8/8/2019 642347

1/14

!"#$%#&'(')*$)+$,-'(.)/"0*#(1$12-)3(1

,4.")-5(67$80-9)$2#-:'*0*:)$%4(();)4-

8/8/2019 642347

2/14

THE REVISIONOF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSBy CARLO FERDINANDO RUSSOT HE evidence of the Marmor Parium confirms that Sophokles 'diedunder Kallias', who was archon from the summer of 406 to thesummer of 405. The Frogs was produced during the archonship ofthe 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-I9): in the prologue and in theexodosSophokles is mentioned in connexion with the return of Dionysosfrom Hades with a good tragic poet (cf. 71-85 and I4I4-1533), and inthe second prologue in connexion with the contest between Aeschylusand Euripides for the tragic throne in Hades (cf. 757-I410).Modern scholars have discussed whether the Frogs was inspired bythe death of Euripides, which took place in the winter of 407/6, orrather by the subsequent death of Sophokles; and, if the Frogs had beenwritten while Sophokles was still alive, to what extent his death thencompelled Aristophanes to retouch the comedy. A recent scholar, whileshowing some inclination to think that the death of Sophokles compelledAristophanes to introduce in the Frogs the motif of the return fromHades with a good poet, has nevertheless warned that the flexible anddigressive comic joke of Aristophanes could also make a comedy of theanalysis.But if an analysis of the Frogs, a play which has in fact never beenscrutinized adequately, were to bring to light a vein of essential devia-tions of logical and artistic-structural character, and if these deviationswere to prove all directly or indirectly connected with a very importantand recent event (viz. the death of Sophokles), the normal Aristophanicincoherence and digressiveness could hardly be expected to manifestitself in phenomena so logically and historically interconnected and soartistically essential.'

I In Storia delle Rane di Aristofane (Padova, 1961) I have attempted an analysis ofthe Frogs, and in particular of lines 786-95, 69-I17, 797-813 and 1364-73, 895-1128,I25I-60. In general only the bare results of these analyses and their interpretation arereported here.For hypotheses and suggestions on the analysis of the Frogs see J. van Leeuwen'spreface to his edition (Leiden, I896) and his earlier dissertation on Aristophanes(Amsterdam, I876); U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Herakles (Berlin, 1889), 2 f.(but cf. Hermes, Ixiv [1929], 470-6 = KI. Schriften, iv, 488-94); B. B. Rogers,B

8/8/2019 642347

3/14

2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSI. Frogs 786-95

The analysis of lines 786 fin.-795 and of the relevant context hasyielded the following results:I. Lines 786 fin.-787, introducing an account of a past event, carryon from 785-6 init., which have introduced an account of a future event,and do so with inappropriate phrasing: (I) contrary to the usage of

Aristophanes, the interrogative response K&TrEIrTr s KT\. is stylisticallyand logically independent of the preceding affirmative sentence;(2) contraryto the usage of Aristophanes and the practice in the context,it is the stranger Xanthias and not the resident Aiakos who is the firstto name a character belonging to Aiakos' own circle.2. Lines 787-90 reproduce characteristic elements of 754-5, 771,and 777.3. Lines 788-90 offer an account of events which is incompatible withthe accounts given in 782-3 and 806-7 (in 782-3 and 806-7 the presencein Hades of a personality like that of the even-tempered AthenianSophokles is completely ignored).4. Lines 79I-4 invest the off-stage personality of Sophokles with avery strong vitality, but he is the only one of the five characters behindthe scenes at this point who remains off-stage throughout the play: inAristophanes, characters mentioned as actually present behind thescenes invariably appear sooner or later before the audience.'5. Lines 792 fin.-794 reveal by implication the outcome of thecomedy, since the possibility mentioned in 793 fin.-794 is dramaticallyinconceivable 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 theThe Frogs, London 1902, xvi-xviii; E. Fraenkel, Sokrates, xlii (1916), 134-42 (onthis valuable analytical investigation cf. M. Pohlenz, Gott. Nachr., I920, I45. I);K. Kunst, Studien z. griech. u. rom. Komodie (Wien-Leipzig, 1919), 53. i; H. Drexler,Jahresb. Schles. Ges. c (1927), 122-75; and finally T. Gelzer, Der epirrhematische Agonbei Aristophanes (Miinchen, I960), 26-3 I. The scholar who has recently warned againstthe risks of the analysis is O. Seel, Aristophanes (Stuttgart, 1960), 47 f. For argumentsagainst analysis see C. O. Zuretti, Atti Acc. Scienze Torino, xxxiii (I898), I058-66;A. Ruppel, Konzeption u. Ausarbeitung der aristophanischen Komodien (Darmstadt,1913), 40-47; W. Kranz, Hermes, lii (1917), 584-91; F. Richter, Die 'Fr6sche' u. derTyp der aristophanischen Kom6die (Frankfurt, 1933), x-28; and recently H. Erbse,Gnomon, xxviii (I956), 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.]

