The 
participle is appropriate to someone going away; she is departing, but 
so are they, and since they and everybody else know that they are 
staying in the same city, the home in which they will live can only be a 
new house. Similar support for what is in any case the natural assump­
tion occurs at line 1039, where the participle a'1l'oo"TavTE~ implies a 
change oflocation as well as oflife-style. 

When Medea contemplates taking them with her into exile, there is 
a different contrast to the fore, namely that between Athens and Cor­
inth; in this context EKE' (1058) naturally refers to Athens. The children 
are offstage at this point, and when they return she simply takes up the 
original standpoint again and uses the same double meaning, while 
their expectation that they will be leaving this house anyway estab­
lishes the context in which "there" and "here" are understood in terms 
of contrast between houses in Corinth. Thus the writer of line 1073 is 
very much aware of what he must do to maintain consistency with the 
first part ofthe speech. 

IV 

On the next two problems I support a position argued by others. In 
connection with the first of these, the movements of the children 
during the monologue, I think that what the text offers is almost 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

30 EURIPIDES MEDEA 1056-80 

certainly unsatisfactory and that lines 1 069f should be emended. As 
they stand in context they read: 

1067 '1.,\' ~ 's.' 1. "s.' aM\ ,ELP.& yap U7J TI\7Jp.OVEUTaT7JV Ouov 
, 'It './, 1. '" KaL TOVUu£ 7TEP.."W TI\7JP.0V£UTEpav ETL, 
~s. ~ R '1. s.' ,~ , 

7Ta&uas 7TPOUE&7TE&V fJovl\op.a&· uOT , W TElCva, 
It'" '() 's.C' , uOT aU7Tauau aL P.7JTpL uE{.Lav XEpa. 

The fundamental information is as follows: the children arrive with 
their tutor (1002), who then goes in, leaving them with Medea (1021). 
She tells them to go indoors (1053), to give her their hands (1069), and 
to go (1076). 

The difficulty is that ifthey obey the order to go indoors at line 1053, 
they are not present to hear the request to give their hands.8 We can 
hardly have them disobeying the order to go in, for their disobedience 
is unmotivated and would be a quite extraordinary breach of tragic 
convention. Further, they would be on stage during scarcely mistak­
able references to their death (1057-61) and an explicit statement of 
that of the princess (1 065f), which makes nonsense of the ambiguity 
with which they are addressed earlier. Nor will it do to say that they are 
distracted from leaving by her cry at line 1056 but still do not over­
hear,9 for her cry can only explain their lingering on stage by requiring 
their attention at the very moment when the content of her remarks 
requires their inattention. To contrive to send off auditors in order to 
allow a soliloquy may be artificial, but it makes sense; to contrive that 
they do not go off when sent, and yet still fail to hear, is a contradiction 
in conventions, for it cancels the need to send them off in the first 
place. 

They must, therefore, go indoors at line 1053, and they will not be 
expected to appear without further instructions. Of the two main 
possibilities the first is that an attendant is at hand to take the first half 
ofline 1069 as a directive to bring the children out. Servants do tend to 
materialise unexpectedly in tragedy as required, but the presence of 
one here, after the tutor has been dismissed expressly in order to leave 
Medea and the children alone, is more disturbing than, say, at lines 
820-23 (cj 774), when a messenger is needed to summon Jason, and 
must therefore be privy to the whole plot. The second possibility is 
preferable, namely, to accept Dodds's emendation OEVT' 6) TfKva· for 

8 D. Bain, Actors and Audience (Oxford 1977) 25, supporting deletion, maintains 
that "this uncertainty and awkwardness of the staging is one of the strongest 
arguments against the authenticity of 1056-80." 

9 Cf. H. Diller, Hermes 94 (1966) 269; Bain (supra n.8) 26f, though preferring exci­
sion, offers tentative support with reference to Bacch. 809. But there Pentheus does 
pay attention, whereas the children here do not. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

MICHAEL DYSON 31 

oaT', ci:J TEKva (1069).10 This replaces "Give, children, give ... " with 
"Come, children; give ... " There will be a pause at the end of the line 
while they appear. The summons is admittedly somewhat bald, but 
perhaps no more than it need be; since they have just gone in, it would 
be odd to have elaboration of the sort found at lines 894f, where Me­
dea is staging a feigned reunion with great pomp and circumstance. 
The emendation involves minimal change, the corruption is readily 
explained from oaT' in the next line, and serious difficulties are over­
come with maximum economy} 1 The only problem is lexical, but this 
may not be insuperable. Of o£vn it used to be said that it is found only 
once in Attic, but since this is on Medea's own lips in an address to 
these same children (894), from which editors remove it simply be­
cause of its rarity, the occurrence itself might be thought to counter­
balance its rarity as support for the emendation under consideration. 
And since it now is found in regular iambic lines of Aeschylus' Dic­
tyulci and Menander's DysCO/US,12 it is a distinct possibility here. Of 
course, with a word so rare as this doubt must remain, but with this 
emendation available I suggest that the uncertainty of the staging of 
the children's movements cannot really qualify, in itself, as a strong 
argument against the authenticity of the passage. 

v 
Whether the final problem has any bearing on the question of au­

thenticity or not depends on the degree of consistency which one 

10 E. R. Dodds, Humanitas 4 (I 952) 14. 
11 Bain (supra n.8) 25 says that the emendation does not really solve the problem. 

