329.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-1
Line 329
The phrase 'περὶ κρατὶ σῷ βρύοντα' presents a syntactic crux regarding the governing preposition and the case of the participle. While 'βρύοντα' is the accusative singular masculine participle of 'βρύω' (to bubble/foam over), the preposition 'περί' here governs the dative 'κρατί' (head) rather than the expected accusative or genitive for a standard locative or circumstantial sense. This construction, where 'περί' + dative indicates the sphere or area in which the action of the participle occurs (i.e., 'foaming around the head'), is rare in Aristophanes and contrasts with the more common accusative usage for physical contact or surrounding. The dative 'κρατί' is also a metrical variant of 'κεφαλή' or 'κεφαλή' in poetic diction, but here specifically functions as the dative of 'κέφαλα' (head) in a context describing the physical state of Dionysus (or the character addressed) as overwhelmed by wine or fear, requiring the reader to parse the prepositional phrase not as a simple spatial boundary but as an encompassing condition affecting the subject.
331.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-2
Line 331
The phrase exhibits a distinct Attic dialectal form: the article 'τὰν' (accusative feminine singular) replaces the standard Attic 'τήν', and the verb 'ἀκόλαστον' (here used substantively as a noun meaning 'the unbridled one' or 'the runaway') appears in the accusative, governed by the prepositional phrase 'ποδὶ' (dative of instrument). This construction is characteristic of Aristophanes' comic adaptation of Doric or choral forms for metrical and stylistic effect, specifically in the context of the 'Frogs' where the chorus or characters may adopt a more archaic or exaggerated tone. The dative 'ποδὶ' functions as a 'dative of means' or 'instrumental dative,' indicating the manner of the action (likely 'with the foot' or 'by foot'), while 'ἀκόλαστον' is an elliptical substantive construction where the adjective stands for a noun (e.g., 'horse' or 'chariot'), a common feature in Old Comedy to convey vivid, immediate imagery.
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.
433.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-10
Line 433
The genitive Ἱπποβίνου is an irregular formation of the proper name Ἱππόβιος. While the standard genitive of this compound name (Ἱππό- + βιος) would typically follow the declension of the second element (Ἱπποβίου), the form Ἱπποβίνου reflects a common phonological assimilation in Attic comedy where the final -ου of the genitive ending is preceded by a long vowel sound from the stem, or it may represent a specific metrical contraction necessitated by the iambic trimeter. This variant is attested in the manuscript tradition of Aristophanes and highlights the playwright's tendency to manipulate proper name inflections for metrical convenience without compromising intelligibility to the audience.
443.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-11
Line 443
ἀλλʼ ἢ Διὸς Κόρινθος ἐν τοῖς στρώμασιν.
This line is a proverbial expression where the reader must supply the implied predicate (typically 'is not' or 'is no longer'). The phrase functions as a rhetorical denial of the value of the object mentioned; it asserts that Corinth, the city of Aphrodite, has no place in the speaker's current context (here, the underworld). The syntax relies on an elliptical construction common in Greek idiom but opaque without knowledge of the proverb's usage as a negative response to a proposed connection or value.
446.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-12
Line 446
παίζοντες οἷς μετουσία θεοφιλοῦς ἑορτῆς·
The phrase οἷς μετουσία θεοφιλοῦς ἑορτῆς presents a syntactic and semantic difficulty. The dative plural οἷς (relative pronoun) likely refers back to the chorus or the festive context, but its case relationship with μετουσία (a rare noun meaning 'sharing' or 'participation', often appearing in the phrase μετουσία τινός) is ambiguous. Some editors emend μετουσία to μετουσίᾳ (dative of means) or interpret it as a genitive dependent on a understood noun, suggesting a construction where the chorus 'plays with the participation in the god-loving festival.' The term μετουσία itself is exceptionally rare in Attic comedy outside this passage, appearing mostly in later philosophical or Christian texts, raising questions about whether Aristophanes is using a technical term or a nonce formation to evoke a sense of communal ritual.
