Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
It is a commonplace that Aristophanes' heroes stage successful revolts against whatever they perceive prevents them from attaining their goals or from fulfilling their potential. Nothing so restrictive as political obstacles, or bodily restraints, or even divine directives remains immune, so it seems, from a triumphant revolt launched so humorously and so uniquely by such splendid comic creations as Dikaiopolis, Pisthetairos, and Lysistrata, to name three of the most famous Aristophanic heroes. In the process, political and military heroes who revere their presumed control and power are mastered; there fall those natural functions which seem to exercise periodic dominion over varied phases of our lives; and even the Olympian gods are compelled to succumb to the imposing demands of comic vision, fantasy, and ultimate heroic triumph.
1 Such an interpretation is essential to the studies of Frye, N., Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton 1957) esp. 43f.; Whitman, C., Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass. 1964); Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley 1972); and most recently, Spatz, L., Aristophanes (Boston 1978).Google Scholar
2 Particularly noteworthy are the two studies of Schlesinger, A. C., ‘Indications of Parody in Aristophanes,’ TAPA 67 (1936) 296–314, and ‘Identification of Parodies in Aristophanes,’ AJP 58 (1937) 294–305; and Rau, P., Paratragoidia. Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes (Zetemata 45; Munich 1967).Google Scholar
3 The text followed throughout is that of Stanford, W. B., Aristophanes. The Frogs 2 (New York–London 1963). His notes have been instructive on a great many matters; so, too, have those of van Leeuwen, J., Aristophanis Ranae (Leyden 1896); Tucker, T. G., The Frogs (London 1906); and Rogers, B. B., The Frogs of Aristophanes 2 (London 1919).Google Scholar
4 See, for instance, Whitman (above, n. 1) 233ff.; and Segal, C. P., ‘The Character and Cults of Dionysus and the Unity of the Frogs,’ HSCP 65 (1961) 207–42.Google Scholar
5 There are convenient summaries of the varied issues of the Frogs, and their significance, in Gelzer, T., ‘Aristophanes,’ RE Supplb. 12 (1970) col. 1484–94; Solomos, A., The Living Aristophanes (Ann Arbor 1974) 208–27; and Spatz (above, n. 1) 116–30.Google Scholar
6 As usual, one finds in the writings of Sheppard, J. T. a wealth of insights: ‘Politics in the Frogs of Aristophanes,’ JHS 30 (1910) 249–59 points to the importance of Achilles for the play, although only with reference to the passages in which Achilles is explicitly mentioned. Brief comments are offered, without amplification, by Solomos (above, n. 5) 221, and Harriott, R., Poetry and Criticism Before Plato (London 1969) 149. In fact, the entire topic of Aristophanic parody of Homer remains comparatively unexamined: Schlesinger and Rau concern themselves with Aristophanes’ parodies of tragedies, but Homer is also absent from such other treatments of the subject as Lelievre, F. J., ‘The Basis of Ancient Parody,’ G & R 23 (1954) 66–81, and Dover, K. J., ‘Greek Comedy’ in Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) esp. 128. Indeed, in light of the famous verses 1113f., in which the literary finesse of the audience is noted, one must be particularly watchful for allusions and parodies in the Frogs; cf., in general, Sedgwick, H. B., ‘The Frogs and the Audience,’ C & M 9 (1947) 1–9.Google Scholar
7 Cf. frags. 90 and 91k of Eupolis, Demoi, and frags. 149 and 150k of Aristophanes, Gerytades. Google Scholar
8 Fr. 94k. See in general A. M. Young, ‘The Frogs of Aristophanes as a Type of Play,’ CJ 29 (1933) 23–32, esp. 30f.Google Scholar
9 Such qualities are, of course, not absent from the Aeschylus of the Frogs. Cf. 924ff., 939ff., and 961ff., for instance.Google Scholar
10 On Phrynichus’ Muses, see, for example, Young (above, n. 8) 29f. In general on Aristophanes’ inventiveness, see Harriott, R., ‘Aristophanes: Originality and Convention’ in Classical Drama and its Influence (London 1965) 73–84.Google Scholar
