Eur. Med. 20:

Μήδεια δ' ἡ δύστηνος ἀτιμασμένη

βοᾷ μὲν ὅρκους, ἀνακαλεῖ δὲ δεξιᾶς
πίστιν μεγίστην, καὶ θεοὺς μαρτύρεται
οἷας ἀμοιβῆς ἐξ Ἰάσονος κυρεῖ

492: ὅρκων δὲ φρούδη πίστις, οὐδ ̓ ἔχω μαθεῖν
ἢ θεοὺς νομίζεις τοὺς τότ' οὐκ ἄρχειν ἔτι κτλ.
Ap. 4, 358: που του Λιὸς ἱκεσίοιο

ὅρκια, ποὺ δὲ μελιχραὶ ὑποσχεσιαὶ βεβάασιν;
ἧς ἐγὼ οὐ κατα κόσμον ἀναιδήτῳ λότητι
πάτρην τε κλέα τε μεγάρων αὐτούς τε τοκας
νοσφισάμην κτλ.

vs. 370: πάντῃ νῦν πρόφρων ὑπερίστασο, μὴ δέ με μούνην
σεῖο λίπης απάνευθεν, ἐποιχόμενος βασιλῆας.
ἀλλ' αὕτως εἴρυσο, δίκη δέ τοι ἔμπεδος ἔστω
καὶ θέμις, ἣν ἄμφω συναρέσσαμεν.

Ov. Ep. 7, 110: adde fidem etc.

2, 31: Iura fides ubi nunc etc.

Ov. H. 12, 198: Cf. Ep. 6, 62.

Ου. Η. 12, 201:

Aureus ille aries villo spectabilis aureo.

Cf. Ep. 6, 49: Non erat hic aries villo spectabilis aureo. Besides this, Zingerle, 1, 15, compares Ep. 13, 57; 9, 127; Am. 1, 8, 59; Met. 6, 166.

Ov. H. 12, 204:

I nunc, Sisyphias, improbe, confer opes.
Cf. Eur. Med. 404:

τοῖς Σισυφείοις τοῖς τ' Ιάσονος γάμοις.

1581: γῇ δὲ τῇδε Σισύφου.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that according to Pausanias. (2, 3, 11), this would be an anachronism: τούτων δὲ ἕνεκα ἀπελθεῖν καὶ Μήδειαν παραδοῦσαν Σισύφῳ τὴν ἀρχήν.

Ov. H. 12, 206:

Hoc ipsum, ingratus quod potes esse, meum est.

Cf. Trist. 5, 9, 20:

Hoc quoque, quod memores possumus esse, tuum est.

Ov. H. 12, 209, 212:

Quo feret ira, sequar, facti fortasse pigebit.
Nescio quid certe mens mea maius agit.
Eur. Med. 37:

δέδοικα δ' αὐτὴν μή τι βουλεύσῃ νέον.
92: ἤδη γὰρ εἶδον ὄμμα νιν ταυρουμένην
τοῖσδ', ὡς τι δρασείουσαν· οὐδὲ παύσεται
χόλον, σάφ' οἶδα, πρὶν κατασκηψαί τινα.
τί ποτ' ἐργάσεται

vs. 108:

μεγαλόσπλαγχνος δυσκατάπαυστος
ψυχὴ δηχθεῖσα κακοῖσιν;

117: οἴμοι,

τέκνα, μή τι πάθηθ ̓ ὡς ὑπεραίγω. 171: οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἔν τινι μικρῷ

δέσποινα χόλον καταπαύσει.

183: σπεῖσον δέ τι πρὶν κακῶσαι

τοὺς εἴσω.

πένθος γὰρ μεγάλως τόδ' ὁρμᾶται.

316: — ἀλλ' ἔσω φρενών

ὀρρωδία μοι μή τι βουλεύης κακόν.

Ovid follows Euripides in making Medea flee to Athens and marry Aegeus. See Met. 7, 394 ff.; Trist. 3, 8, 3; Fast. 2, 41; Ep. 6, 161.

The sixth epistle is most closely connected with the twelfth. See especially Ep. 6, 153 ff.

Summary to Ep. 12.

This letter is different from those already examined in that we must here assume two main sources, Apollonius and Euripides, covering different parts of the story. The following verses especially suggest Euripides: 7 cur umquam, 19 scelerate, 21 est aliqua voluptas, 105 barbara, 106 pauper, 121 Symplegades, 129 Peliae natas, 135 natis duobus, 161 omnia solus, 178 Rideat,

180 ardores, 181 ferrum flammaeque, 193 Redde torum, 204 Sisyphias, 212 nescio quid mens agit;

And the following, Apollonius: 35 et formosus eras, 39 Dicitur tibi lex, 45 semina, 51 maesti consurgitis, 61 hinc amor hine, 62 recepta soror, 63 Disiectamque comas adversaque in ora iacentem, 64 lacrimis, 69 delubra Dianae, 72 orsus es, 73 Iungis et aeripedes, 101 Insopor ecce vigil, 112 soror, 115 non audet, 163 serpentes igitur.

