Amphibian Ambiguities: Aristophanes and His Frogs

Author(s): Richard H. Allison

Source: Greece & Rome, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Apr., 1983), pp. 8-20
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/642740
Accessed: 31-10-2016 18:17 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Greece & Rome, Vol. XXX, No. 1, April 1983

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES

AND HIS FROGS

By RICHARD H. ALLISON
Few would dispute that Frogs is one of Aristophanes' supreme achievements; many would further claim as one of his most successful and
famous scenes Dionysos' encounter with those eponymous' amphibians, the frogs themselves. This, however, brings us face to face with a
major paradox which critics of Aristophanes frequently fail to
emphasize in anything like adequate terms: quite simply, and astonishingly for such a well-loved scene, there is no scholarly agreement, even
on the broadest level, as to how it was actually presented in the theatre.

Apart from the fact that it is far from clear how Charon's boat was
represented, we do not even have a sure answer to an even more basic
question - whether those famous characters the frogs were visibly
presented to the audience as yet another of Aristophanes' coups de
theidtre, or whether they were only heard singing from offstage, thus

altering the emphasis (or at least the focus) of the scene very considerably.2 Lack of agreement among scholars on such an important
point is lamentable enough, but, worse, some recent criticism appears
to have been developing a dangerous tendency not only to assert without adequate argument that the frogs were indeed visibly represented
but, further, to build this highly insecure element into the foundations

of various theories of wider significance as if it were a piece of

orthodoxy.3 This suggests that a careful re-examination of the whole
scene might not be out of place in an attempt to support or refute the
ancient scholiastic opinion (Z Frogs 211), for long unquestioned, which
states quite unequivocally '... the frogs are not seen in the theatre, nor

is the chorus, but rather they imitate the frogs from offstage. The true

chorus is composed of righteous souls of the dead.'4 I will argue, from

close consideration of the actual wording of the scene, and of its setting

and action, that the frogs were indeed unseen and were only heard
singing from somewhere offstage. To support this view, I believe
important considerations of comparative dramatic practice, and even of
natural history, can be adduced.
1. The Text

The main positive indication in the text that the frog-chorus wa

heard by the audience is Charon's statement (205ff.) that Diony
will 'hear' (a'KOVEtL) the songs of 'frog-swans' which will aid h

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 9

the unfamiliar task of rowing. Critics have been quic

'the verb "to hear" is no indication that the chor

heard'.5 Certainly it is entirely understandable t
stress the aural dimension, in the context of Dion
being aided by the rhythm of the frog-song; yet
less than natural that, if Dionysos and the audienc
to witness a striking and colourful episode6 as wel
makes absolutely no reference to the likely appearance' or visible
activities of the frogs. (Would one speak merely of 'hearing', say, a
performance of 'Swan Lake', or even 'Aida'?) Particularly of interest
at this point are the conclusions of the most recent scholar to investigate the question of how pointedly Greek dramatists tended to
signal their stage-direction in the specific wording of their dialogue.
His conclusion is that 'Greek dramatists did not write stage-directions
in the usual sense, but whenever any stage-business was an important
element in the play they reflected it clearly in the words'.8 In this
light, and especially when, as both Wills and MacDowell have
convincingly pointed out,9 the whole nature of the ensuing contest
between Dionysos and the frogs revolves around aural considerations
(notably the clash of rhythms, volume, and sheer persistence in singing), Charon's perfectly clear and specific dKOvgEL should be taken
at its face value. However, even if we were to discount the clear

implications of dGoaEL, there is a further simple but forceful

observation that supports the strong probability that the frogs were not

visible in this scene, but only heard by the actors and audience. This
is the fact that, throughout the whole sequence in which the frogs
feature, there is not so much as a single word, from Charon or
Dionysos or the frogs themselves, which would refer explicitly to any
visible element in the frogs' immediate behaviour and activities.10 This
is astonishingly unlike the norm when an Aristophanic chorus first
appears on stage, when we generally find explicit descriptions of
vigorous actions of various sorts performed by the incoming chorus,
to say nothing of remarks on their number, appearance, disposition,
and so on. Birds makes a useful comparison: consider the great
dramatic capital which Aristophanes extracts in that play from the
entrance of his chorus. This is elaborately prepared for by the hoopoe's
song of summons and the preliminary 7rapaxopl-qy-qLa of the four
gorgeously costumed individual birds (267-293), building up to the
splendid surprise of the full chorus irrupting into the orchestra
(294ff.) to the accompaniment of the graphic descriptions (of their
numbers, their 'flying', their 'obscuring the entrance', their chirping,
running, and open-beaked, threatening appearance, to say nothing of
their careful individual identifications) which pour from the mouths of