11 Whitman (above, n. 1) 231; cf. 253–58; likewise, on the ambiguity of the play, Spatz (above, n. 1) esp. 118–30; contra, for example, Nethercut, W. R., ‘Dionysus’ Vote for Aeschylus,’ CB 44 (1968) 81–84.Google Scholar
12 Emphasized, for example, by Solomos (above, n. 5) 221. It is, of course, interesting to speculate on the mask worn by the actor: cf. the discussion of Dearden, C. W., The Stage of Aristophanes (London 1976) 122–42, esp. 138.Google Scholar
13 Cf., for example, 1039ff., and their reference to Aeschylus’ heroic subjects. His Teucers and Patrocluses (1041) are preferred subjects not only for a heroic-minded playwright, but also, and more particularly, for a playwright for whom Achilles serves as a model.Google Scholar
14 Cf. Rogers, ad loc.; Pap. Oxy. xviii, 2163; Schadewaldt, W., ‘Aischylos’ Achilleis,’ Hermes 71 (1936) 25–69; and Mette, H. J., Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos (Berlin 1959) 70–84.Google Scholar
15 Cf. Lloyd-Jones, H. in Aeschylus II (Cambridge, Mass. 1967) 470ff.; Mette (above, n. 14) 86–92; and on Aeschylus’ silence, Sheppard (above, n. 6) 251, for example. Aeschylus will once more in the play assume a similarly disdainful and silent role: cf. 1461, with Wills, G., ‘Aeschylus’ Victory in the Frogs,’ AJP 90 (1969) 48–57, esp. 48f. and 57.Google Scholar
16 Noted by Sheppard (above, n. 6) 256, who sees in it proof for his contention that Aeschylus is used by Aristophanes to support the call for Alcibiades’ return: the Greeks beseech Achilles as the Athenians ought to beseech Alcibiades.Google Scholar
17
For Aeschylus as the savior and rescuer of Athens, note, for example, 1500–2:
aγε δ
; and cf. 1419 and 1436.Google Scholar
18 On Aristophanes and Telephus, see esp. Rau (above, n. 2) 19–41; on 1400, id. 121 and n. 12; and Handley, E. W. and Rea, J., The Telephus of Euripides (Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 5; London 1957) 32.Google Scholar
19 Cf. Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus. Agamemnon (Oxford 1950) I ad loc.; and of the commentators on the Frogs, esp. van Leeuwen, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Cf. Stanford, ad loc.; and esp. Lebrun, H., ‘Eschyle et Déméter,’ REG 59–60 (1946–47) 28–45, esp. 28–32. Of course, the invocation is consistent with Aristophanes’ characterization of Aeschylus as a playwright who championed age-old Olympian traditions and those associated with the Mysteries: cf. Lapalus, E., ‘Le Dionysus et l'Héraclès des Grenouilles,’ REG 47 (1934) 1–20, esp. 5f.; and Dörrie, H., Aristophanes’ Frösche,’ Hermes 84 (1956) 296–319, esp. 311f.Google Scholar
21 Stressed, for example, by Solomos (above, n. 5) 218.Google Scholar
22 If mentioned, it is only in passing: cf., e.g., Harriott (above, n. 6) 155; and Rogers, ad 1370.Google Scholar
23 Iliad I.5. Cf., e.g., Else, G. F., ‘Homer and the Homeric Problem,’ in Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple (Cincinnati 1965) esp. 42–45; and in general, Owen, E. T., The Story of the Iliad (Toronto 1946; 1966).Google Scholar
24 See in general Björck, G., ‘Die Schicksalswaage,’ Eranos 43 (1945) 58–66; and more specifically, Taillardat, J., Les Images d'Aristophane 2 (Paris 1965) 454–56; and Newiger, H.-J., Metapher und Allegoric Studien zu Aristophanes (Zetemata 16; Munich 1957) 53f.Google Scholar
25 Plut., Moral. 17a; cf. Mette (above, n. 14) 68–70.Google Scholar
26 In addition to whatever other themes of the play the passage may advance, Aeschylus’ veneration of the lyre (1306), which leads him to accompany Euripides’ new-style music with an obscene instrument lest the honorable lyre be sullied, may perhaps call to mind Achilles’ love of this particular war-spoil (cf. Il. IX.185–91).Google Scholar
27 Whitman (above, n. 1) 243.Google Scholar
28 Cf. Taillardat (above, n. 24) 466f.Google Scholar
29
Cf. Whitman (above, n. 1) 236; on sexuality and the Frogs, id.
