Why genitive φυγῆς at E. Med. 610–12

Greek Learning Greek
1

Starting at 610, Jason says to Medea:

ἀλλ’, εἴ τι βούληι παισὶν ἢ σαυτῆι φυγῆς | προσωφέλημα χρημάτων ἐμῶν λαβεῖν, | λέγ’·

The sense is clear to me, but I’m wondering why φυγῆς is in the genitive.

When I read this through the first time, I assumed φυγῆς was modifying προσωφέλημα, but according to LSJ s.v. προσωφέλημα, it’s being modified by χρημάτων..

In his commentary, Mastronarde says χρημάτων should be taken with λαβεῖν or as partitive (or less likely as a defining gen. with προσωφέλημα – ‘assistance afforded by my wealth’).

My thinking here, and I may certainly be wrong, is that φυγῆς and χρημάτων cannot be in apposition.

FWIW, I see that Page prints σαυτῆς φυγῇ, which makes more sense to me grammatically.

Can anyone explain how this genitive is functioning? TIA

(edited to correct line number)

2

The LSJ is kind confusing but I would think that the entry means to suggest that it’s “aid in a thing” with “a thing” being expressed in the genitive. The entry quotation probably needs to be fixed.

An alternate explanation, is that you could think of the φυγῆς as a genitive of cause, in particular cost as at Smyth 1373a. Examples there: οὐδένα τῆς συνουσίας ἀργύριον πράττει | τρεῖς μναῖ διφρίσκου. So a bit of help that offsets the cost of or pays for the flight. The τι at the beginning and the following genitive make me prefer this.

EDIT: Some Lexicon history: The 8th edition LSJ just had c. gen. [to be understood as φυγῆς] and the entry is fine. The 9th edition adds the bad quotation identifying the wrong genitive. Brill doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, removes the c. gen., and just expands the quotation along with a big chunk of Loeb English. LOL. CGL expresses nothing about c. gen. nor does it try to explain the line and is fine as far as it goes (ie., not far).

3

I take φυγῆς as an objective genitive with προσωφέλημα (something to help your exile), and χρημάτων as a defining genitive also with προσωφέλημα or more precisely with φυγῆς προσωφέλημα (an exile-help consisting in my χρήματα). I’m rather surprised that Mastronarde suggests anything else.
As between φυγῆς and φυγῇ I don’t see much to choose, but φυγῆς seems likelier to me.

4

Thank you both. This is much clearer to me now.

5

Two motivating examples:

  1. Xenophon: ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις δὲ ὠφελήμασι τῆς πατρίδος
  2. Gorgias [fr.]: ἀλλ’ οὐκ εἰκὸς ἀντὶ μεγάλων ὑπουργημάτων ὀλίγα χρήματα λαμβάνειν

In 1, ὠφέλημα is directly attached to the genitive. Here the equivalent is the τι … φυγῆς | προσωφέλημα with the meaning of something like an “an extra (προς) aid to flight”. Ie., LSJ edition 8’s interpretation (before the erroring of later editions), and mwh’s equivalent objective genitive.

In 2, we have something exchanged, with the genitive working on the level of the verb, not the substantive. Here equivalent to τι … φυγῆς | προσωφέλημα χρημάτων … λαβεῖν. Gorgias’ prose version in has ἀντί, which is more usual, but not absolutely necessary. Read this way, the Euripides becomes “take an extra help of money in exchange for flight”. Not that I’d read it as the brutal direct exchange, “pay you in return for your going”, but closer to “in compensation for”.

Both versions are Greek, I think. The line break and τι and second genitive incline me towards #2, as does the προσωφέλημα, which just strikes me as sleazy compared to ὠφέλημα. Βut I can certainly see both.

The question, I think, is: do the following lines read as a man buying off a mistress (#2), or as a man trying to help a woman in distress (#1)?

Ἰάσων
<…>
λέγ᾽: ὡς ἕτοιμος ἀφθόνῳ δοῦναι χερὶ
ξένοις τε πέμπειν σύμβολ᾽, οἳ δράσουσί σ᾽ εὖ.
καὶ ταῦτα μὴ θέλουσα μωρανεῖς, γύναι:
λήξασα δ᾽ ὀργῆς κερδανεῖς ἀμείνονα.

Looking at that, I have honest trouble telling which way Jason meant it. On the other hand, I have no doubt which way Medea takes it:

Μήδεια
οὔτ᾽ ἂν ξένοισι τοῖσι σοῖς χρησαίμεθ᾽ ἂν
οὔτ᾽ ἄν τι δεξαίμεσθα, μηδ᾽ ἡμῖν δίδου:
κακοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δῶρ᾽ ὄνησιν οὐκ ἔχει.