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

10 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

Peisetairos and Euelpides between lines 294 and 309

arrived in the orchestra, the bird-chorus not only

specific actions, but says it is performing them: thus a

pecking, striking, retreating are all specifically me

passim). How unlike the strange reticence of all the
frog-sequence about the numbers, appearance, move
of the frog-chorus if it did indeed come pouring in
mass into the orchestra as a similar coup de thedtr
spectators! Similar considerations apply to the end of the frogepisode: there is the same utter failure to capitalize dramatically on the
exit and disappearance of the routed frog-chorus at the conclusion of
Dionysos' 'voyage'. All that would cover the dismissing of a visible
chorus of lively frogs from the scene and the drama as a whole would

be the single, rather cavalier line from Dionysos: 'jMEAAov apa

TavtEL'v oO' L - roV Koad (268), which again notably only

refers to the aural 'disappearance' of the frogs, who have stopped

singing and are discerned no more. Nowhere else in Aristophanes is a
visible chorus left to slink offstage as best it may without some sort of

parting utterance or lyric accompaniment to cover their exit.1' The

total absence, then, of any words in the text of the frog-episode remark-

ing on any visible activities of the frog-chorus must be stressed as

highly anomalous.
There is a striking corollary to this fact, and this is that there is
instead an unusually lavish number of words and phrases descriptive
of or relating to the frogs' vocal activities, i.e. bearing not on a visual
dimension but on a purely aural one:
aKOvuEl yap pAT] ... (205)

etvavAov 4wwv fod'v/ip(9Ey&4Ek9', E'?qpvV EfljlV/aot8a'v

7v ... tauxt7ar . . . (212-17)

EdhAoLa' aiv'-r Kode./o184v yyp a7-' JAA' -q KOda (266f.).

AI. ~ pAqsv yvos,/iracaaauE (sc. singing). BA. 1tAAov tiv ovv/

p9,Ey~~~gE' ... (240ff.)
rourt (sc. the song) Trap' "ikojv Aa1ovwo (251).

KEKpa6doLUEd y'/d&rTdoov / cpapv6 &v V7j/Xav8aiv ... (259f.)

TrodTC (sc. the song) yap 0 VLK7UETE ... (262ff.)

EcoS LV vtioV ,7TKpaT7UW 7O)T KOa( ... (266)
E/IAAov pa c ravUELv 7Tro' tkas Tro7 KOad (268).

Even when the frogs are not talking about their own immediate vocal

activities, it is again striking how many details in their words have an

aural reference: thus the attributes of the deities mentioned in 229ff.

include the Muses' being E1iAvpot, while Pan is 6 KaAatt0dop0oyya '7LoWv,

and Apollo is <poptKTds. Even the frogs' generalized past activities to

stress their vocal feats and delights, hopping about XalpovTEs -8.)S/

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 11

r7TOAVoAV(,KOIOLUL Ei'AEULV (244f.), or uttering on

onomatopoeias, XopEtav/aloAav d~ y9Eyea; ora/-Tottpo

Nor does Dionysos escape infection by this preoccu

aural dimension, even outside the terms of his voca
the frogs: he fears the manifestation of yet another
song if his 17rpwKrdS decides to 'speak' (E'pE, 238)!
plethora of detail given either directly concerning o
frogs' vocal activities in this scene (and Dionysos' r

whereas not a single detail is specified relating to the f

numbers, or movements, any and all of which mig

expected to have elicited some remark from Dionysos o

selves, if indeed this scene involved the visible prese

audience of a lively, colourful, and engaging choru
are largely arguments from silence, and there is no
of refuting Sifakis's point,12 but from the evidence

the text the balance of probability would seem to be m

of an invisible chorus, whose only part in and influ

is aural. How much more point can we then see in

line o'4 yv ydp EaT' dJAA' i7 Kod4 (227)! This is true qu

as figuratively; and (ElKdoTWS y', 228) not even the fro
it.

2. Production

There are several important considerations to be examined under

this heading: comic precedents for the scene's elements; setting and
action; dramatic practicability; and factors of expense.
(a) Precedents.

