Aristophanes Frogs 971

Frogs. Aristophanes. . 2026-09-08.

Current edition Experimental

English (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (English) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (1)
Βάτραχοι Perseus (Aristophanes. Aristophanis Comoediae, Vol. 2. Hall, F. W. and Geldart, William M., editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.) — 971 focus
Translations (1)
Frogs (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Matthew Dillon). Migrated from Perseus legacy XML; source wording and notes retained. See TEI header and migration inventory.) — 971 focus

Commentary

Commentary (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) focus

990. mvp-tlg0019-tlg009-sanjaya-com-eng1-43

Line 990

κεχηνότες Μαμμάκυθοι
The phrase 'κεχηνότες Μαμμάκυθοι' presents a significant textual crux. While the transmitted text in some manuscripts reads 'Μαμμάκυθοι' (Mammakythoi), a recognized conjecture by scholars such as Bergk and later supported by modern editors like Kassel and Austin is 'Μαμμάκυνθος' (Mammakynthus) or a similar correction, suggesting the text may refer to a specific location or a corrupted proper noun rather than a generic term for 'squash'. The participle 'κεχηνότες' (gaping/open-mouthed) is typically used for people or animals, making its application to a noun ending in '-υθοι' (if taken as a plural of 'squash') a deliberate, jarring comic hyperbole, or, if 'Μαμμάκυθοι' is a corruption of a place name, it implies a specific geographical or topographical joke regarding the 'gaping' nature of that place. The lack of a clear antecedent for 'Μαμμάκυθοι' in the immediate context forces the reader to weigh the likelihood of a manuscript corruption against a highly obscure, dialectal, or coined term.