1. Segal, C.P., ‘The Character and Cults of Dionysus and the Unity of the Frogs’, HSCP 65 (1961), 208–42Google Scholar; Walsh, G., The Varieties of Enchantment (Chapel Hill 1984), 85–97Google Scholar; Reckford, K.J., Aristophanes’ Old-and-New Comedy, Volume I: Six Essays in Perspective (Chapel Hill 1987), 403–32Google Scholar.

2. On trugōidia see Taplin, O., ‘Tragedy and Trugedy’, CQ 33 (1983), 332–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On paratragedy in Aristophanes see Pucci, P., Aristofane ed Euripide: ricerche metriche e stilistiche (Rome 1961)Google Scholar; Rau, P., Paratragodia Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes (Munich 1967)Google Scholar; and Zeitlin, F., ‘Travesties of Gender and Genre in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae’, in Reflections of Women in Antiquity, ed. H.P. Foley (New York 1981), 169–217Google Scholar. On Aristophanic parody in general see Komornicka, A.M., ‘Quelques remarques sur la parodie dans les comédies d’Aristophane’, QUCC 3 (1967), 51–74Google Scholar.

3. For another ironic reading of the agōn see Higgins, W.E., ‘A Passage to Hades: The Frogs of Aristophanes’, Ramus 6 (1977), 69–75, 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also the suggestions of Wycherley, R.E., ‘Aristophanes, Frogs 1435–53’, CR 59 (1945), 38Google Scholar n.1; Strauss, L., Socrates and Aristophanes (New York 1966), 254–55, 261Google Scholar; Killeen, J.F., ‘Aristophanes, Ranae 1467–68’, LCM 3 (1978), 73Google Scholar; Tarkow, T.A.1, ‘Achilles and the Ghost of Aeschylus in Aristophanes’ Frogs’, Traditio 38 (1982), 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walsh (n.1 above), 92–97.

4. See especially Pascal, C., Dioniso. Saggio sulla Religione e la Parodia Religiosa in Arislofane (Catania 1911), 29–33Google Scholar; Lapalus, E., ‘Le Dionysos et l’Héraclès des Grenouilles d’Aristophane’, REG 47(1934), 10–20Google Scholar; Segal (n.1 above); and Reckford (n. 1 above), 403–32.

5. The idea that Dionysos undergoes an initiation in Frogs has now been embraced by Konstan, D., ‘Poésie, politique et rituel dans les Grenouilles d’Aristophane’, Métis 1 (1987), 291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Thiercy, P., Aristophane: fiction et dramaturgie (Paris 1986), 314–19Google Scholar. Lapalus (n.4 above, 10) had spoken, perhaps more credibly, of ‘une initiation caricaturale’.

6. On Dionysos as alazōn cf. Radermacher, L., Aristophanes’ Frösche: Einleitung Text, und Kommentar (Vienna 1922), 149Google Scholar; Sartori, F., ‘Riflessi di vita politica Ateniese nelle Rane di Aristofane’, in Scritti in onore di Caterina Vassalini, ed. Barbesi, L. (Verona 1974), 425Google Scholar; Thiecy (n.5 above), 230, 235. Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse (New Haven 1975), 91Google Scholar, states that Dionysos plays the bōmolokhos throughout Frogs. Higgins (n.3 above, 64 et passim) treats Dionysos as an eirōn.

7. For different treatments of these lines see Radermacher (n.6 above), 144–46; Stanford, W.B., Aristophanes: The Frogs (London 1958), 70–73Google Scholar; Strauss (n.3 above), 236; Werner, J., ‘Aristophanische Sprachkunst in den Fröschen (v. 1 –30)’, Philologus 113(1969), 10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Henderson (n.6 above), 92; Higgins (n.3 above), 62.

8. Cf. Henderson (n.6 above), 92.

9. This is not to say that Dionysos has no sense of humor at all, but only that his humor is opposed to Aristophanes’. In lines 20–31 Dionysos tells an utterly un-Aristophanic joke: because Xanthias is being carried by the donkey, he can’t also be carrying anything himself and therefore he shouldn’t complain (pōs gar phereis, hos g’ autos huph’ heterou pherei, 29). For Dionysos the humor in these lines lies in their (putative) display of superior intelligence; Thiercy (n.5 above, 235) speaks of his ‘utilisation des methodes sophistiques’. Unlike the obscenity of Aristophanes, which deflates all pretensions of superiority to ‘the material bodily lower stratum’ (to borrow the terminology of M. Bakhtin), the would-be cleverness of Dionysos distinguishes between mind and body (or upper and lower body) and privileges the former; in fact, Dionysos’ joke is made at the expense of Xanthias’ lower body. We see the same quality in Dionysos when, in response to Heracles’ denigration of Euripides’ rhetoric (104), he defends the integrity of his mind (mē ton emon oikei noun, 105) and restricts the expertise of Heracles to eating (deipnein me didaske, 107). Dionysos’ pseudo-intellectualism is connected to his enthusiasm for Euripides and separates him from Aristophanes and Old Comedy. For Aristophanes the humor in Dionysos’ sophistic joke lies not in its wit (which is nonexistent), but rather in its transparent pretentiousness. For a reading that accepts Dionysos’ intelligence as superior, see Higgins (n.3 above), 64.