It is important to note that there are some interesting precedents

for some of the basic features of the frog-scene as Aristophanes seems
to have conceived it. We now know with certainty from papyrus-finds 13

that Eupolis' comedy Taxiarchoi seems to have derived much humour

from a similar motif of a landlubber's attempts at learning the skills
of rowing, something of obvious appeal to the vaVTLKO'S XAos- in the
audience who knew that it was precisely these skills, possessed by them
in a high degree, which gave Athenian triremes supremacy at sea and
on which in direct consequence the strength of the Athenian empire
depended. Furthermore, for the frogs themselves, Aristophanes had

an even older precedent available in the work of Magnes, whose

presentation of a frog-chorus is mentioned by Aristophanes himself

as one among Magnes' many brilliant theatrical inventions (see Knights
523); and we also hear of another Frogs written by Kallias,14 though
our information sadly goes no further than the title of the play. Our

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

12 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

evidence is very scanty for these forerunners of the

scene, yet some interesting comparisons and inference

be made.

Aristophanes prided himself on inventiveness and innovation (see

e.g. Clouds 520ff., 545ff.), and by contrast frequently derided his rival
for reusing trite old themes or for stealing his own ideas for adaptatio

(see e.g. Clouds 537ff., Peace 739ff.). Much of this was no doubt
standard denigration of rivals (and in spite of his sneers Aristophanes
was not above reheating stock materials himself). Yet on the whole
there seems a fair amount of justification for Aristophanes' claims to
be a prominent comic innovator and a dramatist of considerable
originality;1s and if we turn to the rowing-episode in Frogs
Aristophanes' variation of the theme does indeed emerge rather
favourably from a comparison with Eupolis' version in Taxiarchoi.
Eupolis seems to have concentrated on the humour of straightforward
incompetence in rowing, with the inept Dionysos (probably) being
ungently instructed and corrected by (probably) the old salt Phormion:
thus we have a mention of 'spraying us with water', perhaps from a
crab caught by the tiro.16 The humour of the rowing in Frogs is,
however, more subtly produced. Charon, the 'instructor', gives only
the basic directions in summary fashion to the JdaAd-r-wroT, Dionysos
who thereafter seems to get the hang of the basic idea readily enough,

only to be most amusingly put off the rhythm of his stroke by the
conflicting and changing counter-rhythms of the frogs' song. This
produces further humour in the competitive element which develops
between them and Dionysos, and which probably rose to a crescendo
of volume and stubbornness from which Dionysos emerges as victor.
In other words, scanty though our evidence undeniably is, we can detect

Aristophanes not simply adopting a similar rowing-motif to the one

Eupolis devised for Taxiarchoi but considerably varying it and
probably increasing its scope and sophistication.
The same would scarcely seem to be true of the presentation of a
visible frog-chorus, pure and simple (for, as we have seen, the words
of the text offer no suggestion that such a chorus actually did anything

particularly unusual, subtle, or novel). The animal-chorus was of

course one of the oldest elements in the disparate mix that went to
make up the Athenian Old Comedy. If the presentation of an animalchorus specifically of frogs went back to Magnes, one of the earlier
poets of Old Comedy, whom Aristophanes himself could praise rather
condescendingly in 424 B.C. as superannuated before the start of his
own career;17 and even more if another Frogs had subsequently been
produced by Kallias, whose career seems to have fallen roughly between
c. 450 and 420 B.C.;is then it would be very small and old-fashioned

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 13

beer for Aristophanes to offer his audience yet anoth

frog-chorus in 405 B.C. Indeed proponents of such

should perhaps be prepared to view its effect in t
rather passe spectacle instead of dignifying it with
as 'ingenious'19 and the like, which are suggest
originality of invention which the evidence may
phanes' treatment of the rowing-elements in this
for the simple displaying of a visible frog-chorus i

of the frogs' part in the episode is not visual, but aur

and the possibly hackneyed presentation of visible

against, rather than enhance, this originality.

(b) Setting and Action.

Critics do not always seem to have paid close enoug

Aristophanes' actually says about the general backg
we are to place the frogs. It is generally agreed tha
across which Charon's boat must ply and round w
run, was broadly represented by the orchestra of t
How are we to imagine this famous stretch of sub