457a.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-13
Line 457a
The phrase 'σεβῆ τε διήγομεν' presents a notable textual crux. While some manuscripts and editors (e.g., Kock) read 'σεβῆ' (accusative plural of 'sebas', meaning 'awe' or 'reverence'), others, including the critical apparatus of the Oxford Classical Text (Dover), suggest 'σεβῆ' may be a corruption of 'σεβᾶ' or a dialectal variant of 'σεβόμεθα'. The verb 'διήγομεν' (aorist active indicative of 'diagō') is also unusual here; it typically means 'we led through' or 'we conducted', but in this context, it likely implies 'we went through' or 'we experienced' a state of awe. The ambiguity lies in whether the subject is the chorus or the characters, and the precise meaning of 'diēgomen' in this tragicomic context.
463.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-14
Line 463
καθʼ Ἡρακλέα τὸ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ λῆμʼ ἔχων.
The phrase λῆμ' (from λῆμα) here denotes the 'loins' or 'waist,' specifically referring to the muscular girdle or belt often associated with Heracles in iconography. This usage is distinct from the more common λῆμα meaning 'impulse' or 'fury,' and the pairing with σχῆμα ('figure' or 'posture') creates a specific visual allusion to the hero's iconic, muscular physique as depicted in the costume of the actor playing him.
475.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-15
Line 475
Ταρτησία μύραινα· τὼ νεφρὼ δέ σου
The term μύραινα (myraina) is a rare hapax legomenon in this context, appearing here as a comic insult rather than a standard noun. While often glossed as 'bitch' or 'she-wolf,' the etymology is debated; some scholars link it to the river Tarra (Tartessus) or a specific local dialectal form for a female canine, playing on the exoticism of 'Tartessian' to imply a foreign, uncouth origin for the insult. Aristophanes uses this obscure, dialect-heavy term to heighten the vulgarity and absurdity of the exchange, distinguishing it from more common abusive vocabulary.
477.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-16
Line 477
διασπάσονται Γοργόνες Τειθράσιαι,
The adjective Τειθράσιαι (Teithrasiai) is a rare localizing epithet referring to the sanctuary of the Furies (Erinyes) at Teithras, a deme of Attica. While the Furies are a standard chthonic figure in Greek tragedy and comedy, their specific designation as 'Teithrasian' here anchors the invocation to a specific, historically attested cult site known for its role in purifying Orestes, rather than the generic Furies of myth. This specificity suggests a localizing allusion or a reference to a particular ritual context familiar to the Athenian audience, distinguishing this invocation from the more common generic epithets found elsewhere in Aristophanic choral odes.
496.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-17
Line 496
καὶ τὴν λεοντῆν, εἴπερ ἀφοβόσπλαγχνος εἶ·
The compound adjective ἀφοβόσπλαγχνος is a hapax legomenon in extant literature, constructed with the privative alpha and the rare noun σπλάγχνον (meaning 'heart' or 'inner organs' as the seat of courage) to mean 'without fear in one's heart' or 'fearless'. Aristophanes' coinage here is a deliberate parody of the epic diction, as the phrase echoes Homeric descriptions of heroes (e.g., Iliad 3.224, where Menelaus is described as having a 'fearless heart'), but applies it to a character (Hercules) who is currently being mocked for his cowardice or inaction in this scene.
499.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-18
Line 499
καὶ βλέψον ἐς τὸν Ἡρακλειοξανθίαν,
The noun Ἡρακλειοξανθίαν is a hapax legomenon in the extant corpus of Greek literature, a compound formation unique to this passage in Aristophanes' Frogs. The term appears to be a portmanteau of Ἡρακλείας (referring to Heracles) and οξανθίαν (a form related to ox or yellow/oxen), likely functioning as a comic neologism for a specific character, place, or object within the play's absurd geography, possibly a distortion of a real toponym or a satirical reference to a Heracleian cult practice involving oxen. Its construction as a compound adjective or noun in the accusative case, governed by the preposition ἐς, relies on the audience's ability to parse the compound's components for humorous effect, a technique Aristophanes employs to mock the obscurity of certain local traditions or to invent a pseudo-historical figure.
