Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:23:44.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amphibian ambiguities: Aristophanes and his Frogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Richard H. Allison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few would dispute that Frogs is one of Aristophanes’ supreme achievements; many would further claim as one of his most successful and famous scenes Dionysos’ encounter with those eponymous amphibians, the frogs themselves. This, however, brings us face to face with a major paradox which critics of Aristophanes frequently fail to emphasize in anything like adequate terms: quite simply, and astonishingly for such a well-loved scene, there is no scholarly agreement, even on the broadest level, as to how it was actually presented in the theatre. Apart from the fact that it is far from clear how Charon's boat was represented, we do not even have a sure answer to an even more basic question—whether those famous characters the frogs were visibly presented to the audience as yet another of Aristophanes’ coups de theatre, or whether they were only heard singing from offstage, thus altering the emphasis (or at least the focus) of the scene very considerably. Lack of agreement among scholars on such an important point is lamentable enough, but, worse, some recent criticism appears to have been developing a dangerous tendency not only to assert without adequate argument that the frogs were indeed visibly represented but, further, to build this highly insecure element into the foundations of various theories of wider significance as if it were a piece of orthodoxy. This suggests that a careful re-examination of the whole scene might not be out of place in an attempt to support or refute the ancient scholiastic opinion (Z Frogs 211), for long unquestioned, which states quite unequivocally ‘…the frogs are not seen in the theatre, nor is the chorus, but rather they imitate the frogs from offstage. The true chorus is composed of righteous souls of the dead.’ I will argue, from close consideration of the actual wording of the scene, and of its setting and action, that the frogs were indeed unseen and were only heard singing from somewhere offstage. To support this view, I believe important considerations of comparative dramatic practice, and even of natural history, can be adduced.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , April 1983 , pp. 8 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. It has never been entirely satisfactorily explained why Frogs bears the title that it does, in complete contradistinction to Aristophanes’ usual practices of nomenclature. To judge from the titles which have been preserved, Aristophanes’ favourite type of title was that drawn from the identity of a play's principal chorus (e. g. Acharnians, Birds, etc.). He used this type of title approximately half as often again as all other types of title combined-such as the name of a prominent character (e. g. Lysistrata, Amphiareos, etc.) or an abstraction of the theme (e. g. Peace; or Wealth, a type of title which comprises both theme and character). Frogsof course takes its title from the identity of the subsidiary chorus which plays an extremely transitory and minimally relevant role in the drama. Yet, presumably owing to the outstanding charm of the brief sequence in which the frogs figure (and which, it must be admitted, contrasts greatly with the occasionally rather lack-lustre and anonymous character of the principal chorus of shabbily dressed initiates), it is the frogs who seem to have lent their name to the whole play (rather as if they were the principal chorus and thus firmly in the mainstream of traditional Old Comedy animal-choruses), from a very early stage of its existence. The citing of the authority of Dikaiarchos by the writers of Hypotheses 1 and 2 makes it very likely that the play was known by the title Frogs at least by his time, i. e. within a century of its production; and indeed it is highly probable that it was so known in both the early circulating written version of the text and in the official records of victorious comedies (see Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (London, 1972), p. 178)Google Scholar. Much work remains to be done on the whole question of dramatic titles in general.

2. Editors of the play who have taken the frog-chorus to be unseen include Kock (Berlin, 1881), Merry (Oxford, 1887), Van Leeuwen (Leyden, 1896), Rogers (London, 1902), Tucker (London, 1906), Coulon-Van Daele (Paris, 1946), Stanford (London, 1963). Others who have supported this view notably include Fraenkel, E., Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome, 1962), pp. 182fGoogle Scholar., Russo, C. F., Aristofane autore di teatro (Florence, 1962), p. 329Google Scholar, Wills, G., Hermes 97 (1969), 306ffGoogle Scholar. (particularly p. 307 n. 2), and Demand, D., CPhil 65 (1970), 83ffGoogle Scholar. Murray's, Gilberttranslation (London, 1908)Google Scholar also envisages the frogs as being heard ‘under the water'. Scholars who hold that the frogs were visibly presented include Bieber, M., History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton, 1961), p. 37Google Scholar, Defradas, J., REA 71 (1969), 23ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar., Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy, pp. 177ffGoogle Scholar., and MacDowell, D. M., CR 22 (1972), 3ffGoogle Scholar. these latter two the most reasoned defences of this side of the case. Radermacher's, L.major edition (Vienna, 1954)Google Scholar surprisingly never makes his view of the matter entirely clear, though he may imply visible frogs on pp. 168 and 170. Lastly, two recent works on staging disappointingly do not commit themselves — Arnott, P. D., Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar, and Dearden, C. W., The Stage of Aristophanes(London, 1976)Google Scholar.