Herakles has told us very specifically (lines 137-38): Et

MEydAA7v ;fEtEs rrdivv/flvaov, a description which is

by Dionysos' identification of the scene before him

hoves into view (lines 181-82): Athlv7 v47 Ala/aivr-' aq

rrAodv y' 'p ~. We are asked by the dramatist to imag

bottomless lake', by no means the shallow marsh t

too readily conjure up.21 Further, Charon's boat itself

small enough for convenient management and in accordance with

Herakles' description of it as tiny in the extreme (line 139 - Ev

rTAoLaplq "rvvvovrapL), is also meant to call up the trireme-associations

on which so much of the humour depends, and should not be too readily

conceived of as a coracle or dinghy on a pond.22 However the 'voyage'

was presented, then, we are clearly meant to imagine Dionysos and
Charon in a vessel making a substantial crossing over very deep water,
and it is during this voyage that the encounter with the frogs takes
place. In this case, we should be on our guard against attempts to
suggest that a visible frog-chorus would have been brought on
physically to accompany or interfere with the boat, 'crouching and
leaping in all directions round the orchestra like frogs in a marsh',23
since frogs do not frequent deep water (and indeed may even drown
there)24 and in any case could scarcely 'crouch' or 'leap' there, but
would have to suggest the very different movements of swimming beside

the vessel, something much less easy for even the most skilful of

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

14 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

choruses to carry off convincingly than the familia

on land. Frogs in fact are pre-eminently creatures of m

boggy areas, and shallow waters (an argument to be

and it would be highly inappropriate to juxtapose a
frogs with a vessel voyaging trireme-fashion across
Aristophanes was of course no undue respecter of
will argue below, the notable charm of his animal re
seem to derive from a high degree of accuracy in t
depiction of wild creatures' activities; and the poin
be made that he specifically describes the immediat
cumstances of the frog-episode in terms much less

habitat and activities of frogs than critics often rather

(c) Dramatic Practicability.

There is nothing impossible, in practical terms, ab

appearing in frog-dress (whatever that might have b
scene and then disappearing to make a quick change for their
subsequent entrance in the garb of initiates of the Mysteries, their
persona throughout the remainder of the play. But, simple considerations of practicability apart, such a rapid appearance and disappearance
of a whole chorus would be without parallel in Aristophanes, just as,
indeed, MacDowell objects that an invisible chorus would be.25 Either
way, it seems, we are dealing with a unique scene.
The principal practical argument for the visible presentation of the
frog-chorus is stated by MacDowell; it is simply, for him, a question
of audibility. 'If the singers were behind a wall, in an open-air theatre
with no ceiling to direct the sound towards the audience, it would be
quite hopeless.'26 This seems greatly overstated. The fifth-century
skene was almost certainly no more than a temporary wooden structure

or even a canvas-covered frame rather than a solid wall:27 a choir of

twenty-four male voices, located directly behind the skene should h

had little difficulty in projecting a perfectly audible song through
rather over this, especially given the well-known excellence of Gre

theatre-acoustics and the sheer amount of volume which he himself

demonstrates to be a key feature of the contest between Dionyso

the frogs. MacDowell's worry about the lack of a ceiling to 'direct
sound towards the audience' forgets that the vast majority of the
audience were, in the very nature of the Theatre of Dionysos, situated
well above the actors and chorus, and not, as in so many theatres of
today, level with or below the acting-area.
There is furthermore much evidence to neutralize fears of inaudi-

bility in such circumstances to be found in the numerous instan

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 15

in extant comedies and tragedies where characters o

certainly do make utterances from within or behin
elsewhere outside the visible acting-areas.28 For pr
comic and tragic, so consistently to feature such p

suggests that there was nothing impracticable about th

audibility or anything else. The rumbustious and (l

fortissimo exchange between the full frog-chorus a
probably as loud an episode as the Greek stage coul

any offstage utterances were audible, those of the frog

have been so.

(d) Expense.
This is a factor which has considerable bearing on the problems of
the frog-episode. 406/5 B.C., the year of production and victory of
Frogs at the Lenaia, was a time of severe financial stringency for
Athens, exerting herself to the utmost in what were to prove the last
throes of the Peloponnesian War, and we know that, in an effort to
keep up the customary high standards of the dramatic festivals, the
Xop,7YlaL were unusually divided up between pairs of avyxopp7yol.29
More direct evidence that some measure of penny-pinching may have
been evident in the budget available for production of Frogs is found
in the references by the initiate-chorus (lines 404ff.) to their being
costumed in rags 'for laughter and economy'. Even although it is possible

that old clothing may have been customary in the Mystic processions,
there still seems an inescapable hint here of spinning out straitened
resources;30 certainly it is hard to see any overwhelming dramatic
advantage to Aristophanes in choosing to give his main chorus this
rather drab persona. Athenian audiences tended to expect some show
of splendour in their dramatic festivals, particularly in the costuming
of the choruses, and Dover attempts to find in this an argument in
favour of the spectacular presentation of the earlier frog-chorus, in
order to offset the drabness of the main initiate chorus: 'If the principal

chorus is dressed "without expense" and the subsidiary chorus does

not appear at all, the manager is getting away with something
unusual.'31 Even if we were to grant the proposition that Aristophanes
sought to satisfy his audience's appetite for spectacle with a gorgeously
costumed frog-chorus (and I have already suggested that such a
spectacle might be rather passe by 405 B.C.), we would still face a
grave improbability: would Aristophanes have chosen to divert the bulk
of his possibly thin financial resources to the spectacular equipping
of a chorus for such a transitory episode (about 60 lines long) in
preference to employing his choregic monies to lend a greater degree
of finery to the appearance of his much more prominent main chorus