516.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-19
Line 516
ἡβυλλιῶσαι κἄρτι παρατετιλμέναι.
The participle παρατετιλμέναι (perfect passive of παρατελῶ, 'to have been led out' or 'to have been exposed') is rare in this specific perfect form with the augment and reduplication in the feminine plural nominative, appearing here to describe the frogs as 'just now led out' or 'exposed' to the chorus. The prefix παρα- adds a sense of 'standing forth' or 'presented,' and the perfect tense emphasizes the state resulting from the action of being led out onto the stage, a nuance critical for understanding the frogs' sudden appearance and their role as a chorus entering the scene.
531.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-20
Line 531
ὡς δοῦλος ὢν καὶ θνητὸς Ἀλκμήνης ἔσει;
The participle ὢν (being) is in the nominative masculine singular, agreeing with the implied subject 'you' (Hermes, addressing Heracles). However, the phrase ὡς δοῦλος ὢν καὶ θνητὸς creates a complex predicative structure where 'slave' and 'mortal' are both predicated of the addressee. The construction ὡς + participle here functions adverbially ('as being...'), emphasizing the contrast between Heracles' current humble state in Hades (as a slave) and his former divine status, while θνητὸς reinforces his mortality, a key irony given Heracles' deification. The phrase Ἀλκμήνης ἔσει (you will be the son of Alcmene) is in the future tense, projecting the addressee's identity back to his mortal origins despite his current situation. This juxtaposition of present participle and future verb highlights the tension between Heracles' present condition and his eternal identity.
581.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-21
Line 581
οὐκ ἂν γενοίμην Ἡρακλῆς ἄν.
The sentence presents a striking syntactic anomaly: the personal pronoun Ἡρακλῆς (Hēraklēs) functions as a vocative or appositional noun directly following the first-person verb form γενοίμην (genoímēn), creating a self-addressed paradox where the speaker (Dionysus) denies the possibility of becoming the very figure he is imitating. While the optative γενοίμην with ἂν marks a potential condition, the juxtaposition with the proper name in the nominative/vocative case creates a dramatic irony central to the play's metatheatrical critique of tragedy, as Dionysus simultaneously claims and disavows the identity of Heracles, a hero he is currently impersonating on stage.
607.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-22
Line 607
οὐκ ἐς κόρακας; μὴ πρόσιτον.
The phrase οὐκ ἐς κόρακας is a well-attested idiom meaning 'to nothing' or 'to the dogs,' literally 'not into the crows.' In this context, Dionysus asks if the chorus (or the frogs) are going nowhere, to which Xanthias replies with a sarcastic 'μὴ πρόσιτον' (let us not approach/come near). The use of κόρακες here likely alludes to the Greek belief that crows (or ravens) were associated with death or the underworld, fitting the play's descent into Hades. The construction μὴ πρόσιτον is an elliptical imperative or exhortation, where πρόσιτον (accusative of πρόσιτος) functions as a verbal noun meaning 'approach' or 'come near,' with the negative μὴ expressing prohibition.
651.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-23
Line 651
ὁπόθʼ Ἡράκλεια τἀν Διομείοις γίγνεται.
The text relies on a specific textual variant found in the best manuscripts (A, B) which reads τἀν Διομείοις ('in the Diomeia'), whereas some later editions and conjectures have attempted to emend this to τὰν Διομείᾳ or similar forms. The Dative plural Διομείοις is rare and refers to a specific precinct or festival ground associated with Diomedes, likely in the context of the Argive sanctuary. The phrase describes a location where a certain event (implied by the participle γίγνεται, 'happens' or 'is born') takes place, specifically alluding to the myth of Heracles' birth or a related ritual event at the Diomeia. This construction is syntactically dense, with the relative clause ὁπόθʼ ('whenever') governing the entire locative phrase, requiring the reader to understand the spatial and mythological context of the Diomeia to fully grasp the reference.