,’
HSCP
73 (1969) 109–12 (cf. Griffifth, J. G., HSCP 74 [1970] 43f.; Hooker, J. T., RhM 113 [1970] 162–64; and Dickerson, G. W., ‘Aristophanes’ Ranae 862: A Note on the Anatomy of Euripidean Tragedy,’ HSCP 78 [1974] 177–88).Google Scholar
30
G. M. A. Grube is particularly sensitive to the organization of the
aγ
in this fashion: The Greek and Roman Critics (Toronto 1965; 1968) 26–29.Google Scholar
31 Cf. Dickerson (above, n. 29) 179 n. 7; Taillardat (above, n. 24) 442f.Google Scholar
32
Cf. Rogers, ad 1339 (
), for example.Google Scholar
33 Cf. Segal (above, n. 4) passim. On the abruptness, see, for example, Rogers xvi–xviii, and in general the fundamental study of Süss, W., ‘Scheinbare und wirkliche Incongruenzen in den Dramen des Aristophanes,’ RhM 97 (1954) 115–59, 229–54, 289–316, esp. 229ff.Google Scholar
34 Murray, G., Aristophanes (Oxford 1933) 109.Google Scholar
35 See above all Wycherley, R. E., ‘Aristophanes and Euripides,’ G & R 15 (1945) 98–107, esp. 106; Murray (above, n. 34) 120–34; Ehrenberg, V., The People of Aristophanes 2 (London–New York 1974) 63f.; Prato, C., Euripides nella critica di Aristophane (Galatina 1955); contra, e.g., Grene, D., ‘The Comic Technique of Aristophanes,’ Hermathena 50 (1937) 87–125, esp. 89f.Google Scholar
36 See, for example, Hurst, A., ‘Aeschylus or Euripides? Aristophanes, Frogs 1413 and 1434,’ Hermes 99 (1971) 227–40; Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (above, n. 1) 186–88; Dörrie (above, n. 20); Wills (above, n. 15); and of various earlier studies, see esp. T. G. Tucker, ‘Aristophanes, Frogs 1435 sqq.,’ CR 11 (1897) 302–3.Google Scholar
37 Cf. Grube (above, n. 30) 29 n. 3.Google Scholar
38 Frequently noted, but without elaboration: cf., e.g., Murray (above, n. 34) 122. The close relationship of the comment to the overall characterization of Aeschylus is admirably underscored by Wills (above, n. 15).Google Scholar
39 Cf., e.g., Solomos (above, n. 5) 222–24; and below, p. 14.Google Scholar
40 See above, pp. 5, 8, 9f.Google Scholar
41 Cf., e.g., Harriott (above, n. 6) 149.Google Scholar
42 The link between the quest of Dionysus and that of Athens is well established in Whitman's chapter on the play: (above, n. 1) 228–58.Google Scholar
43 See esp. Segal (above, n. 4); Spatz (above, n. 1) 118–30; Whitman, (above, n. 1) esp. 239–58; Beye, C. R., Ancient Greek Literature and Society (Garden City 1975) 335–353; and Higgins, W. E., ‘A Passage to Hades: The Frogs of Aristophanes,’ Ramus 6 (1977) 60–81. The accompaniment of Dionysus by a companion, Xanthias, may have overtones in this regard: cf. Spatz 121. Incidentally, in light of the Achilles-motif, it is interesting that Dionysus, modeled in part on Odysseus, encounters the ghost of Aeschylus, modeled on Achilles; for this event, too, has a famous Homeric precedent (Od. XI.467–540).Google Scholar
44 Whitman is particularly insightful on the relationship of the Eleusinian Mysteries to various themes of the play (above, n. 1): esp. 246–50; see, too, Tucker, xxviii–xxxiv; Spatz (above, n. 1) 120; and Segal (above, n. 4) 217–30.Google Scholar
45 The topic of the unity, or disunity, of the play has a lengthy history; see, for example, Fraenkel, E., ‘Der Aufbau der Frösche,’ in Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome 1962) 163–88; Russo, C. F., ‘The Revision of Aristophanes’ Frogs,’ G & R 13 (1966) 1–13; Gelzer (above, n. 5) cols. 1486f.; and Segal (above, n. 4) passim. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 See esp. Whitman (above, n. 1) 239ff.; Segal (above, n. 4) 211ff.Google Scholar
47 Whitman (above, n. 1) 235–38.Google Scholar
48 On Theramenes’ shiftiness, see esp. Lysias XII.62–78.Google Scholar
49 Cf. Dionysus at 916f., Aeschylus at 1069ff.; Whitman (above, n. 1) 241; and Dickerson (above, n. 29) esp. 180ff.Google Scholar
50 Cf., e.g., Rogers, xxxvi; Sheppard (above, n. 6) passim; and Solomos (above, n. 5) 208.Google Scholar
51 Whitman (above, n. 1) 240.Google Scholar
52 Cf. Thuc. I.143; Solomos (above, n. 5) 220; Spatz (above, n. 1) 128; Murray (above, n. 34) 119f.; and contra, Wills (above, n. 15).Google Scholar
53 And we must remind ourselves of the difficulty of ascribing to any single Aristophanic play a specific political meaning: cf., e.g., the landmark study of Gomme, A. W., ‘Aristophanes and Politics,’ CR 52 (1938) 97–109.Google Scholar
54 See, in general, Harriott, R., ‘Aristophanes’ Audience and the Plays of Euripides,’ BICS 9 (1962) 1–8; in this connection, moreover, it is noteworthy how the Frogs utilizes the very sophistic principles of criticism which Aristophanes might humorously castigate elsewhere: see, for example, id., Poetry and Criticism Before Plato (above, n. 6) 150–60; and Segal, C. P., ‘Protagoras’ Orthoepeia in Aristophanes’ Battle of the Prologues,’ RhM 113 (1970) 158–62.Google Scholar
55
On the 
, see esp. Walcot, P., ‘Aristophanic and Other Audiences,’
G & R
18 (1971) 35–50, esp. 41f.; and Croiset, M., Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens, trans. J. Loeb (London 1909) esp. 155f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Segal (above, n. 4) passim. Google Scholar
57 Cf. 1427ff., noted above, p. 13; on Hector, see esp. Greenhalgh, P., ‘Patriotism in the Homeric World,’ Historia 21 (1972) 528–37.Google Scholar