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

16 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

(on stage for some 1200 lines), which would have avoided the need
to apologize, however wittily, for their dull appearance and his own
shortage of funds?
In any case, we should resist the idea of 'the manager getting away
with something', inasmuch as Frogs does have a spectacular and
probably quite expensive item as an important feature of its production.

This is Charon's boat itself, which has to be large and strong enough
to hold two actors, may very well have had to have been mobile, and
must have allowed at least an approximate suggestion of no less a thing
than a trireme to emerge from its manipulation! As such it is certainly
one of the most elaborate of all the props required in Aristophanic
comedy, and its construction may have been comparatively expensive,
and the item on which Aristophanes chose to concentrate meagre
resources.32 If this is so, it would not only explain the apology for
the raggedness of the initiate-chorus, but would also render a visible,
gorgeous frog-chorus 'a fortiori' even less likely on the grounds of lack

of resources (and, for that matter, possible distraction from the true
focus of spectacle in the frog-scene, the boat).
3. The Behaviour of Frogs

Another important element which does not appear to have been

seriously taken into account by critics of Frogs is Aristophanes' accuracy

in representing the typical behaviour of the real creatures portrayed

by his chorus in this scene. Aristophanes was an acute and sensitive
observer of the wild life of Greece:33 the detail and charm of many
passages in Birds alone would be enough to establish this much, but
one could also cite the appositeness of the wasp-habits given to the
old jurymen in Wasps (e.g. lines 1102ff.). We should be open to a
similarly exact and appropriate perception of amphibious life in the
frog-episode in Frogs. A closer examination of the text and scene from
this angle is, I believe, of greater critical value than has previously
been appreciated.
There can be little doubt that the species of frog that Aristophanes
had in mind was almost certainly the Marsh, or Lake, Frog, Rana
ridibunda, the largest and noisiest of the European frogs.34 The Marsh
Frog is gregarious, more diurnal than many frogs, and, as a 'green'
frog, more closely associated with water than the 'brown' frogs, which
tend to be more terrestrial. This identification suits Aristophanes' frogs

perfectly in all these respects. A key consideration, however, is that

it is no easy matter actually to observe even these large and noisy frogs,
which are of a comparatively secretive nature, never straying far from

concealment and disliking sudden motions, vibrations, and sounds.

The most a casual observer is likely to see of them is their leap from

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 17

the shore or a lily-pad as they disappear into the

diving or lying with little but their eyes above the s

that any danger has passed. Their calling, however, is

and can be heard over considerable distances, espec

season.3 6

Aristophanes accurately represents his birds as s

very reluctant to come anywhere near the dangerous

strangers (e.g. Birds 327ff.). The same would appl

remotely realistic treatment of frog-behaviour. The device of an
invisible chorus, therefore, would be exactly right for these creatures
- extremely loud and vocally conspicuous, but hard to detect and highly
secretive in their actual movements. We remember that the setting of
the frog-scene is the vast and bottomless Infernal Lake, and not a
shallow swamp, pool, or stream. Aristophanes, I believe, would not
suggest that the boat's voyage over this deep and exposed water would
actually be accompanied by frogs visibly swimming (scarcely 'leaping')
round about, away from their usual habitat by the shoreline. Frogs
in these circumstances are much more likely to have done one of two
things: either stayed concealed around the margin of the lake, where
we can readily imagine lots of reeds and rushes to afford them cover;
or dived to concealment and safety below the surface until the boat
had safely passed. In either case37 their song, capable of carrying
considerable distances, would still have been perfectly audible to
Dionysos. This indeed is exactly the general behaviour which Aristophanes makes the frogs themselves describe for us (lines 241ff.):
tMAAov tLv ot v
cpt9EY64OMEurt9,, El Sq 7TOT EV-

orlAoLs ov aclE/patLuv

KaL c(poJ, XaLpov-rEs- (,Sr

roAVUKoAVl4oLuL LLE'AE0LV

j tos , EV OVTESI 0A3P0V

vvSpov Jv u19, XopELav

aL?Aav E9,9Ey~aMpEUt9a

The frogs are declaring 'Let us now sing the more, if ever we sang
in such circumstances before'. I believe that it is in precisely these
circumstances that Aristophanes intends us to visualize his frog-chorus
singing their challenge to Dionysos - calling loudly from concealment
in the margins of the Infernal Lake, or singing their 'bubbly-splashy'
song from under the surface; in either case invisible, as undetectable
to the eye (though not the ear) as human observers so frequently find
their natural counterparts.38