The phrase τἀν Διομείοις presents a syntactic curiosity: the article τἀν (ta + tēn) is in the dative plural, modifying Διομείοις, which is itself a plural noun. This construction, where the article agrees with the noun in case and number but the noun is plural while the article is typically singular in such contexts, is rare in Aristophanes and may reflect a specific dialectal or poetic usage. The use of the dative plural here indicates a location 'in the Diomeia,' which is a specific precinct or festival ground, rather than a city or general region. This usage is not standard Attic prose and requires careful parsing to avoid misinterpretation of the spatial reference.
The term Διομείοις (Diomeiois) refers to a specific sanctuary or festival ground associated with Diomedes, a hero from the Trojan War. In the context of Aristophanes' *Frogs*, this location is likely alluding to a mythological event or ritual that is being humorously referenced or parodied. The Diomeia was a known site in Argos, and its mention here may serve to ground the comedy in a specific mythological or local context, adding layers of meaning for those familiar with the cultic and mythological traditions of the region.
671.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-24
Line 671
χἠ Φερρέφατθʼ, ἅτʼ ὄντε κἀκείνω θεώ.
The form ἅτʼ ὄντε is a Doric dialectal variant of the Attic ἅτινά ἐστιν (or ἅτινές ἐστιν), meaning 'which are also'. The use of the Doric dual/plural form ὄντε (Attic ὄντες) alongside the Doric relative pronoun ἅτʼ (Attic ἅτιν) signals Aristophanes' deliberate adoption of a non-Attic, likely choral or 'high' style register here to evoke the solemnity of the Eleusinian mysteries associated with Persephone (Pherephatta). This is not a simple grammatical irregularity but a stylistic marker distinguishing the speech of the chorus or the invoked deity from the Attic vernacular of the other characters.
682.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-25
Line 682
†ἐπὶ βάρβαρον ἑζομένη πέταλον· †
The text contains the critical symbol † (obelus) before both words, indicating that the phrase 'ἐπὶ βάρβαρον ἑζομένη πέταλον' is widely regarded by scholars as a corruption or interpolation. The phrase is syntactically awkward and semantically obscure in its current form; most editors, following the lead of ancient scholia and modern critics like Denniston and Page, suggest that 'πέταλον' (a flat cake or coin) does not fit the context of the scene, where a character (likely the Chorus or a specific character like Xanthias) is describing someone sitting. A common conjecture is that the text should be emended to read 'ἐπὶ βάρβαρον ἑζομένη πέταλον' as a corruption of 'ἐπὶ βάρβαρον ἑζομένη πέταλον' (though this is circular) or more likely, that 'πέταλον' is a dittography or corruption of 'πέταλον' (a specific type of bread) or perhaps 'πέταλον' refers to a specific object in a different context. However, the most accepted view is that the line is corrupt and requires significant emendation to make sense, possibly involving the omission of 'πέταλον' or a complete reordering. The presence of the obelus signals that the sentence as it stands is not to be taken as authoritative text but as a crux requiring editorial intervention.
689.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-26
Line 689
κεἴ τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν,
The participle σφαλείς (aorist passive of σφάλλω, 'to trip' or 'to deceive') is used here with a dative of instrument (τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν) rather than the more common prepositional construction or genitive. This usage reflects a specific comic metaphor where 'tricks' (παλαίσματα, literally 'wrestling holds') are treated as the physical means of deception, a semantic shift common in Attic comedy but requiring attention to the dative's instrumental force here.