The only exception is Chairephon in the unfinished and unperformed secondversion of the Clouds: cf. C. F. Russo, ' "Nuvole" non recitate e "Nuvole" recitate',Studien zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik, for Gunther Jachmann (K6ln-Opladen, 1959),242 f. [= C. F. R., Aristofane autore di teatro, Firenze I962, I6I f.].

8/8/2019 642347

4/14

8/8/2019 642347

5/14

4 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSnot even after lines 68-70, where Dionysos announces his daringdescent.

6. Whereas line 76 mentions Sophokles as the only dead poet whois better than Euripides, line 77, insistently and for the first time, creditsDionysos with the intention of returning rom Hades with a good poet:the two lines, 76-77, are spoken by Herakles.7. Thanks to the intervention of Pluto in line I414, the intention toreturn with a good poet reappears at I418-21, and is fully worked outin the following Ioo lines or more which end the comedy; whereas fromlines 757 to 1410 the comedy had developed the theme of the contestbetween 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 7I-85, but an insertion made at the cost of sacrificing lineswhich were consistent with the other context-consistent, that is, withthe mordant and mischievous passage which provides the motive for adescent by Dionysos-Herakles as an admirer of Euripides (52-70 and86-107; ioo = 311). This is the passage in which Dionysos, comicallydisguised as Herakles, admits to being spurred on ajourney 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'.Thefifteen lines 71-85-marked by incongruous motifs that serve aspretexts: (i) Euripides desired as a skilful poet; (2) Dionysos as ascrupulous and impartial patron of drama; (3) the substantial lack of anygood tragic poet at Athens; (4) the defection from Athens to Macedoniaof a good poet like Agathon; (5) a return from Hades by Dionysos withEuripides as a good poet, and not with a better poet such as Sophokles-were undoubtedly nserted as a result of the death of Sophokles. (Andthe suppression of the objections to a journey to Hades, presumablyalready expressed by Herakles after the foolhardy line 70, was perhapsalso due to the fact that Dionysos, with new motivation, now announcesin line 71 that he is going to Hades because he needs 'a skilful poet', andthat consequently his proposal, in this case and at this point, is not to bediscouraged.)With the death of Sophokles, recently winner for the twenty-fourthtime 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 deathof Euripides in the winter of 407-6, was compelled to attempt a

8/8/2019 642347

6/14

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSfundamental revision of the basis and object of the journey of Dionysosto Hades. Simply to bring the text up to date by merely noting the deathof Sophokles would not in fact have adequately met the new theatricaland civic situation in Athens.

Thus, apart from the few new lines of the second prologue, significantchanges were improvised in the introductory dialogue between Dionysosand Herakles and, as a consequence, in the final section of the comedy.The original ending of the comedy was undoubtedly taken up withworking out the previously announced consequences of the artisticduel between Aeschylus and Euripides as it concerned the kingdomofthe dead (the award of the tragic throne in the underworld to thewinner-that is, to Aeschylus-and his reception in the underworldprytaneum; cf. 761-5 and the finale of the Knights, immediately afterthe 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 7I-85.The grand, purely comic, artistic debate between Aeschylus and Euri-pides, an idea already tentatively handled in the Clouds (1364-79), wasdeliberately side-tracked at the end in favour of a quite serious andunexpected supplementary contest: a contest dictated precisely by thelast-minute urgency for a return to the upper world of a poet in theinterest of an Athens now destitute of good tragic poets (I4II-1533;I4I8-2I->77 and 7I f.). And so at the end of the comedy Aeschylus,after commissioning Pluto to entrust his throne to Sophokles, could setout from Hades with Dionysos on the journey towards the light, toimprove the theatrical and civic lot of Athens.The death of Sophokles had therefore provoked the resurrection ofAeschylus, and yet, strictly speaking, he was the very poet of whomAthens had less need, since the tragedy of Aeschylus, and Aeschylusalone, 'had not died with him' (868); the very poet 'who did not agreewith the Athenians' (807). And Euripides, over whom Dionysos hadhad to commit himself rather deeply, to say the least, before Heraklesand the audience in the belatedly introduced and serious lines of theprologue, is not entirely in the wrong in the improvised and seriousfinal scene, when he cries out in protest at his betrayal, as if Dionysoshad held out to him personally the prospect of a return to the upperworld; while Dionysos can only get out of the embarrassing situationby resorting to witticisms (1469-78).The unexpected course begun at line 1411 was indeed pursued withsome embarrassment, with much vacillation, and without sufficientpreparation. The whole passage 1411-1533 is regulated by a rather