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

18 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

NOTES

1. It has never been entirely satisfactorily explained why Frogs be

in complete contradistinction to Aristophanes' usual practices of nom
the titles which have been preserved, Aristophanes' favourite type of t
the identity of a play's principal chorus (e.g. Acharnians, Birds, etc.)
approximately half as often again as all other types of title combine
prominent character (e.g. Lysistrata, Amphiareos, etc.) or an abstractio
or Wealth, a type of title which comprises both theme and character

title from the identity of the subsidiary chorus which plays an extreme
relevant role in the drama. Yet, presumably owing to the outstanding ch
in which the frogs figure (and which, it must be admitted, contrasts gr
rather lack-lustre and anonymous character of the principal chorus of

it is the frogs who seem to have lent their name to the whole play (
principal chorus and thus firmly in the mainstream of traditional Old
from a very early stage of its existence. The citing of the authority of
of Hypotheses 1 and 2 makes it very likely that the play was known

by his time, i.e. within a century of its production; and indeed it i

was so known in both the early circulating written version of the text

of victorious comedies (see K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (Lond

work remains to be done on the whole question of dramatic titles in
2. Editors of the play who have taken the frog-chorus to be unsee
1881), Merry (Oxford, 1887), Van Leeuwen (Leyden, 1896), Rogers (L
(London, 1906), Coulon-Van Daele (Paris, 1946), Stanford (London, 1963). Others who have
supported this view notably include E. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome, 1962),
pp. 182f., C. F. Russo, Aristofane autore di teatro (Florence, 1962), p. 329, G. Wills, Hermes
97 (1969), 306ff. (particularly p. 307 n. 2), and D. Demand, CPhil 65 (1970), 83ff. Gilbert
Murray's translation (London, 1908) also envisages the frogs as being heard 'under the water'.
Scholars who hold that the frogs were visibly presented include M. Bieber, History of the
Greek and Roman Theater2 (Princeton, 1961), p. 37, J. Defradas, REA 71 (1969), 23ff., K. J.
Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, pp. 177ff., and D. M. MacDowell, CR 22 (1972), 3ff. - these latter
two the most reasoned defences of this side of the case. L. Radermacher's major edition (Vienna,
1954) surprisingly never makes his view of the matter entirely clear, though he may imply visible
frogs on pp. 168 and 170. Lastly, two recent works on staging disappointingly do not commit
themselves - P. D. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1962),
and C. W. Dearden, The Stage of Aristophanes (London, 1976).
3. Thus G. M. Sifakis, Parabasis and Animal Choruses (London, 1971), chapter 10, not only
asserts the visible presentation of the frogs, but goes on to endow them, as descendants of
'predramatic theriomorphic choruses', with considerable significance for the larger history of
Old Comedy. Other examples which seem to show that the frogs' appearance on stage is rapidly
developing into a dangerously unfounded (as I believe) orthodoxy are to be found in two recent
introductions to Aristophanes. F. H. Sandbach, The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London,
1977), p. 32 n. 1, commending Dover's arguments, says simply 'There is to my mind a strong
case for believing the frogs to have appeared in the orchestra'; K. McLeish, The Theatre of
Aristophanes (London, 1980), p. 168 n. 20, ranks Dionysos' encounter with the frogs among
many sequences in Aristophanes which 'all depend for their effect on close interaction between

actors and Chorus'.

4. The full scholiastic notice in fact runs TarTa KaAELTaL 7rapaxopqy-qaLaTa, E7TEL67S OUX dp

IEv rT?9 EaTpo0 o; aTpaxoL, oV36E o Xopo'g, d AA ' EvUWEv (LtLOUtvTaL ToV flaTpXOvs . 6 6o S AErl Xo

T&v EUErWV VEKpWV OUVW'UTrTiKEv. It is normal to discount the validity of this evidence, a

scholia being very often based on little more than inferences from the text itself, uninformed from any independent source. It is notable here, however, that, apart from Charon's
dKOvaEL (line 205), there is very little in the text (at least superficially) to have prompted this

remarkably positive and fairly extensive statement of the scholiast's, who is in addition primarily

concerned to define 7rapaXopqlyI7/ara and not principally to emphasize the invisibility of the

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS 19

frogs. It is thus possible that something more may underlie this pie

the naive scholiastic assumption (according to MacDowell) that th

choruses in one play; I suspect the average scholiast would more

visible choruses (especially when one would fit so well into the fami
animal-chorus) than make such an unprompted and far from obv
5. Sifakis, op. cit., p. 94. Also Dover, op. cit., p. 177: 'Kharon's w

are more often heard than seen.'

