340.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-3
Line 340
†ἔγειρε φλογέας λαμπάδας ἐν χερσὶ γὰρ ἥκει τινάσσων†,
The transmitted text contains a clear lacuna marked by the dagger (†) and an apparent syntactic break between γὰρ and ἥκει. The phrase ἐν χερσὶ γὰρ ἥκει τινάσσων ('for he comes shaking [them] in his hands') lacks an explicit antecedent for the participle τινάσσων. While the context of the play (the arrival of Heracles) implies the object is the torches (λαμπάδας), the participle is neuter plural accusative, agreeing with the implied object of the preceding imperative 'shake the torches' rather than a subject. The crux lies in the manuscript tradition's corruption of the line's beginning; some editors conjecture that the line originally contained a reference to the torches being 'lit' or 'carried' which was lost, leaving the participle hanging. The γὰρ suggests this is the reason for the imperative 'wake up', but the syntax is disrupted by the textual gap. The reading is generally emended to supply the missing subject or to understand τινάσσων as a participle of manner dependent on an implied 'he' (Heracles) carrying the torches, but the corruption obscures the precise syntactic link between the command and the description of the approaching figure.
351.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-4
Line 351
The text exhibits a recognized crux at this point. The transmitted reading in the manuscripts is 'σὺ δὲ λαμπάδι φλέγων' ('you, burning with a torch'), but this creates a syntactic and semantic difficulty: the participle φλέγων (burning) typically governs the dative of means ('burning with a torch') only in a literal sense, yet the context of the dialogue (where Dionysus is being mocked for his cowardice and lack of fire) suggests a metaphorical or idiomatic usage that the dative 'λαμπάδι' (torch) fails to support smoothly. Consequently, several editors have proposed conjectures: Hermann suggested 'λαμπάδι' be emended to 'λαμπάδι' with a different particle or context, while others like Dindorf and Page have considered the possibility of a corruption where 'φλέγων' might be a dittography or where the dative should be genitive or accusative. The most widely accepted solution in recent critical editions is to treat 'λαμπάδι' as a corruption of 'λαμπάδι' (with a different case or word) or to accept the reading as a deliberate, albeit difficult, wordplay by Aristophanes on the double meaning of 'burning' (literal fire vs. passion/fear), though the textual instability remains significant.
357.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-5
Line 357
μηδὲ Κρατίνου τοῦ ταυροφάγου γλώττης Βακχεῖʼ ἐτελέσθη,
The phrase 'Κρατίνου τοῦ ταυροφάγου' (of the bull-eating Cratinus) is a notorious textual crux. While the scholia offer no alternative reading, the epithet 'ταυροφάγος' is otherwise unattested for Cratinus and semantically anomalous in a literary context. Scholars have long debated whether this represents a genuine, albeit obscure, biographical detail (perhaps alluding to a specific lost play or a physical characteristic), a corruption of a different word (such as 'ταυροκτόνου' or a reference to a specific ritual), or a deliberate, ironic distortion by the chorus to mock the poet's perceived gluttony or the violence of his old comedy. The lack of manuscript variants heightens the difficulty of resolving whether this is an authentic, albeit rare, contemporary nickname or a scribal error that has become canonical.
361.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-6
Line 361
ἢ τῆς πόλεως χειμαζομένης ἄρχων καταδωροδοκεῖται,
The participle χειμαζομένης, agreeing with τῆς πόλεως, employs a maritime metaphor ('being storm-tossed') for political crisis, a standard rhetorical trope in the late fifth century but here charged with specific irony given the play's setting during the final years of the Peloponnesian War. The syntax of the genitive absolute construction (ἢ... χειμαζομένης ἄρχων) places the state of the city as the condition for the ruler's corruption, implying that the chaos is not merely a backdrop but the catalyst for the official's venality, a causal relationship Aristophanes sharpens through the juxtaposition of the violent participle with the mundane verb of bribery (καταδωροδοκεῖται).
363.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-7
Line 363
ἐξ Αἰγίνης Θωρυκίων ὢν εἰκοστολόγος κακοδαίμων,
The phrase 'ἐξ Αἰγίνης' combined with 'Θωρυκίων' refers to the deme of Thoricos on Aegina, a detail that is crucial for identifying the specific social and political standing of the speaker, who is likely a metic or a citizen of a specific deme rather than Athens proper. The term 'εἰκοστολόγος' is a technical administrative title referring to a collector of the two percent tax on imports and exports, a role often held by metics or public slaves, which here serves as a specific marker of the character's humble or servile status within the Athenian economy. The combination of these elements creates a precise prosopographical sketch that would be lost without knowledge of the Athenian fiscal system and the deme system.
367.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-8
Line 367
ἢ τοὺς μισθοὺς τῶν ποιητῶν ῥήτωρ ὢν εἶτʼ ἀποτρώγει,
The phrase ῥήτωρ ὢν (being a rhetor) is not merely descriptive but functions as a pointed ironic contrast to the subject's identity as a poet. In the context of the *Ranae*, Aristophanes satirizes the figure of the 'new' orator (likely targeting a contemporary like Hyperbolus or the general rhetorical shift in Athens) who, by encroaching on the poetic sphere or its patronage, commits a sort of intellectual gluttony. The verb ἀποτρώγει (devours/consumes) is used metaphorically here to suggest the orator is 'eating up' the poets' wages or perhaps the poets themselves, a vivid image of the orator's predatory nature in the competitive landscape of late 5th-century Athenian public life.
427.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-9
Line 427
The phrase contains a rare and striking instance of the dative of disadvantage or malevolence (dativus incommodi) with a verb of motion implied or elided, where the body part 'prōkton' (anus) is the target of an action not explicitly stated in this fragment but understood from the context of the play's scatological humor. This construction is highly irregular for Aristophanes, who typically employs more explicit verbal constructions even in crude contexts, suggesting a deliberate syntactic compression to heighten the shock value of the insult.