5

8/8/2019 642347

7/14

6 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSclumsy dramaturgy: Pluto interrupts at line I4I4 with abrupt oppor-tunism; the famous tragic throne is not brought on to the scene; afterline 1476 Euripides vanishes into thin air; the brief reception in thehouse of Pluto is unconvincing; Sophokles is conspicuous by hisabsence, despite the fact that he inherits the throne from Aeschylus;and in the last fifty lines Dionysos remains mute, and is even completelyignored.But naturally there was no need for the logical and dramaturgicalincongruity of the improvised patriotic finale of the Frogs to upset theaudience and judges of the Lenaia of 405 unduly: a clever productioncould remedy many of these incongruities; and besides, the audienceand judges were aware of the compelling reasons which had promptedthe author to improvise a resurrection of Aeschylus and a new endingto his comedy.

III. Frogs 785-811 and 1364-73In lines 785-6 init. and 796-8II, speaking of the confrontation aboutto take place between Aeschylus and Euripides, Aiakos announces:

(i) that there is going to be a contest, a judgement, and a test of artisticskill (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) variousinstruments suitable for measuring words are going to be brought out(799-80); (3) that Euripides wants to check the tragedies point by point(80o fin.-802); (4) that Aeschylus is in a very bad temper (804); (5) thatAeschylus is interested in the true nature of poetry (809-Io init.); and(6) that Aeschylus and Euripides have submitted themselves to thejudgement 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 noteven be brought on the scene, as happens in the Clouds(200-5) with theunused instruments for studying astronomy and geometry, nor willthere be an explanation for the abandonment of such a test (and par-ticularly by such a dynamic type as Euripides), and Euripides does noteven unsheath those instruments at the moment when he boasts ofhaving in fact taught the Athenians 'rules for subtleties and squarings-offof words' (956).The failure to fulfil the striking preliminary announcement about theinstruments, which also influences the language of the Chorus here andthere in lines 818-29, is altogether remarkable. We must not forget

8/8/2019 642347

8/14

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS 7that this announcement is made by someone who belongs to that milieu(and not by an outsider), by a serious and responsible character whonever permits himself to joke about the grave dispute between Aeschylusand Euripides, and who does not rise to the witticisms of Xanthias aboutthe weighing of poetry and the measuring-instruments. And the pro-mise implied in this announcement is particularly binding in that it ismade in the course of a prologue, and an extremely essential prologueat that. Objects behind the scenes whose appearance is forecast instriking terms in prologues always do appear; it is sufficient to recall theprologue of the Peace, where a physical existence behind the scenes isactually given to a realistic-surrealistic instrument: Hermes gives thestranger Trygaios a detailed account of Polemos' 'mortar for grindingcities', and in the sequel Polemos will bring that mortar on the sceneand send Tumult to Athens and Sparta in search of a pestle (Peace228-31, 238-88). In the Wasps(937-9), five distinct kitchen implementsand others not specified are invited to present themselves as witnessesin favour of the dog Labes. At least one of these instruments, the cheese-grater, will be questioned (Wasps 962-6), and this is the most importantwitness, because the dog is accused of having eaten a cake of cheese.In the Peace, Trygaios recommends, in summoning the Chorus, thatthey bring shovels, levers, and ropes (299), and these three tools willactually be used (307, 426, 437, 458). Here, in the Frogs, not even oneof the five instruments of measurement appears.

The analysis of lines 1364-73 and of the relevant context permits thefollowing observations:

i. Lines I365-7 are inconsistent with the outcome of the contest oflyrics and with the preceding scenic situation; in these lines, imme-diately after his lyrical counter-attack so successfully concluded inline I353 (cf. I364fin.), the never-defeated Aeschylus demands a poeticcontest that will give him immediate satisfaction-a contest that impliesthe presence on the scene of a pair of scales.

2. One after the other, in lines 1366-72, the remarks of Aeschylus,Dionysos, and the Chorus (1366, 1368, I370-2) presuppose more andmore clearly that the curious weighing of tragic language, favouringAeschylus, was preceded by an analogous test of technique, equallycurious.

