Boeckius has shown, in a learned dissertation, that Euripides wrote two _Iphigenias in Aulis_(171). From the first, which has perished, Aristophanes parodied the verses introduced in his _Frogs_; and it was on this work that Ennius formed his Latin _Iphigenia_. The _Iphigenia_ now extant, and published in the editions of Euripides, is a _recension_ of the original drama, which was undertaken on account of the ridicule thrown on it by Aristophanes, and was not acted till after the death of its author. Boeckius, indeed, thinks, that it was written by the younger Euripides, the nephew of the more celebrated dramatist; hence some of the lines of Ennius, which, on comparison with the _Iphigenia_ now extant, appear to us original, were probably translated from the first written _Iphigenia_. Such, perhaps, are the jingling verses concerning the disadvantages of idleness, which are supposed, not very naturally, to be sung while weather-bound in Aulis, by the Greek soldiers, who form the chorus of this tragedy instead of the women of Chalcis in the play of Euripides:— “Otio qui nescit uti, plus negoti habet, Quam quum est negotium in negotio; Nam cui quod agat institutum est, in illo negotio Id agit; studet ibi, mentem atque animum delectat suum. Otioso in otio animus nescit quid sibi velit. Hoc idem est; neque domi nunc nos, nec militiæ sumus: Imus huc, hinc illuc; quum illuc ventum est, ire illinc lubet. Incerte errat animus—(172).” _Medea_.—This play is imitated from the _Medea_ of Euripides. Since the time of Paulus Manutius(173), an idea has prevailed that Ennius was the author of two plays on the subject of Medea—one entitled _Medea_, and the other _Medea Exsul_, both imitated from Greek originals of Euripides. This opinion was formed in consequence of there being several passages of the _Medea_ of Ennius, to which corresponding passages cannot be found in the _Medea_ of Euripides, now extant; and it was confirmed by the grammarians sometimes quoting the play by the title _Medea_, and at others by that of _Medea Exsul_. Planck, however, in his recent edition of the fragments of the Latin tragedy, conjectures that there was only one play, and that this play was entitled by Ennius the _Medea Exsul_, which name was appropriate to the subject; but that when quoted by the critics and old grammarians, it was sometimes cited, as was natural, by its full title, at others simply _Medea_. The lines in the Latin play, to which parallel passages cannot be found in Euripides, he believes to be of Ennius’ own invention. Osannus thinks, that neither the opinion of Manutius, nor of Planck, is quite accurate. He believes that Euripides wrote a _Medea_, which he afterwards revised and altered, in order to obviate the satiric criticisms of Aristophanes. The Greek _Medea_, which we now have, he supposes to be compounded of the original copy and the recension,—the ancient grammarians having interpolated the manuscripts.