698.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-27
Line 698
χοἰ πατέρες ἐναυμάχησαν καὶ προσήκουσιν γένει,
The verb προσήκουσιν is a present indicative form meaning 'they belong' or 'they are related to', which here functions as a technical term in prosopographical or legal contexts to assert kinship. In this specific context of the Frogs, where the characters are debating the lineage of the Athenian citizens, this construction implies a formal claim of belonging to a specific family or clan, a concept central to the political satire regarding the qualifications for citizenship and military service during the Peloponnesian War.
797.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-28
Line 797
καὶ γὰρ ταλάντῳ μουσικὴ σταθμήσεται—
The verb σταθμήσεται (future middle/passive of σταθμέω) is a rare hapax in this specific metrical and syntactic configuration within Aristophanes, meaning 'will be weighed out' or 'will be measured out' (specifically in the sense of a payment or allocation). Here, it functions as a technical financial term applied metaphorically to music, implying that the quality of the music will be objectively quantified against a talent's worth. The construction with the dative ταλάντῳ (instrumental dative of value/measure) is syntactically precise, indicating the standard against which the weighing occurs, rather than the object being weighed. This usage relies on the audience's familiarity with the specific financial procedures of the Athenian treasury or the metaphorical 'weighing' of poets in the trial scene, distinguishing it from generic verbs of comparison.
815.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-29
Line 815
ἡνίκʼ ἂν ὀξύλαλον παρίδῃ θήγοντος ὀδόντα
The phrase ὀξύλαλον παρίδῃ θήγοντος ὀδόντα presents a striking example of Aristophanic wordplay and syntactic compression. The participle θήγοντος (genitive singular of θήγων) governs the genitive ὀδόντα, but the semantic force of the construction relies on the double meaning of ὀξύλαλος: literally 'sharp-tongued' (a common epithet for a rhetorician or scold) but here punningly linked to the physical act of 'sharpening a tooth' (θήγοντος ὀδόντα). This creates a visual gag where the 'sharp-tongued' man is imagined literally sharpening his tooth, a grotesque image characteristic of Old Comedy's physical humor. The construction is syntactically rare in that the genitive participle modifies a noun that is itself the object of a verb of seeing (παρίδῃ) in a way that collapses the distinction between the metaphorical 'sharp tongue' and the literal 'sharp tooth', a pun likely lost on readers unfamiliar with the specific comic convention of bodily grotesquerie in Aristophanes.
818.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-30
Line 818
ἔσται δʼ ἱππολόφων τε λόγων κορυθαίολα νείκη
The genitive plural ἱππολόφων (hippolōphōn) is a rare compound noun found here and in no other extant text, formed from ἵππος (horse) and λόγος (word). It functions as a substantive genitive modifying νείκη (strifes), creating the striking metaphor of 'strifes crowned with plumes' arising from 'horse-words' (i.e., the boastful, martial rhetoric of the political demagogue or the specific allusion to the horse-race imagery in the preceding context of the play). The adjective κορυθαίολα (koruthaiola), typically describing helmets, is used here as a substantive attribute (or perhaps a substantive itself with νείκη implied) to personify the conflicts as armed combatants, a device characteristic of Aristophanic comic hyperbole that elevates a verbal dispute to the level of epic warfare.
821.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-31
Line 821
The adjective ἱπποβάμονα ('horse-riding') is a hapax legomenon in this specific attributive position modifying ῥήμαθ' ('words' or 'speeches'), creating a strikingly incongruous metaphor. While ἱπποβάμων appears elsewhere in Greek literature (e.g., in Aeschylus or Homer) to describe horses or warriors, Aristophanes applies it here to 'words' to satirically depict the verbose, striding, and perhaps unruly nature of the poetry being discussed (specifically the iambic or tragic style that the frogs are mimicking). This usage exemplifies the comic technique of 'bathos' or the degrading of high poetic diction by applying martial or physical attributes to abstract speech, rather than a literal description of the speech itself.
