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.

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.