Why not? No other objection is raised except by Reeve (supra n.l: 56), who suggests 
that it is "unduly peremptory." But the passages to which he refers for contrast are, 
apart from Med. 894, first entries where more elaboration is appropriate than our 
passage warrants. At De myst. 150 Andocides explains that he is going to summon 
prominent democrats in support; the actual summons is very plain: "Come here, 
Anytus, Cephalus," etc. Four steps in our passage may be compared with corre­
sponding steps at Ar. Nub. 78-81: (1) I want to speak to them - I want to wake him. 
(2) Come-how shall I wake him? (Medea simply calls them, for, unlike Strepsiades, 
she has no need to be tentative). (3) Children - Pheidippides (with repetition-he is 
asleep). (4) Give me your hands - kiss me, give me your hand (in both cases the 
command follows the summons directly). The similarities are obvious, and the differ­
ences only serve to reveal the appropriateness of each sequence to its context. 

12 Aesch. fr.864.18 (Mette); Men. Dysc. 866; the late tragedian Cn. Pompeius Macer 
(TrGF I 180Fi) has a mother addressing her ominously unaware children: a(VT' c!, dKV' 
•.. TL 7TPOITAa.(Hrfh ... p.ov; In view of these passages,. J. C. Kamerbeek, Mnemosyne 
SER.4 39(1986)96,doubts if it is defensible to remove a(VTt" from Med. 894. Profes­
sor W. G.Amott draws my attention to a possible occurrence in comedy: C. Austin, 
Comicorum graecorumjragmenta in papyris reperta (Berlin/New York 1973) fr.347.2. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

32 EURIPIDES MEDEA l056-80 

expects of a great poet, and that is a matter which involves subjective 
judgement (1078-80). 

, 8 ' ' ''' s: ~ '\ \ ' /Ca& ILav avw IJ-EV O&a upav ILEI\I\W /Ca/Ca, 

8 's:" ~, ~ t:l \ ' vILoS uE /CpE&UUWV rwv EILWV ,...ovI\EvILarwv, 
<I , " "... t:I. ,.. OU1TEp ILeYLurwv aLnos KaKWV ,...porOLS. 

Fault has been found with Medea's summary here of her dilemma as a 
conflict between passion and reason, because the word chosen for the 
latter, {3oVAE'lJlLara, has been used with some regularity in the play to 
denote her plans for revenge, to which her passion is not opposed, and 
because in any case her tragedy does not admit of analysis in terms of 
this conflict. 13 

It seems to me that these criticisms are too rigid and that the key to a 
correct interpretation of these lines is provided by the observation of 
H. Lloyd-Jones that {joVAEl)ILara is not in fact used exclusively of Me­
dea's schemes for revenge, but takes its colour from its context. 14 On 
this approach one may say that, although the word has been used 
earlier in the speech of plans for revenge (1 044f, 1048), nevertheless 
Medea has just been considering taking her children with her into 
exile, and the phrasing of lines l044f implies that this proposal 
amounts to new {3oVAE'I)lJ-ara. Medea plans on both sides, and in the 
present context, after considering escape with her children, she rejects 
the idea because of the inexorable demands of her passion (1 056f); as 
she bids farewell and kisses them until she can bear their sight no 
longer, she admits that she knows what evil she is doing but that her 
passion overcomes her plans. Surely those plans are any projects 
formed on the basis of recognition that to kill the children is evil and 
therefore to be avoided. The project relevant in the context is the 
escape with them into exile; over this plan revenge takes precedence. 

It is not necessary to exclude a moral sense from /Ca/Ccl in line l078. 
The boundary between prudential and moral applications of Greek 
value terms is no less imprecise than with 'good' and 'bad' in English; 

13 See Zwierlein (supra n.l) 34, who rightly rejects the strange idea of A. Dihle, 
SBHeid (1977) 13, that by the end of this speech Medea has decided through 
motherly love not to kill the children; surely it is intolerable that the necessary 
subsequent change of mind before the actual murder is left unexplained. 

14 Lloyd-Jones (supra n.l) 58. His interpretation of {3ovAlvp.aTa as 'counsels' that 
derive from Medea's knowledge that what she is about to do is evil I modify only to 
the extent that I interpret TWII Ep.wII {3ovAlVP.o.TWII to include a specific plan to which 
the audience has been given access, namely her plan to take the children with her into 
exile. Manuwald (supra n.l) 59 objects that {3ovAlvp.aTa has not been used of the 
rescue plan, although admitting that it is implied at lines 1044f, and denies that it is 
colourless because hitherto it has been used either of Medea's revenge or of the attack 
of her enemies. This seems to me rather to confirm the contention that the word is 
not restricted to Medea's revenge; see 270, 449, 886, as well as 372, 769, 772, 1044, 
1048. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

MICHAEL DYSON 33 

the KaKd. that Medea is going to do may exhibit a moral aspect not 
relevant to the KaKd. by which she is overcome (1077). Indeed it is highly 
desirable that the moral element be felt. When Medea first announces 
her plan to murder the children she recognises that what she intends is 
"unholy" (TAau' fp"Yov avouLwTaTov, 796); and although the main ac­
cent subsequently falls on her self-inflicted suffering (e.g. 818, 996, 
1361), it is not forgotten by the chorus (850), Jason (1346), or Medea 
herself (1383) that such a deed is an atrocity. It is therefore entirely 
appropriate that at this point, when Medea expresses greatest aware­
ness of the implications of her act, she should acknowledge the enor­
mity as well as the misery of her course. 