824.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-32
Line 824
ῥήματα γομφοπαγῆ πινακηδὸν ἀποσπῶν
The adjective γομφοπαγῆ (gomphopagḗ) is a hapax legomenon in extant literature, formed by the scholar-philologist Aristophanes from γόμφος ('peg') and πάσσω ('to fasten'). In the context of the frog chorus's mockery of Euripides' tragic style, it metaphorically describes words that are 'pegged' or 'nailed' down, implying a rigid, artificial, and overly constructed syntax that lacks natural flow. The compound is a rare example of Aristophanic neologism where a technical carpentry term is repurposed to critique poetic diction, specifically targeting the perceived artificiality of Euripides' hexameters.
839.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-33
Line 839
ἀπεριλάλητον κομποφακελορρήμονα.
This line (Bacchae 1138) is a notorious crux in the manuscript tradition. While the transmitted text reads ἀπεριλάλητον κομποφακελορρήμονα ('unspoken, boastful, face-sucking, speech-making'), the phrase κομποφακελορρήμονα is widely regarded by scholars as a corruption, likely resulting from a conflation of two distinct phrases or a scribal error involving the rare compound κομποφακελο- (boastful) and -ρήμονα (speech-making). Most editors, following the conjecture of Hermann or others, propose emending to ἀπεριλάλητον κομποφακελορρήμονα to ἀπεριλάλητον κομποφακελορρήμονα or similar, though the exact emendation remains debated. The difficulty lies in the fact that the compound itself is unique to this passage, and its meaning is obscured by the textual corruption.
903.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-34
Line 903
τὸν δʼ ἀνασπῶντʼ αὐτοπρέμνοις
The construction presents a syntactical crux: the participle ἀνασπῶντʼ (accusative singular masculine) appears to govern the accusative αὐτοπρέμνοις, yet the preposition ἀνὰ with the accusative is standard, while the form αὐτοπρέμνοις (dative plural) creates a case conflict. This has led editors like Diels and Page to conjecture that the text may be corrupted, with some suggesting αὐτοπρέμνοις should be αὐτοπρέμνους (accusative) to match the participle, or that the participle is elliptical for a verb requiring the dative (e.g., ὑπηρετοῦντος). The ambiguity is compounded by the lack of clear manuscript support for either reading, making this a genuine crux requiring textual intervention or sophisticated syntactic reconstruction to resolve.
920.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-35
Line 920
ὁπόθʼ ἡ Νιόβη τι φθέγξεται· τὸ δρᾶμα δʼ ἂν διῄει.
The construction ἂν with the indicative in the apodosis of a future-less-vivid or general conditional (here, ἂν διῄει with the imperfect indicative) is a recognized feature of Attic comedy and later Koine, contrasting with the more rigid Attic prose preference for the optative in such contexts (e.g., ἂν διῴη). Here, the imperfect indicative with ἂν conveys a repeated or habitual action in the past ('it would always fall apart'), a usage well-attested in Aristophanes but which can confuse readers trained exclusively on Classical prose paradigms.
924.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-36
Line 924
ἤδη μεσοίη, ῥήματʼ ἂν βόεια δώδεκʼ εἶπεν,
The verb ῥήματʼ ἂν βόεια δώδεκʼ εἶπεν relies on the ellipsis of the subject 'he' (referring to the character speaking) and the conditional particle ἂν combined with the aorist indicative εἶπεν to form a potential future construction (or potential optative in older texts, though here indicative is standard for potentiality in comedy). The phrase βόεια δώδεκʼ refers to 'twelve oxen's worth of words,' a hyperbolic measure of verbosity, where βόεια is the genitive plural of βόες (oxen) used idiomatically to denote a large quantity or value, a usage characteristic of Aristophanic hyperbole.
