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.