These are found in both: 76 gloria, 107 Flammea subduxi, 109 Proditus est genitor.

With the two, Sophocles is joined in 78 genus, avus, Diana. Propertius is recalled in 71 exciderunt, 87 Iuno quae praesidet, 137 tibia, 175 Forsitan et, 187 vilis;

Propertius and Tibullus 169 amarae noctes;

Tibullus, 173 Quos ego servavi;

Homer, 125 Charybdis;

Horace, 27 Ephyren bimarem:

Virgil, 30 pictos toros, 31 Illa fuit,

57 malo saucia, 88 marmorea in aede;

Catullus and Virgil 189 similis.

Ovid differs in some respect or other from his sources in the following: 38 eminet indicio, 41 Martis erant tauri, 44 nigra per adflatus, 49 Lumina custodis, 58 acta est per lacrimas, 67 Est nemus, 70 aurea dea, 86 quam thalamo nisi tu, 89 Haec animum movere, 97 pallida sedi, 113 germane, 133 Ausus es dicere.

The process of composition in this instance seems to have been a kind of contaminatio and the resulting character was a kind of average between the two originals. The Medea of Ovid is not so vindictive as the Medea of Euripides, nor SO tender as the Medea of Apollonius.

The story has been elaborated with such detail in our sources that we have been able in most cases to find passages which correspond more or less closely to the lines of Ovid. The work of our poet, as far as concerns his material, was mainly one of selection and condensation. He did not need to add much. Still we find him making changes and omissions to suit

his purpose, just as in the preceding letters. For instance,
Ovid's omission of the part played by Aphrodite in the myth,
is, presumably, for the sake of avoiding such objections as those
urged by Jason in answer to Medea's claims of having saved
him, and her charges of ingratitude. Cf. Eur. Med. 526:
ἐγὼ δ', ἐπειδὴ καὶ λίαν πυργοῖς χάριν,
Κύπριν νομίζω τῆς ἐμῆς ναυκληρίας

σώτειραν εἶναι θεῶν τε κἀνθρώπων μόνην.
σοὶ δ ̓ ἔστι μὲν τοῖς λεπτός, ἀλλ' ἐπίφθονος
λόγος διελθεῖν, ὡς Ἔρως σ' ἠνάγκασε

τόξοις ἀφύκτοις τοὐμὸν ἐκσῶσαι δέμας.

For Aphrodite's part cf. Ap. Rh. 2, 425 where Phineus says: ἀλλὰ φίλοι, φράζεσθε θεᾶς δολόεσσαν ἀρωγὴν

Κύπριδος. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς κλυτὰ πείρατα κεῖται ἀθλων. Cf. Ap. 3, 549.

In Ap. 3, 25 Hera says to Athena:

δεῖρ ̓ ἴωμεν μετα Κύπριν, ἐπιπλόμεναι δέ μιν ἄμφω
παιδὶ ἑῷ εἰπεῖν ἀτρύνομεν, αἴ κε πίθηται
κούρην Αιήτεω πολυφάρμακον οἷσι βέλεσσι
θέλξαι διστεύσας ἐπ ̓ Ἰήσονι. τὸν δ ̓ ἂν δίω
κείνης ἐννεσίησιν ἐς Ελλάδα κώας ανάξειν.

Aphrodite grants the request, Eros is persuaded and goes, fixes his arrow:

ἰθὺς δ ̓ ἀμφοτέρησι διασχόμενος παλάμησιν

κ' ἐπι Μηδείῃ· τὴν δ' ἀμφασίη λάβε θυμόν κτλ.

Cf. Ov. Met. 7, 10:

Et luctata diu, postquam ratione furorem

Vincere non poteras, frustra, Medea, repugnas:
Nescio quis deus obstat': ait

In Ex P. 3, 3, 79 Amor says:

Haec loca tunc primum vidi, cum matre rogante
Phasias est telis fixa puella meis.

Cf. Ex P. 1, 4, 41. Pind Pyth. 4, 384 ff.

Again, Ovid is different in describing the feelings of Medea. There is no longing for death as in Euripides (Eur. Med. 97, 144, 227), except in Ovid vs. 3 (cf. vs. 121) there is a wish that she had died before this.

There is no threat against her children (cf. Eur. 113), or fierce imprecations against her husband (cf. Eur. 162, 261, 287, 310, 375).

On the other hand, there is not the same disinterested love as in Apollonius. She gives her help only after receiving his promise (see note on vs. 89). She weighs the consequences and goes where she sees the greater advantages. Cf. Ov. Met. 7, 55: non magna relinquam: Magna sequar etc.

End.