3. From lines 799-80I one can deduce that such a curious test wascarried out with 'measuring-rods and foot-rules for words', etc.; thatis, it consisted of a measurement of language.4. The two mechanical tests were originally arranged immediately

8/8/2019 642347

9/14

8 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSafter Aeschylus' lyrical counter-attack (that is, after line 1364), and thefirst test turned out favourably for Euripides.

5. The first mechanical test was suppressed in the plan for the re-vision of the Frogs (on this point see the following section).Together with the measurement of tragic language an introductorychoral passage was also suppressed; the existence of such a passage canbe deduced from lines i370-2 alone. The suppressed choral passage

corresponded to the one which introduces the contest of lyrics.IV. Frogs 895-II28

The analysis of lines 895-I 128 and of the relevant context has yieldedthe following results:I. The epirrhematic agon in lines 895-I098, which is perfectly and

coherently worked out, has a general and decisive character and carriesout the programme proposed in lines 862 fin.-864; the three scenes inlines III9-I247, I248-I364, and 1365-1410 are concerned with detailsand are non-decisive, and carry out the twofold programme proposedin line 862 init. and the one previously announced in line 797.2. Lines 895-I098, which are premature in relation to the precedingcontext and inconsistent with lines 860-94, presuppose lines I099-I4I0.3. Lines I099-1410, which are belated in relation to lines 895-1098,and inconsistent with them, depend strictly on lines 860-94.4. Lines I065-98, the conclusion of the debate in lines 895-I098, areinconsistent with lines I418-70; that is, with the nucleus of the finaleof the reformed Frogs (lines 1411-1533).

DeductionsI. Lines 895-1098 originally followed shortly after the scenes inlines I099-1410.2. Lines 895-I098, which conclude with a harsh artistic-political

judgement on Euripides by Aeschylus and Dionysos, were placed infront of lines 1099-I410 because the revised version of the Frogsrequired that Euripides be considered worthy of eventual resurrectionby Dionysos for the sake of Athens.

The scene with the measuring of tragic language in which Aeschyluslost, originally preceding the scene of the weighing of verses in lines1365-14I0 won by Aeschylus, was suppressed because, in the revisedversion of the Frogs, it would have found itself in close proximity to thenew finale, the purpose of which was to resurrect Aeschylus, and to

8/8/2019 642347

10/14

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS 9resurrect him with full honours. On the other hand, any setback forAeschylus would have been inappropriate if it came after the generalepirrhematic debate which he had won.To sum up, the progression of the debate in the original Frogs wasprecisely the one previously announced by Euripides himself in 862-4:-rCarrT> x099-1247, 'TaxnOrl -> 1248-1364, Ta veopa KTA.-> 895-0o98;and the two scenes, with the measurement and weighing of versespreviously announced by Aiakos in lines 797-801, were between lines1364 and 141. The ideological, not to mention the dramaturgical,abnormality of the debate in our Frogs had been noticed at least by MaxPohlenz: in 1920 he declared himself dissatisfied with an artisticcontest which passed from general arguments to particular ones, andwhich did not conclude with a discussion concerning the ethical in-fluence of tragedy, because such a discussion would have served todetermine the defeat of Euripides.'In the revised Frogs, despite the large measure of anticipation of theepirrhematic agon concerning the essence of tragic art, lines 1491-9clearly re-echo the substance of Aeschylus' indictment of Euripides(oo006-73). None the less, that antepirrhema, fundamental and decisiveas it was, did not fail to have an effect on at least one passage in the newfinale; rather, the antistrophe in lines 1491-9, with its reference to TraPeyiorac T-ri Tpaycp5oKiSJ-XvrS attempted to offer some serious basisfor the unmotivated anti-Euripidean ending of the political contest at theclose of the reformed Frogs (cf. I468-78).But the original ending of the Frogs, because of the very fact that it wasdirectly controlled by the harsh judgement of Aeschylus and Dionysos,must have been much harder on Euripides. In fact, the anticipationThe programme proposed by Euripides in lines 86I-864, 86KVetV..r&. vEvpa"rs Trpaycp5las/Katf aia Tr6vnritea ye Kal Tbv AioXov/Kat 6v MEAtaypov K&Trpia(a rTVTAIXEpov,onsists in biting at 'the sinews of Tragedy', and also (Kal . . ye), by heaven,the substance, the tragic subject-matter: that subject-matter which Aeschylus hadthrown in his face in lines 842, 846, and 849 f., and which will be the one topic whichAeschylus harps on in lines xoo8-88. In fact Aeschylus, whose concern is with Ocraisrroilrrcv8io), will take no interest at all in the 'sinews of Tragedy', and will offer somecriticisms of form only in lines o160-64. T&veupa rTi TpaycpSias re the strings whichmove 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 along 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, doesnot know how to pull the strings of Tragedy, and therefore his characters are mere layfigures (cf. 911I- 3) and his dramas have no basis of consistency or coherence (cf. 923,945); he is d&a-raros,'incoherent', just as the sophistical Pheidippides said in theClouds (1367). In Plato, Laws 844 e, there is a reference to puppets pulled by veuipaf cralptveot (in Latin nerui or fila); &ayaacrrcT evup6o-racrra ppear earlier, in Herodotos,ii. 48. 2, and ol vEupooarrx-crain Aristotle, De Mundo 398bI6.