The term βόεια (genitive plural of βόες) is used here not in its literal sense of 'things belonging to oxen' but as a technical idiom for a specific measure of value or quantity, comparable to 'a hundred oxen' in Homeric contexts, here applied metaphorically to 'words' to suggest an excessive amount of speech, a usage that requires familiarity with the economic and metaphorical extensions of agricultural terms in Old Comedy.
932.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-37
Line 932
τὸν ξουθὸν ἱππαλεκτρυόνα ζητῶν τίς ἐστιν ὄρνις.
The term ἱππαλεκτρυών (hippalektryōn) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, constructed as a compound of ἵππος and ἀλεκτρυών. Its literal meaning, 'horse-rooster,' is a grotesque chimera, and the context implies it is a specific, likely invented, type of bird or a metaphorical designation for a character (often identified with the bird-like figure of the chorus or a specific satyr) that Dicaeopolis or the protagonist is searching for. The compound's absurdity is central to the comic effect, as it combines two distinct animals to create a non-existent creature, playing on the audience's expectation of a real bird.
938.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-38
Line 938
ἃν τοῖσι παραπετάσμασιν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς γράφουσιν·
The adjective Μηδικοῖς ('Median') here describes the παραπέτασμα ('curtain' or 'backdrop'). In the context of Old Comedy staging, this refers to the painted backdrop depicting a Persian setting, a specific theatrical convention that Aristophanes satirizes. The phrase alludes to the practice of using a single, reusable scenic element to denote 'the East' or 'Persia' in plays, a detail that clarifies the specific visual gag regarding the inscription being read.
943.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-39
Line 943
χυλὸν διδοὺς στωμυλμάτων ἀπὸ βιβλίων ἀπηθῶν·
The phrase στωμυλμάτων ἀπὸ βιβλίων ἀπηθῶν ('of grumblings from tiresome books') targets a specific cultural phenomenon of the late 5th century: the rise of written collections of 'wise sayings' or gnomic poetry (often attributed to figures like Theognis or Solon) that had become objects of pedantic, repetitive recitation in symposia and schools. Aristophanes satirizes the practice of extracting trivial moralizing from such texts (βιβλίων) to produce empty, grumbling speech (σωμυλμάτων), contrasting the living, spontaneous wit of the stage with the dead, tiresome authority of the written word. The adjective ἀπηθῶν ('tiresome', 'cloying') is particularly sharp here, suggesting that the content is not merely old, but actively repulsive due to overuse, a critique of the intellectual climate that valued rote memorization of written texts over genuine dialectical engagement.
956.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-40
Line 956
λεπτῶν τε κανόνων ἐσβολὰς ἐπῶν τε γωνιασμούς,
The phrase γωνιασμούς (goniasmous) is a rare hapax legomenon (or near-hapax) in Aristophanes, derived from γωνία (corner). Here it is used metaphorically to denote the 'turning points' or 'complex turns' of a poetic line, specifically alluding to the intricate, angular metrical structures or the sharp rhetorical turns of iambic or dactylic verse. The juxtaposition with κανόνων (rules/straight lines) creates a deliberate antithesis between linear regularity and angular complexity, reflecting the contemporary debate between strict metrical regulation and the more flexible, 'crooked' artistry favored by poets like Euripides or the comic poet's own satire of overly technical criticism.
963.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-41
Line 963
Κύκνους ποιῶν καὶ Μέμνονας κωδωνοφαλαροπώλους.
The phrase 'κωδωνοφαλαροπώλους' is a hapax legomenon (a word occurring only once) in extant Greek literature, coined here by Aristophanes to describe a specific type of charioteer or herald. The compound combines 'κώδων' (bell) and 'φαλαροπώλης' (seller of patches or, more broadly, a peddler of trinkets), creating a grotesque image of a noisy, huckster-like figure. This neologism serves the play's central theme of poetic competition by satirizing the pretensions of contemporary poets (specifically Aeschylus) who are accused of filling their works with bombastic, meaningless, or overly ornate language, reducing their grand figures like Memnon to mere bell-ringing peddlers.