6. Thus, e.g., Dover, ibid., p. 178: 'If the chorus of frogs actually appeared dressed in skintight costumes of green and yellow, crouching and leaping in all directions round the orchestra
like frogs in a marsh, ... [this would afford] an agreeable and ingenious spectacle ...'

7. 'Frog-swans' (flarpdxwV KUKVWV, 207) appears to be an asyndeton rather like, e.g.,

a9v3pwToo O pvL at Birds 169, and in context is clearly meant not as a suggestion of a hybrid
chorus actually appearing dressed as part-swan, part-frog, but to offer the amusing paradox of
the frogs' croaking song being as entrancing as the proverbially beautiful singing of swans.
8. O. Taplin, PCPS 23 (1977), 121ff.; p. 130 quoted.
9. See n. 2 above.

10. 'Fostering Apollo's reeds' (232ff.) means no more than that the frogs are dear
because the reeds for his lyre's construction grow in the frogs' domain under the
surveillance. So too 'hopping through the galingale and reeds ... fleeing Zeus' showers'
(244ff.) refers to generalized past behaviour (El 8 7TorT 242), and is not a description of present

activity suggesting that the frogs were seen 'hopping' or 'fleeing' as they actually sang this
song.

11. The only exception might be at the end of Knights, but many scholars hold that there a
final choral utterance has been lost from our text. In Lysistrata, Lysistrata invites the
Spartan(s) to respond to the ode that the chorus has just sung, and presumably that adequately

covers their exit.

12. See n. 5 above.

13. P. Oxy. xxxv. 2740. See also C. Austin, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta i
Reperta (Berlin and New York, 1973), 98, pp. 114-18; also A. M. Wilson, CQ 24 (1974
with his addendum in CQ 26 (1976), 318.
14. Suda s.v. KaAAL'ag.

15. See K. J. Dover, op. cit., p. 214.

16. See C. Austin, op. cit., 98, fr.2.ii.6-8 (p. 116); the interpretation is discussed by A. M.
Wilson, op. cit. (1974).
17. Magnes is described by Aristotle (Poetics 1448a 34) in terms that suggest that he was one

of the earliest Athenian Old Comic poets known to him; we have epigraphic evidence of a

victory of his in 473/2 B.C. (IG ii2. 2318 and 2325). Aristophanes' remarks, Knights 250ff.
18. We know of a victory by Kallias in 446/5 B.c. (IG ii2. 2318).
19. Thus Dover, op. cit., p. 178.
20. Cf. the highly suggestive language of line 193, rEptJEPLEEL ... K KA y. Dearden, op. cit.,
pp. 67-69, suggests that the boat may have been displayed on the ekkyklema rather than actually
down in the orchestra, but, be that as it may, the activities of the frog-chorus, if visible, would

presumably still have to be related to that acting area. (I find totally unlikely Dearden's

suggestion (Mnemosyne 23 (1970), 17ff.) that 'the Frogs, if present at all, then appear through the

door on the stage to sing while Dionysos mimes his rowing only to disappear again as they are
defeated'. The stage is not a common location for the chorus at the best of times, and certainly
not when, as here in Frogs, we are dealing with a lyric sequence inviting dance-accompaniment
from any visible chorus.) Lastly, we should be sure to dismiss Bieber's statement (op. cit., p. 70)
that the frogs themselves 'drew and shoved the boat'; there is nothing whatsoever in the text
to suggest or support this.

21. Radermacher, for example, converts the 'acherusische See' into a simple 'Sumpf' in
the space of a single sentence (op. cit., p. 168).
22. I agree with Dearden (op. cit., 1976, p. 69) that the boat was probably presented broadside on. Dionysos is not sculling with two oars, but pulling a single oar (cf. lines 197, 199,
269), trireme-style. The parody of trireme-practice is further manifested in Charon's bosun's

chant of Wd 'ro7T (line 208) and of course by Dionysos' own protestations that he is

'OaAdrTTWTor, daAa/LvtoL (line 204).