8/8/2019 642347

11/14

10 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSof the epirrhematic agon not only permitted a political contest onequal terms between Aeschylus and the already annihilated Euripides,but had the practical effect of robbing the harshjudgement of Aeschylusand Dionysos, expressed in lines I065-98, of any decisive character. Themotif of a return to the upperworldwith Euripidesas a good poet, insertedin the prologue of the Frogs as a result of the death of Sophokles, notonly compelled Aristophanes to treat Aeschylus even better-he wasresurrected, and that without being made to suffer a single set-back inhis artistic contest with Euripides-but then also compelled him, amongother things, to give up going to extreme lengths by putting the art ofEuripides on trial. In short, the anticipation of the epirrhematic agonwas carried out as part of the general reform of the Frogs as a whole,and not simply to permit a new ending to the comedy.V. Frogs 1251-60

The choral passage, lines I25 -60, which introduces the contest oflyrics, has come down to us, as is known, in a double recension, apartfrom the glyconic line I25I, which is valid and necessary for both ver-sions. That is, the alternatives are: I25I with 1252-6, or 1251 with1257-60. The modest and more concise lines 1257-60 would be thelater version in respect of lines I252-6, since they seem to have beencomposed for the revised Frogs (in which lines 1252-6 must havebeen marked as not for recitation). Once Sophokles was dead, theoriginal lines I254-6 came to sound disrespectful to the poet whom therevised Frogs was bound not to offend in any way, even indirectly.The retort in line 126I init. is not so congruent with lines 1257-60as it was with lines I254-6-a further proof of this very point, thatlines 1257-60 were improvised, and that, too, without attempting tosecure close correspondence with the actor's first remark. In the laterversion, the description of Aeschylus (line I259) as 'the Bacchic lord'is at least tactless, since Dionysos, himself 'the Bacchic lord' (Thesm.988), is on the stage. The later phrase 'I fear for him' (line I260), thatis, for Euripides, who in lines I249-50 had confidently proclaimed thathe would have demonstrated the ugliness of Aeschylus' lyrics, is inap-propriate, not only because it reveals some sympathy for Euripides onthe part of the chorus, who are not elsewhere disposed to favour him,but also because it implies that Euripides will be worsted in the end.VI. Complements

The death of Sophokles provoked a revision of the Frogs. This wascarried out by economical means in that active changes were confined

8/8/2019 642347

12/14

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSto about I50 lines, viz. 71-85, 786 fin.-795, I257-60, and I4I1-I533;and of these only thirty are assigned to the choreutes. Of the passivechanges the most striking, by virtue of its extreme economy, was thetransposition of the big scene in lines 895-1908-which was, moreover,made without taking any trouble to harmonize it. Nor was any retouch-ing done elsewhere, not even to conceal the suppression of a scenebetween lines 1364 and 1365, since traces of that scene remain not onlyin the preliminary announcement in lines 799-80I but also in a palpableecho in lines 1366-72. The reform of the Frogs evidently had to becarried out in haste.

