Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS by CARLO FERDINAND PDF
THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS by CARLO FERDINAND PDF
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
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
2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
I. Frogs 786-95
The analysis of lines 786 fin.-795 and of th
yielded the following results:
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.].
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 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.
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
4 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
not even after lines 68-70, where Dionysos announces
descent.
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 5
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
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
6 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
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 7
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.
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
8 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
Deductions
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 9
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.
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
Io THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
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
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 II
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.
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
I2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS
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 13
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
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