act 3 Flashcards
line 382
Boyle asks whether ‘entheos’ here may be a nominative as in E it is written as ‘pentheos’ but more likely to be a Greek adjective simply agreeing with ‘gressus’. Greek used here as a marker of strangeness/ foreignness
line 384
‘nivalis’ in E - makes perfect sense and. ‘iugalis’ in A is an anticipation error of ‘iuga’ at the end of the line
line 385-6
Richter suggests they swap over. However it is not uncommon in seneca for similes tho work in the transmitted way
line 389
question over what force of ‘capit’ is - what it cannot mean is ‘she contains’ an example of every emotion - but Tobias thinks instead ‘she acquires’ or ‘she contracts’ - would make it a quasi-medical idea
line 390
zwierlein has a colon after ‘haeret’ but you might equally read it as one line. Possible that 390 could come before 389 which seems very probable
Leo things having 390 after 391 but this doesn’t see, very logical
line 396
could capitalise ‘furor’ (zweirlein does) - roman authors don’t capitalise proper names, have to choose whether we are personifying the idea or not
line 396
Heinsius change ‘fallant’ to ‘fallat’ or ‘pellant’
line 398
is ‘imitare’ really the idea we want? would have to mean something like ‘imitate to a degree’. Heinsius suggested ‘metire’ which is much closer to sense of calibration. Giardina cites Phaedra 255 and suggests ‘moderare’ but Tobias is seriously unconvinced. Steve thinks ‘imitare’ is fine. Costa has a good explanation for what the ‘ut’ is doing in the second half (a repudiating subjunctive)
line 403-404
Giardina suggests ‘soles diem’ for ‘solem dies’ but the plural of ‘soles’ is slightly contrived and so you could instead have ‘noctes diem’
line 406
‘in poenas’ in all manuscripts, but Giardina would amend to ‘impensus’, Tobias doesn’t like this conjecture either (calls it ‘one of giardina’s less successful moments’)
line 408
‘ausonium’ in E (the sea we want) and ‘ionium’ in A - a more familiar sea
line 409
‘quaeve’ in E, ‘quaeque’ in A - no material difference between the two
line 410
‘fervebit’ is transmitted, but ‘feruescit’, ‘feruescet’, ‘ferbuit’ and ‘ferbuerit’ have been suggested
line 413
‘inhibere’ is transmitted but larger context would suggest a different verb is better. Leo has suggested ‘imitare’ but Fitch has suggested ‘aequare’ which Tobias is persuaded by. If ‘inhibere’ is correct it is deliberately paradoxical and it’s difficult to see how ‘inhibere’ is brought about by ‘aequare’
line 417
concessive in force; ‘cessarit’ is transmitted by A but ‘cesserit’ in E is right
line 419
Bentley proposed ‘socer’ for ‘ferox’ - ‘ferox’ doesn’t quite mean brave man/hero as we might want. Tobias suggests something like ‘bonus’ but less bland might be better - glossed to ‘ferox’ to mean hero incorrectly
see line 437 - Jason using medea-esque language to refer to himself, deliberately out of character / word not meaning what we would expect it to here because it channels the perspective and opinions of Medea
line 423
is ‘faciet…faciet’ suspicious for its repetition? ‘multum patebit’ doesn’t seem very strong either. No clear answer. maybe something mundane like ‘festus’ for the first ‘faciet’
line 425
Richter suggested ‘reprime’ for ‘recipe’, Giardina suggests ‘retina’ (comparing with phrases like ‘retina impetum’) - but that seems a stretch
line 428
deleted by Kirsten - substantially similar to the line before. ‘cum pereas’ suspicious, repetition of ‘mecum’ also seems unlikely - delete line
line 431
Bentley wonders is ‘vita tempore’ had been displaced by the more erratic ‘semper’ - Tobias thinks having an adjective here would be slightly unusual
line 432
‘malam’ in A, ‘mala’ in E - latter definitely wrong (check if scans differently but more transparently does not correspond with anything)