Aristophanes had the Frogs presented in the competition at theLenaia 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 thecustomary duty, among others, of promptly organizing the dramaticcompetitions for January/February and March/April.' Sophokles, asis known, died in the year of Kallias, who was archon from the earlysummer of 406 to the end of spring in 405; and the more or less finaltext of the comedies, or the drafts of them, may have been presented tothe archonz in the autumn or even at the beginning of winter. Themore 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/Aprilmay imply that the Frogs was by now at an advanced stage (the Peace,presented in March/April 421, shows that it was not planned beforeOctober 422) and that the necessity for revision had not yet arisen.Be that as it may, when that necessity did arise, the Frogs could nothave been revised without a certain degree of haste. But the audienceand judges, well aware that Sophokles had just recently died, werecertainly undisturbed by the hasty necessity for that revision. On thecontrary, with his timely and significant reform, Aristophanes salvagedhis 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 owncomedy, entitled the Muses: 'Blessed Sophokles, he died after a longlife, a happy, wise man; he wrote many fine tragedies, he had a finedeath, and evil never knew him.' (And this laudatio funebris, fr. 31,implies that Sophokles did not figure among the characters of theMuses.) Not only did the Frogs win the first prize, but it received,according to the Aristotelian Dikaiarchos, the extraordinary honour ofa repeat performance. When this was, Dikaiarchos does not say; butI Cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 56. 3-5. 2 Cf. Plato, Laws, 8I7 d.

II

8/8/2019 642347

13/14

I2 THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGSevidently the second performance must have been given, no doubtpurely for reasons of economy and technical and administrative con-venience, by the same actors and chorus, the same choregos, and thesame didaskalos as the first performance; and it will have taken placein the agonistic milieu which was most apt to welcome the exceptionalrepeat performance of a comedy, and particularly of a Lenaian comedy:and this could not have been the severe and complex milieu of the springDionysia where comedy, moreover, was subordinate (and we shouldnot forget that Aristotle, according to the scholion on line 404 of theFrogs, reported that the performances of the Dionysia 405 necessitatedtwo choregoi). In short, besides the eloquent testimony of Dikaiarchos'silence, the Lenaian Frogs must have been repeated under the sameadministration of the Lenaia 405, before the same public, before thesame judges. The new show will, of course, have been virtually identicalwith the one judged worthy of the prize and a second performance.

That the Frogs was published with lines that were not to be recited(lines I252-6) may indicate that the text was not reconsidered in theslightest degree after the performance. In this connexion it may beadded that some modern analysts, like their predecessors among theAlexandrian scholars, make deletions in lines I437-66. But one willestablish the text better if one keeps in mind the purpose and the methodof the redaction of lines 14II-I533. In the new ending Aristophaneswas on the one hand bound to present even Euripides as a poet poten-tially useful to the Athenians, and consequently to make him speakrather seriously; on the other hand he wrote the script of his improvisedfinale in a manner that was certainly somewhat rough and ready, sothat it was liable to careless publication later on. For the dramatic poetof this period the main object was to bring his work to its destination,the theatre.I

In the second half of the nineteenth century it was ascertained thatthe structure of Aristophanic comedy contained a rigid and self-contained metrical-artistic phenomenon, which was given the name of'epirrhematic agon'; lines 895-I098 of the Frogs were numbered amongthe more strictly constructed examples of such epirrhematic agones.The integral transposition by Aristophanes of lines 895-1098 en blocwould have served, had there been need, to strengthen the justness ofthat modern observation.

I For the publication of dramas on the part of the dramatists themselves, or byothers, cf. C. F. Russo, Aristofane autore di teatro (Firenze, 1962), 317-I9.

8/8/2019 642347

14/14

THE REVISION OF ARISTOPHANES' FROGS I3The progression of the artistic contest in the original Frogs-two testsof formal aspects, without a judgement by Dionysos; two verifications

of technicalities, with mechanical responses involving no criticism(one favourable to Euripides and one to Aeschylus); an ample testconcerning artistic-ethical-political aspects, with a final judgementby Dionysos against Euripides (lines 895-o098)-is better fit to revealthe attitude of Aristophanes towards tragic poetry.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORSCARLOERDINANDOUSSO:Professor of Classics, University of Bari andEditor of Belfagor.R. L. ROWLAND:n undergraduate eadingEconomicsat Peterhouse,Cam-bridge.T. B. L. WEBSTER:rofessor of Greek, University College, London.D. W. PYE: ately Senior ClassicsMaster,Llandovery College.E. R. DODDS:ately Regius Professorof Greek, University of Oxford.MARKP. 0. MORFORD:ssistant Professor of Classics, Ohio State University.C. H. WILSON:Assistant Master, Bryanston School.R. G. USSHER: ecturer in Greek and Latin, Magee University College,Londonderry.ROBERT OLEMAN: ellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.J. A. HALDANE: Lecturer in Classics, University College of North Wales,Bangor.C. F. MACFARQUHAR:enior Classics Master, Emanuel School, London.