23. Dover, op. cit., p. 178.

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

20 AMPHIBIAN AMBIGUITIES: ARISTOPHANES AND HIS FROGS

24. See J. F. D. Frazer, Amphibians (London, 1973), p. 58.

25. MacDowell, op. cit., 4, cites Lysistrata as an example of a play
character and visible in both [personae]'; but that play merely sees the
opposed hemichoruses, not the total disappearance of one or both of
26. Ibid. But for that matter what of the adverse effects on the c
and hence on audibility and intelligibility - of the postures and act
'crouching and leaping in all directions' (Dover, op. cit., p. 178)?
27. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus (Oxford, 1946), pp
vestigations have in fact strongly suggested that the extremely basic
areas and structures used by the fifth-century Athenian dramatist
nificant degree of permanent or sophisticated reconstruction until
probably fourth-century) date than was once believed: see N. G. L. Hammond, GRBS 13
(1972), 387ff., and the excellent summary of the current state of our knowledge by R. E.
Wycherley, The Stones of Athens (Princeton, 1978), pp. 203ff.
28. Tragedy has several famous examples, notably the death-cries of Agamemnon (Ais. Ag.
1343 and 1345) and Klytaimestra (Soph. El. 1404ff.). In Old Comedy we have the extended
sequence in Wasps 156ff. wherein Philokleon, immured within the skene, has many funny and
telling lines to deliver. If objection is made that these are spoken dialogue rather than sung
lyric, we can point to Euripides, Medeia 96ff. and Aristophanes, Birds 209ff. and 227ff. and
Clouds 275ff. and 298ff. (this last example particularly relevant to the frog-episode since the
cloud-chorus clearly sings extensive portions of its unusually dignified entrance-lyric from
somewhere totally outside the theatre before its arrival in the orchestra). These utterances seem
just as much 'pointed ... meant to be heard ... not just banalities or la-la-la' (MacDowell,
op. cit., 4) as the words of the frog-song.
29. This is certainly true of the Dionysia and probable for the Lenaia too (see Z Frogs 404,
and A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford, 1968), p. 87).
30. See Stanford, op. cit., ad loc.
31. Dover, op. cit., p. 178.
32. The dung-beetle in Peace is perhaps the only comparably lavish prop; and it is
interesting that Peace similarly seems to have had a fairly unspectacular chorus of ordinary
farmers, doubtless easily and inexpensively costumed.
33. Just recognitions of this aspect of Aristophanes are the exception rather than the
rule. Ruskin may be mentioned honourably for appreciating 'the precision of imagination ... of
Aristophanes' in respect of his bird-descriptions (Love's Meinie (Sunnyside, Orpington, and
London, 1897), p. 40). W. Schmid - O. Stfhlen, Geschichte der griechishen Literatur (Munich,
1929 -) i. 4, p. 337 n. 6, note '... die aus den V6geln bekannte Kenntnis und das tiefe Naturgeffihl
des Dichters'. More recently J. Pollard (Birds in Greek Life and Myth (London, 1977), p. 13)
remarks on the ornithological alertness of Aristophanes: '[In Birds] the poet mentions seventynine for the most part readily identifiable species, about whose appearance and habits he is
remarkably well informed.'
34. As a striking corroboration of this identification, the song of the male Marsh Frog is
described in a modern field guide (E. N. Arnold and J. A. Burton, A Field Guide to the
Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe (London, 1978), p. 85) thus: 'One of the most
varied songs of the European amphibians, a wide variety of resonant croaks and chuckles, some of

which may be rendered as "Croax, croax", and a vigorous "Bre-ke-ke-ke-ke-ke-kek". The

chorus often fluctuates erratically'!

35. Cf. the exemplary summary of frog-behaviour in the Batrachomyomachia 59ff., especially
line 61: aKLpT7)UmL Kaa'T y?V KaL Up Uv"aL o aLa KaAiV`aL.

36. I have personally heard a very raucous group (although admittedly not of the species
ridibunda) calling from a distance of about 150 metres in a swampy inshore area of a large lake

in New Zealand, but my very cautious attempts to get closer to them resulted in silence and not the
least visible sign of so much as a single frog.

37. Frogs can and frequently do call underwater, as some commentators have recog-

nized: see, e.g., Gilbert Murray's translation (London, 1908), p. 21. Ovid also was clearly a worthy
field-observer of this phenomenon - see Metamorphoses 6.376: quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua
maledicere temptant.

38. I must particularly thank Sir Kenneth Dover and Miss Nan V. Dunbar for much

helpful criticism of an earlier version of this paper.

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:17:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms