THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS by CARLO FERDINAND PDF

The Revision of Aristophanes' 'Frogs'
Author(s): Carlo Ferdinando Russo

Source: Greece & Rome, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Apr., 1966), pp. 1-13
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/642347
Accessed: 13-01-2019 03:03 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
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 03:03:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE REVISION
OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
By CARLO FERDINANDO RUSSO
T HE evidence of the Marmor Parium confirms that Sophokles 'died

under Kallias', who was archon from the summer of 406 to the
summer of 405. The Frogs was produced during the archonship of
the same Kallias, at the Lenaia: that is, in January/February 405. The
Frogs refers to the dead poet in the prologue, in the second prologue,
and in the exodos (76-82, 786-94, 1515-19): in the prologue and in the
exodos Sophokles is mentioned in connexion with the return of Dionysos
from Hades with a good tragic poet (cf. 71-85 and 1414-1533), and in
the second prologue in connexion with the contest between Aeschylus
and Euripides for the tragic throne in Hades (cf. 757-1410).
Modern scholars have discussed whether the Frogs was inspired by
the death of Euripides, which took place in the winter of 407/6, or
rather by the subsequent death of Sophokles; and, if the Frogs had been
written while Sophokles was still alive, to what extent his death then
compelled Aristophanes to retouch the comedy. A recent scholar, while
showing some inclination to think that the death of Sophokles compelled
Aristophanes to introduce in the Frogs the motif of the return from
Hades with a good poet, has nevertheless warned that the flexible and
digressive comic joke of Aristophanes could also make a comedy of the
analysis.
But if an analysis of the Frogs, a play which has in fact never been
scrutinized adequately, were to bring to light a vein of essential devia-
tions of logical and artistic-structural character, and if these deviations
were to prove all directly or indirectly connected with a very important
and recent event (viz. the death of Sophokles), the normal Aristophanic
incoherence and digressiveness could hardly be expected to manifest
itself in phenomena so logically and historically interconnected and so
artistically essential.'
I In Storia delle Rane di Aristofane (Padova, 1961) I have attempted an analysis of

the Frogs, and in particular of lines 786-95, 69-117, 797-813 and 1364-73, 895-1128,
1251-60. In general only the bare results of these analyses and their interpretation are
reported here.
For hypotheses and suggestions on the analysis of the Frogs see J. van Leeuwen's
preface to his edition (Leiden, 1896) and his earlier dissertation on Aristophanes
(Amsterdam, 1876); U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Herakles (Berlin, 1889), 2 f.
(but cf. Hermes, lxiv [1929], 470-6 = KI. Schriften, iv, 488-94); B. B. Rogers,
B
2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
I. Frogs 786-95
The analysis of lines 786 fin.-795 and of th
yielded the following results:
I. Lines 786 fin.-787, introducing an accoun

on from 785-6 init., which have introduced an ac
and do so with inappropriate phrasing: (I) c
Aristophanes, the interrogative response KiTrEI-r
and logically independent of the precedin
(2) contrary to the usage of Aristophanes and th
it is the stranger Xanthias and not the residen
to name a character belonging to Aiakos' own
2. Lines 787-90 reproduce characteristic e
and 777.
3. Lines 788-90 offer an account of events which is incompatible with
the accounts given in 782-3 and 806-7 (in 782-3 and 806-7 the presence
in Hades of a personality like that of the even-tempered Athenian
Sophokles is completely ignored).
4. Lines 791-4 invest the off-stage personality of Sophokles with a
very strong vitality, but he is the only one of the five characters behind
the scenes at this point who remains off-stage throughout the play: in
Aristophanes, characters mentioned as actually present behind the
scenes invariably appear sooner or later before the audience.'
5. Lines 792 fin.-794 reveal by implication the outcome of the
comedy, since the possibility mentioned in 793 fin.-794 is dramatically
inconceivable within the compass of the same play, which has, moreover,
already reached the half-way mark.
6. Lines 793 fin.-794 are inconsistent with the circumstances of the
The Frogs, London 1902, xvi-xviii; E. Fraenkel, Sokrates, xlii (1916), 134-42 (on
this valuable analytical investigation cf. M. Pohlenz, G6tt. Nachr., 1920, 145. I);
K. Kunst, Studien z. griech. u. rim. Kom6die (Wien-Leipzig, I919), 53. 1; H. Drexler,
Jahresb. Schles. Ges. c (1927), 122-75; and finally T. Gelzer, Der epirrhematische Agon
bei Aristophanes (Mtinchen, 1960), 26-3 1. The scholar who has recently warned against
the risks of the analysis is O. Seel, Aristophanes (Stuttgart, i960), 47 f. For arguments
against analysis see C. O. Zuretti, Atti Acc. Scienze Torino, xxxiii (1898), 1058-66;
A. Ruppel, Konzeption u. Ausarbeitung der aristophanischen Komnddien (Darmstadt,
1913), 40-47; W. Kranz, Hermes, lii (1917), 584-91; F. Richter, Die 'Fr6sche' u. der
Typ der aristophanischen Kom6die (Frankfurt, 1933), 1-28; and recently H. Erbse,
Gnomon, xxviii (1956), 273.
[E. Fraenkel, 'Der Aufbau der Fr6sche', in the volume Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes
(Roma, 1962), 163-88, was published after the redaction of the present essay.]
i The only exception is Chairephon in the unfinished and unperformed second
version of the Clouds: cf. C. F. Russo, ' "Nuvole" non recitate e "Nuvole" recitate',
Studien zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik, for Giinther Jachmann (K61n-Opladen, 1959),
242 f. [= C. F. R., Aristofane autore di teatro, Firenze 1962, 161 f.].
THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS 3
contest as described in the context (according to these lines,
loses in the comparison with Euripides, Sophokles will engag
of poetic skill against the winner. But who would be able t
in this new contest? And would Pluto and the crowd o
supporters in the underworld be willing to see the legitim
of Dionysos disputed ?).
7. Line 795 is not a reaction to the information given in 7
pointlessly connects with 785-6 init. and pointlessly introdu
Such results imply that the report on Sophokles in 786 fi
was not written with the same ease as the rest of the second
the comedy. Evidently Sophokles died when the second pro
already completely finished.
II. Frogs 69-117

The analysis of lines 69-117 and of the relevant context
the following results:
I. Between lines 52-70 and 71-85 there is a lack of logi
tency, which is particularly strongly marked between 68-70
hand and 71-72 and 76-77 on the other.
2. Between lines 71-85 and 86-107 there is a lack of logic
tency, which is particularly strongly marked between 83-85
3. Line 311-consistent as it is with the passages 52-70
relating to Dionysos' mischievous infatuation for Euripides,
he declares that he will venture on a descent to the underw
cf. 96-119)-is identical with line Ioo.
4. Line 91 presupposes that before line 86 and after line 7
has been mischievously praised by Dionysos as 'a loqua
(a form of praise consistent with the mischievous passage
in 71-85 such mischievous praise does not recur; on the cont
and only there, is Euripides praised explicitly and implicitly
poet' and 'a good poet' (71-72, 74, 76-77, 84).
5. Line 117 init. seems to presuppose that Herakles has pr
raised with Dionysos certain objections to the very idea of a
the underworld. In our text, however, these objections do
1 As for OdEIV vrr' EKEIVOV (69), which is usually rendered 'ad eum ar
one may note that the subjective action, present or future, of ipX~Oea
verbs) r[rl -rva in drama can mean inter alia, (i) 'I am going to someone (
is at the present moment)' (Aesch. Cho. 764, Eur. Alc. 74, Ar. Ra. 577,
Iooo), and (2) 'I am going for someone (to bring him to where I am at
moment)' (Ar. Ra. 478, Men. Dysk. 182), with a slight distance between
'returning'; and further, anyone who speaks of going in search of an obj
to bring it to where he is at present, moves within a limited area (Ar. V
1040, Thesm. 728).
not even after lines 68-70, where Dionysos announces
descent.
6. Whereas line 76 mentions Sophokles as the only dead poet who

is better than Euripides, line 77, insistently and for the first time, credits
Dionysos with the intention of returning from Hades with a good poet:
the two lines, 76-77, are spoken by Herakles.
7. Thanks to the intervention of Pluto in line 1414, the intention to
return with a good poet reappears at I418-2I, and is fully worked out
in the following Ioo lines or more which end the comedy; whereas from
lines 757 to 1410 the comedy had developed the theme of the contest
between Aeschylus and Euripides for the tragic throne in the under-
world.
The combined effect of these results is to suggest not merely an inser-

tion in lines 71-85, but an insertion made at the cost of sacrificing lines
which were consistent with the other context-consistent, that is, with
the mordant and mischievous passage which provides the motive for a
descent by Dionysos-Herakles as an admirer of Euripides (52-70 and
86-107; 00oo 311). This is the passage in which Dionysos, comically
disguised as Herakles, admits to being spurred on a journey to the under-
world by a morbid passion for Euripides, for Euripides as a bold poet,
for that Euripides who is preferable to the barren poetasters and versi-
fiers still living, 'miles more wordy than Euripides'.
The fifteen lines 71-85-marked by incongruous motifs that serve as
pretexts: (i) Euripides desired as a skilful poet; (2) Dionysos as a
scrupulous and impartial patron of drama; (3) the substantial lack of any
good tragic poet at Athens; (4) the defection from Athens to Macedonia
of a good poet like Agathon; (5) a return from Hades by Dionysos with
Euripides as a good poet, and not with a better poet such as Sophokles
--were undoubtedly inserted as a result of the death of Sophokles. (And
the suppression of the objections to a journey to Hades, presumably
already expressed by Herakles after the foolhardy line 70, was perhaps
also due to the fact that Dionysos, with new motivation, now announces
in line 71 that he is going to Hades because he needs 'a skilful poet', and
that consequently his proposal, in this case and at this point, is not to be
discouraged.)
With the death of Sophokles, recently winner for the twenty-fourth
time at the Dionysia of 406, the last poet of the old generation disap-
peared, and the tragic theatre at Athens became practically deserted.
Aristophanes, who had undoubtedly planned the Frogs after the death
of Euripides in the winter of 407-6, was compelled to attempt a
fundamental revision of the basis and object of the journey
to Hades. Simply to bring the text up to date by merely noting
of Sophokles would not in fact have adequately met the new
and civic situation in Athens.
Thus, apart from the few new lines of the second prologue, significant
changes were improvised in the introductory dialogue between Dionysos
and Herakles and, as a consequence, in the final section of the comedy.
The original ending of the comedy was undoubtedly taken up with
working out the previously announced consequences of the artistic
duel between Aeschylus and Euripides as it concerned the kingdom of
the dead (the award of the tragic throne in the underworld to the
winner-that is, to Aeschylus-and his reception in the underworld
prytaneum; cf. 761-5 and the finale of the Knights, immediately after
the conclusion of the political duel), and this ending was now cancelled,
and replaced by one which endeavoured once and for all to give matura-
tion, at least artificially, to the seed planted in the belated lines 71-85-
The grand, purely comic, artistic debate between Aeschylus and Euri-
pides, an idea already tentatively handled in the Clouds (1364-79), was
deliberately side-tracked at the end in favour of a quite serious and
unexpected supplementary contest: a contest dictated precisely by the
last-minute urgency for a return to the upper world of a poet in the
interest of an Athens now destitute of good tragic poets (1411-1533;
I418-21--77 and 71 f.). And so at the end of the comedy Aeschylus,
after commissioning Pluto to entrust his throne to Sophokles, could set
out from Hades with Dionysos on the journey towards the light, to
improve the theatrical and civic lot of Athens.
The death of Sophokles had therefore provoked the resurrection of
Aeschylus, and yet, strictly speaking, he was the very poet of whom
Athens had less need, since the tragedy of Aeschylus, and Aeschylus
alone, 'had not died with him' (868); the very poet 'who did not agree
with the Athenians' (807). And Euripides, over whom Dionysos had
had to commit himself rather deeply, to say the least, before Herakles
and the audience in the belatedly introduced and serious lines of the
prologue, is not entirely in the wrong in the improvised and serious
final scene, when he cries out in protest at his betrayal, as if Dionysos
had held out to him personally the prospect of a return to the upper
world; while Dionysos can only get out of the embarrassing situation
by resorting to witticisms (1469-78).
The unexpected course begun at line 141I was indeed pursued with
some embarrassment, with much vacillation, and without sufficient
preparation. The whole passage 1411-1533 is regulated by a rather
clumsy dramaturgy: Pluto interrupts at line 14I4

tunism; the famous tragic throne is not brought o
line 1476 Euripides vanishes into thin air; the bri
house of Pluto is unconvincing; Sophokles is c
absence, despite the fact that he inherits the thr
and in the last fifty lines Dionysos remains mute, and
ignored.
But naturally there was no need for the logical and dramaturgical
incongruity of the improvised patriotic finale of the Frogs to upset the
audience and judges of the Lenaia of 405 unduly: a clever production
could remedy many of these incongruities; and besides, the audience
and judges were aware of the compelling reasons which had prompted
the author to improvise a resurrection of Aeschylus and a new ending
to his comedy.
III. Frogs 785-811 and 1364-73

In lines 785-6 init. and 796-811I, speaking of the confrontation about
to take place between Aeschylus and Euripides, Aiakos announces:
(I) that there is going to be a contest, a judgement, and a test of artistic
skill (785-6 init.); (2) that it will be a marvellous spectacle (796) because
(a) poetry will be weighed on a pair of scales (797), and (b) various
instruments suitable for measuring words are going to be brought out
(799-80); (3) that Euripides wants to check the tragedies point by point
(8o0 fin.-8o2); (4) that Aeschylus is in a very bad temper (804); (5) that
Aeschylus is interested in the true nature of poetry (809-io init.); and
(6) that Aeschylus and Euripides have submitted themselves to the
judgement of Dionysos as the expert (8iofin.-8ii).
These preliminary announcements by Aiakos are all confirmed-
literally-in the text which follows, with one exception: the instru-
ments for measuring language will not in fact be used; they will not
even be brought on the scene, as happens in the Clouds (200-5) with the
unused instruments for studying astronomy and geometry, nor will
there be an explanation for the abandonment of such a test (and par-
ticularly by such a dynamic type as Euripides), and Euripides does not
even unsheath those instruments at the moment when he boasts of
having in fact taught the Athenians 'rules for subtleties and squarings-off
of words' (956).
The failure to fulfil the striking preliminary announcement about the
instruments, which also influences the language of the Chorus here an
there in lines 818-29, is altogether remarkable. We must not forget
that this announcement is made by someone who belongs to tha
(and not by an outsider), by a serious and responsible charact
never permits himself to joke about the grave dispute between Aes
and Euripides, and who does not rise to the witticisms of Xanth
the weighing of poetry and the measuring-instruments. And
mise implied in this announcement is particularly binding in t
made in the course of a prologue, and an extremely essential
at that. Objects behind the scenes whose appearance is for
striking terms in prologues always do appear; it is sufficient to rec
prologue of the Peace, where a physical existence behind the
actually given to a realistic-surrealistic instrument: Hermes g
stranger Trygaios a detailed account of Polemos' 'mortar for g
cities', and in the sequel Polemos will bring that mortar on th
and send Tumult to Athens and Sparta in search of a pest
228-31, 238-88). In the Wasps (937-9), five distinct kitchen imp
and others not specified are invited to present themselves as w
in favour of the dog Labes. At least one of these instruments, the
grater, will be questioned (Wasps 962-6), and this is the most im
witness, because the dog is accused of having eaten a cake of
In the Peace, Trygaios recommends, in summoning the Choru
they bring shovels, levers, and ropes (299), and these three to
actually be used (307, 426, 437, 458). Here, in the Frogs, not e
of the five instruments of measurement appears.
The analysis of lines 1364-73 and of the relevant context per

following observations:
i. Lines 1365-7 are inconsistent with the outcome of the con
lyrics and with the preceding scenic situation; in these lines,
diately after his lyrical counter-attack so successfully conclu
line 1353 (cf. 1364fin.), the never-defeated Aeschylus demands
contest that will give him immediate satisfaction-a contest that
the presence on the scene of a pair of scales.
2. One after the other, in lines 1366-72, the remarks of Aes
Dionysos, and the Chorus (1366, 1368, i370-2) presuppose m
more clearly that the curious weighing of tragic language, fa
Aeschylus, was preceded by an analogous test of technique
curious.
3. From lines 799-801 one can deduce that such a curious test was
carried out with 'measuring-rods and foot-rules for words', etc.; that
is, it consisted of a measurement of language.
4. The two mechanical tests were originally arranged immediately
after Aeschylus' lyrical counter-attack (that is, aft

first test turned out favourably for Euripides.
5. The first mechanical test was suppressed in t
vision of the Frogs (on this point see the following
Together with the measurement of tragic langua
choral passage was also suppressed; the existence o
be deduced from lines i370-2 alone. The suppre
corresponded to the one which introduces the cont
IV. Frogs 895-1128

The analysis of lines 895-1128 and of the relevant
the following results:
i. The epirrhematic agon in lines 895-10o98, whi
coherently worked out, has a general and decisive
out the programme proposed in lines 862 fin.-864;
lines 1119-1247, 1248-1364, and 1365-1410 are con
and are non-decisive, and carry out the twofold p
in line 862 init. and the one previously announced
2. Lines 895-10o98, which are premature in relati
context and inconsistent with lines 860-94, presup
3. Lines 1099-1410, which are belated in relation
and inconsistent with them, depend strictly on lin
4. Lines 1065-98, the conclusion of the debate in
inconsistent with lines 1418-70; that is, with the n
of the reformed Frogs (lines 1411-1533).
Deductions
I. Lines 895-10o98 originally followed shortly after the scenes in

lines 1099-1410o.
2. Lines 895-10o98, which conclude with a harsh artistic-political
judgement on Euripides by Aeschylus and Dionysos, were placed in
front of lines o1099-41o because the revised version of the Frogs
required that Euripides be considered worthy of eventual resurrection
by Dionysos for the sake of Athens.
The scene with the measuring of tragic language in which Aeschylus
lost, originally preceding the scene of the weighing of verses in lines
1365-1410 won by Aeschylus, was suppressed because, in the revised
version of the Frogs, it would have found itself in close proximity to the
new finale, the purpose of which was to resurrect Aeschylus, and to
resurrect him with full honours. On the other hand, any
Aeschylus would have been inappropriate if it came after
epirrhematic debate which he had won.
To sum up, the progression of the debate in the original
precisely the one previously announced by Euripides hims
Tr&Trrl -- 1099-1247, Or& aI.lA -- 1248-1364, -r vsEpa iAX.
and the two scenes, with the measurement and weighin
previously announced by Aiakos in lines 797-801, were bet
1364 and 1411. The ideological, not to mention the dra
abnormality of the debate in our Frogs had been noticed at
Pohlenz: in 1920 he declared himself dissatisfied with
contest which passed from general arguments to particula
which did not conclude with a discussion concerning the e
fluence of tragedy, because such a discussion would hav
determine the defeat of Euripides.'
In the revised Frogs, despite the large measure of anticip
epirrhematic agon concerning the essence of tragic art, li
clearly re-echo the substance of Aeschylus' indictment of
(00oo6-73). None the less, that antepirrhema, fundamental a
as it was, did not fail to have an effect on at least one passage i
finale; rather, the antistrophe in lines 1491-9, with its refe
plyito-ra T rI Tpaycp8tKws TrlXvrls attempted to offer some s
for the unmotivated anti-Euripidean ending of the political con
close of the reformed Frogs (cf. 1468-78).
But the original ending of the Frogs, because of the very fact
directly controlled by the harsh judgement of Aeschylus an
must have been much harder on Euripides. In fact, the an
I The programme proposed by Euripides in lines 861-864, &SxvEtv
rfi? trpayc,lasf/Kai
Tifkvov, vi v icx
consists in biting at A rvsinews
'the 'rlra yE
of Kail' rv AAtokov/Kal
Tragedy', and also (Ka T-rv MNcrypov
. .. yE), K&rt p&?Xa Tr6V
by heaven,
the substance, the tragic subject-matter: that subject-matter which Aeschylus had
thrown in his face in lines 842, 846, and 849 f., and which will be the one topic which
Aeschylus harps on in lines ioo8-88. In fact Aeschylus, whose concern is with q9arEtS
rrotrl6r5v (81 o), will take no interest at all in the 'sinews of Tragedy', and will offer some
criticisms of form only in lines o060-64. T& vevpa rfis TpaycpSias are the strings which
move Tragedy, which make it work: Aeschylus, according to the criticism of Euripides,
does not know how to move his characters, so that he keeps them on the scene for a
long time seated and silent, and when he makes them speak, he does so in an incom-
prehensible fashion (911-27); while Euripides knows how to make his characters work,
so that his dramas are built on a firm foundation (945-50). Aeschylus, in short, does
not know how to pull the strings of Tragedy, and therefore his characters are mere lay
figures (cf. 911-13) and his dramas have no basis of consistency or coherence (cf. 923,
945); he is &oa-rxrroS, 'incoherent', just as the sophistical Pheidippides said in the
Clouds (1367). In Plato, Laws 844 e, there is a reference to puppets pulled by veopa
i oapifptvot (in Latin nerui or fila); ydaAPorra vvp6iTrrao-ra appear earlier, in Herodotos,
ii. 48. 2, and ol vEupoarrrcrTa in Aristotle, De Mundo 398b16.
Io THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
of the epirrhematic agon not only permitted a

equal terms between Aeschylus and the already an
but had the practical effect of robbing the harsh judg
and Dionysos, expressed in lines 1065-98, of any de
motif of a return to the upper world with Euripides as
in the prologue of the Frogs as a result of the deat
only compelled Aristophanes to treat Aeschylus ev
resurrected, and that without being made to suffer
his artistic contest with Euripides-but then also co
other things, to give up going to extreme lengths b
Euripides on trial. In short, the anticipation of th
was carried out as part of the general reform of th
and not simply to permit a new ending to the come
V. Frogs 1251-60
The choral passage, lines I25I-6o, which introduc
lyrics, has come down to us, as is known, in a dou
from the glyconic line 1251, which is valid and nec
sions. That is, the alternatives are: 1251 with 12
1257-60. The modest and more concise lines 125
later version in respect of lines 1252-6, since they
composed for the revised Frogs (in which lines
been marked as not for recitation). Once Sopho
original lines 1254-6 came to sound disrespectful to
revised Frogs was bound not to offend in any way,
The retort in line 126I init. is not so congruent
as it was with lines 1254-6--a further proof of th
lines 1257-60 were improvised, and that, too, with
secure close correspondence with the actor's first r
version, the description of Aeschylus (line 1259) a
is at least tactless, since Dionysos, himself 'the Ba
988), is on the stage. The later phrase 'I fear for h
is, for Euripides, who in lines 1249-50 had confiden
he would have demonstrated the ugliness of Aeschy
propriate, not only because it reveals some sympat
the part of the chorus, who are not elsewhere disp
but also because it implies that Euripides will be w
VI. Complements
The death of Sophokles provoked a revision of th
carried out by economical means in that active cha
THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS II
to about 150 lines, viz. 71-85, 786 fin.-795, i2

and of these only thirty are assigned to the ch
changes the most striking, by virtue of its extr
transposition of the big scene in lines 895-90o8
made without taking any trouble to harmonize i
ing done elsewhere, not even to conceal the
between lines 1364 and 1365, since traces of that
in the preliminary announcement in lines 799-8
echo in lines 1366-72. The reform of the Fro
carried out in haste.
Aristophanes had the Frogs presented in the competition at the
Lenaia in 405-that is, in late January or early February. At the begin-
ning of the summer of 406 the archon had assumed office with the
customary duty, among others, of promptly organizing the dramatic
competitions for January/February and March/April.' Sophokles, as
is known, died in the year of Kallias, who was archon from the early
summer of 406 to the end of spring in 405; and the more or less final
text of the comedies, or the drafts of them, may have been presented to
the archon2 in the autumn or even at the beginning of winter. The
more or less final text, or a draft: in actual fact the preference of Aristo-
phanes for the Lenaia and not for the later Dionysia of March/April
may imply that the Frogs was by now at an advanced stage (the Peace,
presented in March/April 421, shows that it was not planned before
October 422) and that the necessity for revision had not yet arisen.
Be that as it may, when that necessity did arise, the Frogs could not
have been revised without a certain degree of haste. But the audience
and judges, well aware that Sophokles had just recently died, were
certainly undisturbed by the hasty necessity for that revision. On the
contrary, with his timely and significant reform, Aristophanes salvaged
his comedy, and salvaged it well enough to confound modern readers.
The Frogs won the first prize, and beat the rival comedies of Phry-
nichos and Plato. Phrynichos too had to bring up to date his own
comedy, entitled the Muses: 'Blessed Sophokles, he died after a long
life, a happy, wise man; he wrote many fine tragedies, he had a fine
death, and evil never knew him.' (And this laudatio funebris, fr. 31,
implies that Sophokles did not figure among the characters of the
Muses.) Not only did the Frogs win the first prize, but it received,
according to the Aristotelian Dikaiarchos, the extraordinary honour of
a repeat performance. When this was, Dikaiarchos does not say; but
Cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 56. 3-5. 2 Cf. Plato, Laws, 817 d.
I2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
evidently the second performance must have

purely for reasons of economy and technical an
venience, by the same actors and chorus, the s
same didaskalos as the first performance; and i
in the agonistic milieu which was most apt to w
repeat performance of a comedy, and particularl
and this could not have been the severe and comple
Dionysia where comedy, moreover, was subor
not forget that Aristotle, according to the scho
Frogs, reported that the performances of the D
two choregoi). In short, besides the eloquent tes
silence, the Lenaian Frogs must have been re
administration of the Lenaia 405, before the sa
same judges. The new show will, of course, have
with the one judged worthy of the prize and a s
That the Frogs was published with lines that w

(lines 1252-6) may indicate that the text was no
slightest degree after the performance. In this
added that some modern analysts, like their pr
Alexandrian scholars, make deletions in lines
establish the text better if one keeps in mind the p
of the redaction of lines 1411-1533. In the new
was on the one hand bound to present even Eur
tially useful to the Athenians, and consequently
rather seriously; on the other hand he wrote the sc
finale in a manner that was certainly somewha
that it was liable to careless publication later on
of this period the main object was to bring his w
the theatre.'
In the second half of the nineteenth century it was ascertained that

the structure of Aristophanic comedy contained a rigid and self-
contained metrical-artistic phenomenon, which was given the name of
'epirrhematic agon'; lines 895-Io98 of the Frogs were numbered among
the more strictly constructed examples of such epirrhematic agones.
The integral transposition by Aristophanes of lines 895-Io98 en bloc
would have served, had there been need, to strengthen the justness of
that modern observation.
I For the publication of dramas on the part of the dramatists themselves, or by

others, cf. C. F. Russo, Aristofane autore di teatro (Firenze, 1962), 317-19.
The progression of the artistic contest in the original Frogs-tw
of formal aspects, without a judgement by Dionysos; two verifi
of technicalities, with mechanical responses involving no cr
(one favourable to Euripides and one to Aeschylus); an am
concerning artistic-ethical-political aspects, with a final jud
by Dionysos against Euripides (lines 895-Io98)-is better fit t
the attitude of Aristophanes towards tragic poetry.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
CARLO FERDINANDO Russo: Professor of Classics, Un

Editor of Belfagor.
R. L. ROWLAND: an undergraduate reading Economics a
bridge.
T. B. L. WEBSTER: Professor of Greek, University College, London.
D. W. PYE: lately Senior Classics Master, Llandovery College.
E. R. DODDS: lately Regius Professor of Greek, University of Oxford.
MARK P. O. MORFORD: Assistant Professor of Classics, Ohio State University.
C. H. WILSON: Assistant Master, Bryanston School.
R. G. USSHER: Lecturer in Greek and Latin, Magee University College,
Londonderry.
ROBERT COLEMAN: Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
J. A. HALDANE: Lecturer in Classics, University College of North Wales,
Bangor.
C. F. MACFARQUHAR: Senior Classics Master, Emanuel School, London.

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS by CARLO FERDINAND PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS by CARLO FERDINAND PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Revision of Aristophanes' 'Frogs'

Author(s): Carlo Ferdinando Russo

By CARLO FERDINANDO RUSSO

T HE evidence of the Marmor Parium confirms that Sophokles 'died

I In Storia delle Rane di Aristofane (Padova, 1961) I have attempted an analysis of

I. Lines 786 fin.-787, introducing an accoun

II. Frogs 69-117

6. Whereas line 76 mentions Sophokles as the only dead poet who

The combined effect of these results is to suggest not merely an inser-

clumsy dramaturgy: Pluto interrupts at line 14I4

III. Frogs 785-811 and 1364-73

The analysis of lines 1364-73 and of the relevant context per

after Aeschylus' lyrical counter-attack (that is, aft

IV. Frogs 895-1128

I. Lines 895-10o98 originally followed shortly after the scenes in

of the epirrhematic agon not only permitted a

to about 150 lines, viz. 71-85, 786 fin.-795, i2

evidently the second performance must have

That the Frogs was published with lines that w

In the second half of the nineteenth century it was ascertained that

I For the publication of dramas on the part of the dramatists themselves, or by

CARLO FERDINANDO Russo: Professor of Classics, Un

You might also like