So we should not be over-systematic and rule out the clash of pas­
sion and reason as inconsistent with the analysis of Medea's pre­
dicament elsewhere in the play. She is convinced that she has been 
wronged and in taking revenge she is implementing (however bar­
barically) a Greek principle of justice. Ifin the main the tragedy lies in 
the inevitable cost of pain to herself of her commitment to revenge, 
that does not preclude her recognition of wrong done to the children. It 
is one aspect of her experience of her dilemma, and her course is only 
very inadequately characterised as right but painful. It is critical des­
potism to deny Euripides the chance to illumine this facet briefly, 
powerfully, and in due place. His dramatic method, in this play and 
elsewhere,15 surely accommodates such highlighting: already in the 
prologue we have heard that Medea hates her children; since then we 
have seen her use them as pawns in her strategy; now that we know 
how much she loves them we need to feel certain that she understands 
the enormity of her action, even while she affirms that her dominant 
motive is an irresistible passion for revenge which she sees as the most 
destructive force in human life. 

Medea is generalising at the close of the episode, both about her own 
course of action and about human life as a whole. It is, we may feel, a 
pity that she does not use a word other than "plans" for this purpose, 
for though it suits the immediate context of escape with the children 
perfectly, it has been used five times in the play of her schemes for 
revenge-when, of course, it does not provide a suitable contrast with 
the passion that inspires that revenge. But this should only count as an 
argument against authenticity if Euripides can be shown to have a 
marked commitment to consistency of this sort. If a friendly critic had 
pointed out to Euripides that Medea is typically a planner for revenge, 

15 See e.g. Ale. 694-705, where Pheres launches into a sudden and unexpected im­
putation of cowardice in Admetus' acceptance of his wife's sacrifice. Admetus hardly 
comes out of the particular confrontation well, and yet it is a presupposition of the 
plot that he feels only grief, not remorse, at the loss of Alcestis. 



DYSON, MICHAEL, Euripides "Medea" 1056-80 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:1 
(1987:Spring) p.23 

34 EURIPIDES MEDEA 1056-80 

not against it, and that this limits the application of the generalisation, 
he might possibly have sworn softly and chosen a different word. But I 
doubt ifhe would have bothered. 

VI 

None of the main points at which our passage has been attacked 
reveals the weaknesses that should justify wholesale excision. With the 
spectre of the Corinthians exorcised from line 1060, the removal ofthe 
intrusive couplet 1062f, the recognition of the proper meaning of 
ElCcpfv,fTa& and {JovAfv/J-aTwv, and the acceptance of the emendation 
OfVT'-not drastic measures by any means-the passage is back on its 
feet. And once on its feet it more than holds its own against the 
altemative. 16 Without it, Medea's farewell is curtailed without bless­
ing or embrace; with it, her farewell is duly complete. Without it, 
moving as the first part of the monologue is, we never see Medea 
unreservedly loving her children, as the action of the play demands if 
we are to feel her as tragic; with it, the final embrace leaves no doubt as 
to her love and her torment. Without it, we have a Medea whose 
purpose never wavers except for a moment; with it, we feel the over­
whelming force within her which drives her to the slaughter of her 
innocents. Without it, there is half a scene; with it, there is a structure 
built round the focal private plea to her (Jv/J-os, which is hardly con­
ceivable as anything but an organic unity. Such considerations are not 
objective arguments for the authenticity of the passage; but they make 
those arguments worth looking for. Ifl might urge the advantage of my 
treatment, it allows us to keep all the tempest of Medea's struggle with 
her feelings, as defenders of the passage want, without having her 
surrender rationality, which the critics rightly will not countenance. 

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND 

July, 1986 

16 The case against lines 1040-55 brought by Hubner (supra n.l) rests on the as­
sumption that the following lines are spurious; it fails automatically if they are vindi­
cated. Further, he is obliged to have the children sent indoors at line 1020, despite 
the address to them that immediately ensues, a defiance of the obvious which is all 
the more incredible in view of the subtlety of the arguments brought against the 
suspected lines. However, his demonstration of stylistic unity in the monologue from 
line 1040 is a problem if lines 1056-80 are spurious. And from a dramatic point of 
view, surely it is better to allow Medea no back-sliding at all than to lame her for one 
brief moment with doubt (1042-48); this I find utterly feeble and quite unworthy of 
Euripides. But neither do I find it credible that Euripides, having come so far, would 
evade the passionate confrontation of the mother with the children whom she is going 
to kill.