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.