3. Thus Sifakis, G. M., Parabasis and Animal Choruses(London, 1971)Google Scholar, chapter 10, not only asserts the visible presentation of the frogs, but goes on to endow them, as descendants of ‘predramatic theriomorphic choruses’, with considerable significance for the larger history of Old Comedy. ‘Other examples which seem to show that the frogs’ appearance on stage is rapidly developing into a dangerously unfounded (as I believe) orthodoxy are to be found in two recent introductions to Aristophanes. Sandbach, F. H., The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome(London, 1977), p. 32 n. 1Google Scholar, commending Dover's arguments, says simply ‘There is to my mind a strong case for believing the frogs to have appeared in the orchestra'; MCLeish, K., The Theatre of Aristophanes(London, 1980), p. 168 n. 20Google Scholar, ranks Dionysos’ encounter with the frogs among many sequences in Aristophanes which ‘all depend for their effect on close interaction between actors and Chorus'.

4. The full scholiastic notice in fact runs ΤαūΤα καλέιΤαι παχοπνγńυαΤα, Έπελδń ούχ όπŵϋΤ έϋ ΤŵΙΕάΤΠŵ οιβάΤπαχοι, ούδΈ ό χοΣ, άλλ’ ёοŵϑΣ. ό δÉ άλνΙΐσ γοπόΣ ΈΚ ΤŴυ éίσεβΰΐ ΐεκποα σΤνΚΕϋ. It is normal to discount the validity of this evidence, ancient scholia being very often based on little more than inferences from the text itself, uninformed from any independent source. It is notable here, however, that, apart from Charon's άκούσΕιdicoucrei (line 205), there is very little in the text (at least superficially) to have prompted this remarkably positive and fairly extensive statement of the scholiast's, who is in addition primarily concerned to define παπαχοπνϋňυαŤα Trapaxopriyr/fiaTa and not principally to emphasize the invisibility of the frogs. It is thus possible that something more may underlie this piece of information than simply the naive scholiastic assumption (according to MacDowell) that there cannot be two visible choruses in one play; I suspect the average scholiast would more readily accept the idea of two visible choruses (especially when one would fit so well into the familiar and traditional type of the animal-chorus) than make such an unprompted and far from obvious statement.

5. Sifakis, , op. cit., p. 94Google Scholar. Also Dover, , op. cit., p. 177Google Scholar: ‘Kharon's words are natural, since frogs are more often heard than seen.'

6. Thus, e. g., Dover, ibid., p. 178: ‘If the chorus of frogs actually appeared dressed in skintight costumes of green and yellow, crouching and leaping in all directions round the orchestra like frogs in a marsh, …[this would afford an] agreeable and ingenious spectacle …'

7. 'Frog-swans’ (βαΤπάχώϋ, κνκνων 207) appears to be an asyndeton rather like, e. g., άϋιπώποσ αρνις at Birds 169, and in context is clearly meant not as a suggestion of a hybrid chorus actually appearing dressed as part-swan, part-frog, but to offer the amusing paradox of the frogs’ croaking song being as entrancing as the proverbially beautiful singing of swans.