Damste - suggests ‘mala est’ - worth considering but ultimately over complicates the situation - minims easily lost or abbreviation mark easily missed
line 434
Gronouius - suggests ‘vicem’ over ‘fidem’ meaning reciprocate. Perhaps the repetition of ‘fide/fidem’ in Jason’s speech makes sense for his character, but thematically the change is quite appealing
line 435
is ‘fuit’ correct, ‘si vellem’ would be a conditional for the imperfect/present. May have replaced ‘mihi’
line 437
‘virum’ replaces ‘fidem’ in A - steve likes. Would resolve the repetition issue in line 434 - interesting if here Jason would refer to himself using Medea-esque adjectives - compound the power she has over him, even in his oratory and self-definition
If ‘ferox’ is correct, this would be a response to it - using medea-esque language
the error could go either direction with the proclivity for ‘fidem’ but also ‘vincit’ in same line
line 442
Bentley proposed ‘corda’ or ‘colla’ for ‘corde’ - so accusatives of respect to replace an ablative of respect
line 446
‘totus in vultu est dolor’ also appears in the Agamemnon, very symbolic of Stoic Physiogonomy - fits well here so no reason to suspect interpolation
line 447 EXPAND ON THIS FROM MY OWN NOTES
if the second ‘fugimus’ is perfect, can ignore the ‘hoc’ (as printed by strzelecki) - but metrically unusual for there to be three shorts in one word as there would them have to be in the first ‘fugimus’
consider what the issues with hoc as a particle here might be and expand
line 450
Damste suggests ‘ecce ego’ for ‘exeo’ -> would be very strange to have that at the end of a line
could swap the line endings of 449 and 450 but changing ‘quam’ to ‘iam’
as it is, the sequence in line 450 doesn’t seem very pointed, actually quite weak.
Made attractive by the ‘fugere’ and ‘profugere’ at the midpoint of both lines
line 451
leo suggests ‘at quo?’ for ‘ad quos?’
‘at quo’ does not appear in Seneca
Giardina cites line 459 - ‘quo me remittis?’
at to ad is simply orthographical
line 457
‘parvamne’ in all manuscripts but odd with ‘iolcon’ according to many scholars. Steve, prompted by Fitch would introduce ‘a tuamne’ with is only one letter difference in standard abbreviation.
Seneca does begin iambic trimeters with ‘tus’ elsewhere in the Medea, and it works in terms of sense
line 459
Usener proposes exulem?
line 462
Giardina proposed ‘plagis’ citing Oed 346 - Tobias dismisses as too concrete
line 465
the ‘o ingratum’ in A is a supralineal intrusion
lines 467-468
leo would delete on the basis of repetition of ideas.
Bentley would remove second half of 466 and first half of 467 - steves preferred idea
Metus does not work entirely with the genitive, if just metus corrupt, then ‘minas’ could replace it, or ‘saevas gentis’ and ‘imdomitae’ (basically anything blandly to do with the earth)
line 471
deleted by Zwierlein losing the verb ‘advice’ and sending things back to ‘revolvat’. The fleece has been brought in somewhat gratuitously and there is a metrical anomaly between ‘phrixei’ and ‘arietis’ with ‘arietis’ being trisyllabic with the ‘i’ as a consonant to fit in as done by Virgil. Zwierlein worried by elision but in Ennius’ Medea (Jocelyn, 213, line 6 of preface) - there is elision with the word ‘arietis’ in the same position
line 475
‘iussasque’ in the manuscripts but Heinsius suggested ‘aususque’ quite rightly according to Tobias
line 477
deleted by Zwierlein on account of it being syntactically isolated. also idea Medea was SEEKING a foreign kingdom is not accurate to the myth or Medea’s argument
Tobias suggests moving it to after 482 to set up list of huge wealth of other kingdoms
Steve thinks simple interpolation rather than transposition
line 483-489
deleted by Hubner as it repeats ideas mentioned above and introduces new justifications for Medea’s actions. Tobias says that this newness is a compelling enough reason to keep it.
