Abstract 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.

中文翻译：

---

第一美狄亚和其他赫拉克勒斯

摘要 本文着眼于在古代流传的欧里庇得斯语料库中假定存在美狄亚和赫拉克勒斯两个版本。在简要回顾主要纸莎草学证据后，即 P. Oxy。LXXVI 5093 为美狄亚和 P.Hibeh II 179 为赫拉克勒斯，我讨论了在欧里庇得斯的作品数量的现存古代证词中将另一个美狄亚和另一个赫拉克勒斯添加到欧里庇得斯语料库中的含义。此外，我检查了保存在 P.IFAO inv. PSP 248 和 P.Oxy 中的现存美狄亚和现存赫拉克勒斯的假设标题所提供的线索。LXXXI 5284. 基于这些理由，我认为存在两个不同的美狄亚和两个不同的赫拉克勒斯戏剧的假定证据不应被解释为双重作者版本的证据。