8. Taplin, O., PCPS 23 (1977), 121ff.Google Scholar; p. 130 quoted.

9. See n. 2 above.

10. ‘Fostering Apollos reeds’ (232ff.) means no more than that the frogs are dear to Apollo because the reeds for his lyre's construction grow in the frogs’ domain under their general surveillance. So too ‘hopping through the galingale and reeds … fleeing Zeus ‘showers’ (244ff.) refers to generalized past behaviour (ειδ πορ, 242), and is not a description of present activity suggesting that the frogs were seen ‘hopping’ or ‘fleeing’ as they actually sang this song.

11. The only exception might be at the end of Knights, but many scholars hold that there a final choral utterance has been lost from our text. In Lysistrata, Lysistrata invites the Spartan(s) to respond to the ode that the chorus has just sung, and presumably that adequately covers their exit.

12. See n. 5 above.

13. P. Oxy. xxxv. 2740. See also Austin, C., Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta (Berlin and New York, 1973), 98, pp. 114–18Google Scholar; also Wilson, A. M., CQ 24 (1974), 250ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar., with his addendum in CQ 26 (1976), 318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Suda s. v. Kαλλιασ.

15. See Dover, K. J., op. cit., p. 214Google Scholar.

16. See Austin, C., op. cit., 98Google Scholar, fr. 2. ii. 6–8 (p. 116); the interpretation is discussed by Wilson, A. M., op. cit. (1974)Google Scholar.

17. Magnes is described by Aristotle (Poetics 1448a 34) in terms that suggest that he was one of the earliest Athenian Old Comic poets known to him; we have epigraphic evidence of a victory of his in 473/2 B. C. (IGii2. 2318 and 2325). Aristophanes’ remarks, Knights 250ff.

18. We know of a victory by Kallias in 446/5 B. C. (IG ii2. 2318).

19. Dover, Thus, op. cit., p. 178Google Scholar.

20. Cf. the highly suggestive language of line 193, πΕπιπΈζΕι …Κύλϋ. Dearden, , op. cit., pp. 67–69Google Scholar, suggests that the boat may have been displayed on the εκκλκεμα rather than actually down in the orchestra, but, be that as it may, the activities of the frog-chorus, if visible, would presumably still have to be related to that acting area. (I find totally unlikely Dearden's suggestion (Mnemosyne 23 (1970), 17ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.) that ‘the Frogs, if present at all, then appear through the door on the stage to sing while Dionysos mimes his rowing only to disappear again as they are defeated'. The stage is not a common location for the chorus at the best of times, and certainly not when, as here in Frogs, we are dealing with a lyric sequence inviting dance-accompaniment from any visible chorus.) Lastly, we should be sure to dismiss Bieber's statement (op. cit., p. 70) that the frogs themselves ‘drew and shoved the boat'; there is nothing whatsoever in the text to suggest or support this.

21. Radermacher, for example, converts the ‘acherusische See’ into a simple ‘Sumpf in the space of a single sentence (op. cit., p. 168).

22. I agree with Dearden, (op. cit., 1976, p. 69)Google Scholar that the boat was probably presented broadside on. Dionysos is not sculling with two oars, but pulling a single oar (cf. lines 197, 199, 269), trireme-style. The parody of trireme-practice is further manifested in Charon's bosun's chant of ΰ όπυπ (line 208) and of course by Dionysos’ own protestations that he is άιάΤΤώτοσ, άσαλαυιϋιοσ(line 204).

23. Dover, , op. cit., p. 178Google Scholar.

24. See Frazer, J. F. D., Amphibians (London, 1973), p. 58Google Scholar.

25. MacDowell, , op. cit., 4Google Scholar, cites Lysistrataas an example of a play with a chorus ‘changing character and visible in both [personae]’; but that play merely sees the merging of two initially opposed hemichoruses, not the total disappearance of one or both of them.

26. Ibid. But for that matter what of the adverse effects on the chorus’ voice-production and hence on audibility and intelligibility-of the postures and actions required of a chorus ‘crouching and leaping in all directions’ (Dover, , op. cit., p. 178Google Scholar)?

27. Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Theatre of Dionysus (Oxford, 1946), pp. 21ffGoogle Scholar. More recent investigations have in fact strongly suggested that the extremely basic nature of the dramatic areas and structures used by the fifth-century Athenian dramatists did not receive any significant degree of permanent or sophisticated reconstruction until a considerably later (and probably fourth-century) date than was once believed: see Hammond, N. G. L., GRBS 13 (1972), 387ff.Google Scholar, and the excellent summary of the current state of our knowledge by Wycherley, R. E., The Stones of Athens (Princeton, 1978), pp. 203ffGoogle Scholar.

28. Tragedy has several famous examples, notably the death-cries of Agamemnon (Ais. Ag. 1343 and 1345) and Klytaimestra (Soph. El. 1404ff.). In Old Comedy we have the extended sequence in Wasps 156ff. wherein Philokleon, immured within the skene, has many funny and telling lines to deliver. If objection is made that these are spoken dialogue rather than sung lyric, we can point to Euripides, Medeia 96ff. and Aristophanes, Birds 209ff. and 227ff. and Clouds 275ff. and 298ff. (this last example particularly relevant to the frog-episode since the cloud-chorus clearly sings extensive portions of its unusually dignified entrance-lyric from somewhere totally outside the theatre before its arrival in the orchestra). These utterances seem just as much ‘pointed … meant to be heard …not just banalities or la-la-la’ (MacDowell, , op. cit., 4)Google Scholar as the words of the frog-song.

29. This is certainly true of the Dionysia and probable for the Lenaia too (see Z Frogs 404, and Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford, 1968), p. 87)Google Scholar.

30. See Stanford, op. cit., ad loc.

31. Dover, , op. cit., p. 178Google Scholar.

32. The dung-beetle in Peace is perhaps the only comparably lavish prop; and it is interesting that Peace similarly seems to have had a fairly unspectacular chorus of ordinary farmers, doubtless easily and inexpensively costumed.

33. Just recognitions of this aspect of Aristophanes are the exception rather than the rule. Ruskin may be mentioned honourably for appreciating ‘the precision of imagination … of Aristophanes’ in respect of his bird-descriptions (Love's Meinie (Sunnyside, Orpington, and London, 1897), p. 40). Schmid, W. -Stahlen, O., Geschichte der griechishen Literatur (Munich, 1929) i. 4, p. 337Google Scholar n. 6, note'… die aus den Vogeln bekannte Kenntnis und das tiefe Naturgefuhl des Dichters'. More recently Pollard, J.Birds in Greek Life and Myth (London, 1977), p. 13)Google Scholar cremarks on the ornithological alertness of Aristophanes: ‘[In Birds]the poet mentions seventynine for the most part readily identifiable species, about whose appearance and habits he is remarkably well informed.’

34. As a striking corroboration of this identification, the song of the male Marsh Frog is described in a modern field guide (Arnold, E. N. and Burton, J. A., A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe (London, 1978), p. 85)Google Scholar thus: ‘One of the most varied songs of the European amphibians, a wide variety of resonant croaks and chuckles, some of which may be rendered as “Croax, croax”, and a vigorous “Bre-ke-ke-ke-ke-ke-kek”. The chorus often fluctuates erratically’!

35. Cf. the exemplary summary of frog-behaviour in the Batrachomyomachia 59ff., especially line 61: σΚιπνσασι ΚαΤά ύńύ Καί ύρ ύδαδι δύμα Καλύπαι

36. I have personally heard a very raucous group (although admittedly not of the species ridibunda) calling from a distance of about 150 metres in a swampy inshore area of a large lake in New Zealand, but my very cautious attempts to get closer to them resulted in silence and not the least visible sign of so much as a single frog.

37. Frogs can and frequently do call underwater, as some commentators have recognized: see, e. g., Murray's, Gilberttranslation (London, 1908), p. 21Google Scholar. Ovid also was clearly a worthy field-observer of this phenomenon - see Metamorphoses 6.376: quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant.

38. I must particularly thank Sir Kenneth Dover and Miss Nan V. Dunbar for much helpful criticism of an earlier version of this paper.