line 488 does simply restate line 487 - tobias would delete that one
also interrupts the anaphora - steve would delete the anaphora between the ‘quas’ completely and print ‘ex opibus illis (483) vix domus gazas capit (485)’
‘agunt’ not natural use here either - no obvious interpolation though - really want to keep ‘give me back my brother’s limbs’ (487) as an end to the speech so not willing to scrap everything
line 496
‘amores’ in A, ‘mores’ in E
‘amores’ has various attractions - nicely ambiguous as Jason means his love for Creusa, but Medea deliberately understands his love for her. slightly unusual because of ‘amoves’ and ‘amores’ in 495-6
line 501
Bentley suggests ‘coniugem’ has replaced ‘sontem et’ or ‘colchidem’
assuming a bland word has replaced a place is a common theme in Bentley. Transmitted text is more attractive
line 502-505
both lines end in ‘pudet’, Giardina wonders if ‘piget’ was displaced in 504
theme of ‘pudet’ and shame comes back in 510 and 512 when Medea invokes the impression of Jason’s new house. In Ennius there is a ‘pudet’ followed by a ‘piget’
line 506
Tobias thinks ‘doma’ is protected by ‘placare’, although it is the only ‘quin’ with an imperative in Seneca - common in Plautus though
line 512
deleted by Richter. Deleted - Medea and Jason more closely match eachother’s lines. Word order of 511 to 512 is mutually supportive but unusual to have an iambic 5th foot and there is another instance fairly soon after. Sort of comment an interpolation might supply as it spells out something Medea hints at.
perhaps ‘pro nepotes’ might have been written to give the double short we might expect. Greek names might be infecting his style and causing the break (even though the greek names are not directly the problem)
line 513
‘exitium’ suggested by Avantius but all manuscripts have ‘exilium’.
Not an implausible gloss, incredibly easy to- look at what the value would be an amend this card
line 514b
medea’s reference to Creon is not immediately picked up by Jason, suggesting problems with transmission in next section. This may be saying something about their relationship, ie: breakdown in communication, misunderstanding but I still think it’s strange as the moments immediately following pick up on each other fine
line 515
Bothe wonders if ‘pro me’ should be a question
line 516-520
leo deleted on the basis that it seems as though the two kings are hostile to eachother where later they seem to collaborate (525-526). But if 515b suggests not that they are enemies but merely two powerful forces
line 517
‘nos confligere’ - fairly rare crux in Zwierlein.
Avantius suggests ‘conflige’ which restores the line but not clear what that would mean, perhaps collide with us.
Axelson thinks ‘confligere’ is an intruded gloss intended to explain a synonym of a completely different line.
Instead of ‘confligere’ maybe ‘contricta’ - ‘let us fight WITH eachother’
line 516
‘his’ in E, ‘hic’ in A
Tobias takes ‘his’ as it is an appropriately feminine statement
line 518
‘defessus’ is an admission of weariness, ‘devictus’ (suggested by Giardina) would be too straight forward an admission of defeat
line 529a
‘sceptra’ as a reference to power/the king. Another word that commonly does this is throne - which is more likely to be referred to as ‘alta’
perhaps ‘alta’ is in fact something like ‘lauta’
line 532
Heinsius amends ‘dextram, vindices’ to ‘dextra vindice’ - but doesn’t make enough material difference to warrant the change
Giardina changes ‘para’ to ‘iace’ - but the question is more about preparation than action so not necessary even if more powerful/strident
line 533
‘ruptis nubibus’ - standard ancient meteorological understanding was that clouds bumping into eachother caused thunderstorms
line 534
‘di’ in the manuscripts, Ascensius suggested ‘deligenti’ to fix the mistake
Heinsius proposes ‘dirigente’ instead which goes better with the A transmission of the next line. ‘dirigente’ takes ‘tela’ as the object but it would also be the subject of something else - not impossible as double syntax but certainly less likely
line 544
Giardina replaces ‘parere’ with ‘favere’ which smooths out an unusual but not implausible understanding
line 548
‘levamen’ as an abbreviation looks very similar to the abbreviation for ‘levamur’
line 549b-550
Medea makes an aside
line 553
Giardina punctuates ‘gratum est’ very strongly and also amends to ‘votum est’
Is gratum est not just good stage directions conveyed by speech?
line 554
Giardina suggests ‘rabidus’ for ‘dubius’ and cites parallels. ‘dubius’ is not a strong enough dismissal of her ‘dolor’ but ‘rabidus’ is not quite right either - doesn’t convey the correct sense
line 564
Giardina corrects ‘putare’ to ‘curare’
steve changes ‘nullum’ to ‘nihil’
line 565
‘hac’ would be ‘by that route’
line 566
‘nunc’ is transmitted. ‘cuncta’ suggested by Heinsius and this kind of chance (adverb into nunc) occurs elsewhere
Nunc is attractive as part of the group of imperatives - more emphatic
line 567
playing with her name, E omits her name which makes the rest of the line more matching. Discomfort from scribe may have led to the omission
line 570
‘aetherium’ is a greek word and so confuses the scribes
