Murray's edition ofMedea(1902) made use of five manuscripts: BAVLP. Page (1938) added a sixth, the Jerusalem palimpsest, H. ButMedeais preserved in six more manuscripts (I do not count apographs), which Murray and Page cite rarely or never. I investigate here the value and affiliations of these six and of a fragmentary seventh (F), which they do cite. The seven manuscripts are:O (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, 31. 10), late twelfth century2C (Vatican, Vaticano greco 910), fourteenth century; lacks 880–4, 1050 to the end3D (...) (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, 31. 15), fourteenth century4E (Athos, Μον⋯ 'Ιβ⋯ρων 209, formerly 161), early fourteenth century; lacks 731–825, 1029–1133, 1339 to the end5F (Venice, Bibl. Nazionale Marciana, gr. 468), c. 1300? Only thehypothesisand lines 1–426. (shrink)

Murray's edition of Medea made use of five manuscripts: BAVLP. Page added a sixth, the Jerusalem palimpsest, H. But Medea is preserved in six more manuscripts , which Murray and Page cite rarely or never. I investigate here the value and affiliations of these six and of a fragmentary seventh , which they do cite. The seven manuscripts are: O , late twelfth century2 C , fourteenth century; lacks 880–4, 1050 to the end3 D , fourteenth century4 E , early (...) fourteenth century; lacks 731–825, 1029–1133, 1339 to the end5 F , c. 1300? Only the hypothesis and lines 1–426. (shrink)