^{page 1 note 1} In Storia delle Rane di Aristofane (Padova, 1961)Google Scholar I have attempted an analysis of the Frogs, and in particular of lines 786–95, 69–117, 797–813 and 1364–73, 895–1128, 1251–60. In general only the bare results of these analyses and their interpretation are reported here.

For hypotheses and suggestions on the analysis of the Frogs see J. van Leeuwen's preface to his edition (Leiden, 1896) and his earlier dissertation on Aristophanes (Amsterdam, 1876); von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Herakles (Berlin, 1889), 2 f.Google Scholar (but cf. Hermes, lxiv [1929], 470–6Google Scholar = Kl. Schriften, iv, 488–94)Google Scholar; Rogers, B. B., The Frogs, London 1902, xvi–xviiiGoogle Scholar; Fraenkel, E., Sokrates, xlii (1916), 134–42Google Scholar (on this valuable analytical investigation cf. Pohlenz, M., Gött. Nachr., 1920, 145. 1)Google Scholar; Kunst, K., Studien z. griech. u. röm. Komödie (Wien-Leipzig, 1919), 53. 1Google Scholar; Drexler, H., Jahresb. Schles. Ges. c (1927), 122–75Google Scholar; and finally Gelzer, T., Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes (München, 1960), 26–31.Google Scholar The scholar who has recently warned against the risks of the analysis is Seel, O., Aristophanes (Stuttgart, 1960), 47 f.Google Scholar For arguments against analysis see Zuretti, C. O., Atti Acc. Scienze Torino, xxxiii (1898), 1058–66Google Scholar; Ruppel, A., Konzeption u. Ausarbeitung der aristophanischen Komödien (Darmstadt, 1913), 40–47Google Scholar; Kranz, W., Hermes, lii (1917), 584–91Google Scholar; Richter, F., Die ‘Frösche’ u. der Typ der aristophanischen Komödie (Frankfurt, 1933), 1–28Google Scholar; and recently Erbse, H., Gnomon, xxviii (1956), 273.Google Scholar

[Fraenkel, E., ‘Der Aufbauder Frösche’, in the volume Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Roma, 1962), 163–88Google Scholar, was published after the redaction of the present essay.]

^{page 2 note 1} The only exception is Chairephon in the unfinished and unperformed second version of the Clouds: cf. Russo, C. F., ‘“Nuvole” non recitate e “Nuvole” recitate’, Studien zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik, for Jachmann, Günther (Köln-Opladen, 1959), 242 f.Google Scholar [ = C. F. R., Aristofane autore di teatro, Firenze 1962, 161 f.].Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} As for ἐλθεῑν ἐπ' ἐκεῑνον (69), which is usually rendered ‘ad eum arcessendum’, one may note that the subjective action, present or future, of ἔρχεσθαι (and similar verbs) ἐπί τινα in drama can mean inter alia, (1) ‘I am going to someone (to where he is at the present moment)’ (Aesch. Cho. 764Google Scholar, Eur. Alc. 74Google Scholar, Ar. Ra. 577Google Scholar, Eccl. 948 and 1000)Google Scholar, and (2) ‘I am going for someone (to bring him to where I am at the present moment)’ (Ar. Ra. 478Google Scholar, Men. Dysk. 182)Google Scholar, with a slight distance between ‘going’ and ‘returning’; and further, anyone who speaks of going in search of an object, in order to bring it to where he is at present, moves within a limited area (Ar. Vesp. 854Google Scholar, Pax 1040Google Scholar, Thesm. 728).Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} The programme proposed by Euripides in lines 861–864, δάκνειν … τὰ νεῦρα τῆς τραγῳδίας/καὶ νὴ Δία τὸν Πηλέα γε καὶ τὸν Αἴολον/καὶ τὸν Μελέαγρον κἄτι μάλα τὸν Τήλεφον, consists in biting at ‘the sinews of Tragedy’, and also (καὶ … γε), by heaven, the substance, the tragic subject-matter: that subject-matter which Aeschylus had thrown in his face in lines 842, 846, and 849 f., and which will be the one topic which Aeschylus harps on in lines 1008–88. In fact Aeschylus, whose concern is with φύσεις ποιητῶν (810), will take no interest at all in the ‘sinews of Tragedy’, and will offer some criticisms of form only in lines 1060–64. Τὰ νεῦρα τῆς Τραγῳδίας are the strings which move Tragedy, which make it work: Aeschylus, according to the criticism of Euripides, does not know how to move his characters, so that he keeps them on the scene for a long time seated and silent, and when he makes them speak, he does so in an incomprehensible fashion (911–27); while Euripides knows how to make his characters work, so that his dramas are built on a firm foundation (945–50). Aeschylus, in short, does not know how to pull the strings of Tragedy, and therefore his characters are mere lay figures (cf. 911–13) and his dramas have no basis of consistency or coherence (cf. 923, 945); he is ἀξύστατος, ‘incoherent’, just as the sophistical Pheidippides said in the Clouds (1367). In Plato, , Laws 844Google Scholar e, there is a reference to puppets pulled by νεῦρα ἢ σμήρινθοι (in Latin nerui or fila); ἀγάλματα νευρόσπαστα appear earlier, in Herodotos, ii. 48. 2, and οί νευροσπάστσι in Aristole, , De Mundo 398^b16.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} Cf. Aristotle, , Ath. Pol. 56. 3–5.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 2} Cf. Plato, , Laws, 817 d.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} For the publication of dramas on the part of the dramatists themselves, or by others, cf. Russo, C. F., Aristofane autore di teatro (Firenze, 1962), 317–19.Google Scholar