10. On the frogs’ chorus see Radermacher (n.6 above), 172; Segal (n.1 above), 222; Whitman, C., Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge MA 1964), 247–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strauss (n.3 above), 239–41; Defradas, J., ‘Le chant des grenouilles: Aristophane critique musicale’, REA 71 (1969), 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wills, G., ‘Why are the Frogs in the Frogs?’, Hermes 97 (1969), 306–17Google Scholar; Demand, N., ‘The Identity of the Frogs’, CP 65 (1970), 83–87Google Scholar; Henderson (n.6 above), 93; Higgins (n.3 above), 75–76; Konstan (n. 5 above), 307; Reckford (n.1 above), 408–13. Campbell, D.A., ‘The Frogs in the Frogs’, JHS 104 (1984), 165–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, opposes the view that the frogs parody bad poetry and offers critical discussion of much of the earlier literature. (His summaries, however, must be used with caution.)

11. Reckford (n.1 above), 412. I would add that in connecting their song with the ‘kraipalokōmos’ crowd at the Anthesteria (218) they strongly suggest kōmōidia.

12. As Wills (n. 10 above, 313–15) has shown.

13. E.g. (1) After rejoining Xanthias on the far side of the Stygian lake, and not finding the monsters of which Heracles had warned him, Dionysos proclaims that Heracles had exaggerated in order to frighten Dionysos, for he envied Dionysos’ belligerence (eidōs me makhimon onto, philotimoumenos, 281). Dionysos prays to encounter some adventure. Xanthias deflates his master’s boastfulness by describing the Empousa and reducing him to terror (285–311). (2) Dionysos again demonstrates his hostility or indifference to comedy when he and Xanthias meet the chorus of initiates. There is no doubt that the chorus of initiates, whatever their connection to Eleusis, is both an old comic chorus and one that is especially devoted to Dionysos. They signal their identity as a comic chorus unmistakeably when they ask Demeter to help them win a wreath for jesting and ridiculing (393–95), when they sing lyrics mocking well-known contemporary Athenians, Archedemus, Cleisthenes and Callias (420–34), when they warn off anyone not initiated into ‘the Bacchic tongue-rites of bull-eating Cratinus’ (357), and elsewhere throughout the parados. Their special devotion to Dionysos is shown by the prayers they repeatedly address to him under the Eleusinian cult name Iakkhos. Yet the character Dionysos shows no recognition that it is he whom the initiates are addressing, and he gives little indication that their song has any charm for him. He does find himself drawn into the dance, where he wants to play around with an attractive young female initiate, and he does take up the chorus’ iambs for three lines (435–37). He does this, however, not to join the chorus’ jesting, but to interrupt it, so that he can ask directions to the palace of Pluto (ekhoit’ an oun phrasal nōin/Ploutdn’ hopou’ nthad’ oikei, 435f.). After the chorus gives them directions, Dionysos orders Xanthias to lift up his burden again, and they continue on their way, while the chorus resumes singing (444–59). Again, the Dionysos of Frogs demonstrates that comic poetry is something that, at best, he can take or leave. If he has learned anything from the chorus, he does not seem to have learned very much. Cf. Radermacher (n.6 above), 206. For a different view, see Segal (n.1 above), 222, and Reckford (n.1 above), 414. (3) When Dionysos defecates in his clothes in fear of Aiakos’ threats (465–79) he demands a sponge to wipe his heart, an upper rather than lower organ (482–85). This reflects the same tendency to privilege the upper body as against the lower that we have observed previously (n.9 above). In reply to Xanthias’ exclamation ‘O most cowardly of gods and men’ (486), Dionysos defends himself by saying that a cowardly man would not wipe himself, but would ‘lie on the ground smelling his stool’ (487–90). (4) The entire whipping scene (605–72) calls for Dionysos and Xanthias to pretend that they are immune to pain. (5) At the beginning of the agōn Dionysos attempts to restrain Aeschylus, explaining that it is inappropriate (ou prepei 857) for men who are poets to quarrel like women selling bread in the marketplace (857f). Before the weighing of verses Dionysos is reluctant to treat the art of poets like cheese (1368f.). Both statements display a sense of propriety that is deflated by the agōn as a whole.

14. Especially in the agōn, where his silly comments repeatedly deflate the alazoneia of the tragedians. On Dionysos in the agōn see Henderson (n.6 above), 91–92, and Higgins (n.3 above), 70–71. 1 cannot agree, however, with Higgins’ view that Dionysos sarcastically disdains the tragedians. Higgins himself qualifies this position (71). For the view that Dionysos becomes more dignified, see Segal (n. 1 above), 214–15.

15. As Segal (n.1 above, 229–30), Higgins (n.3 above, 77), and Reckford (n.1 above, 408) suppose.

16. For other approaches to the agōn see Murray, G., Aristophanes: A Study (New York 1933), 118–34Google Scholar; Hugill, W.M., ‘The Last Appeal of Aristophanes’, in Manitoba Essays, ed. Lodge, R.E. (Toronto 1937), 203–19Google Scholar; Segal (n.1 above), 214–17, 226–27, 230; Redfield, J., ‘Die Frösche des Aristophanes: Komödie und Tragödie als Spiegel der Politik’, Antaios 4 (1963), 434–39Google Scholar; Whitman (n.10 above), 241–47, 250–58; Grube, G.M.A., The Greek and Roman Critics (Toronto 1965), 25–30Google Scholar; Strauss (n.3 above), 247–61; Harriott, R., Poetry and Criticism Before Plato (London 1969), 148–57Google Scholar; Sartori (n.6 above), 420, 437–39; Higgins (n.3 above), 70–75, 77; Tarkow (n.3 above), 1–16; Walsh (n.1 above), 85–98; Thiercy (n.5 above), 232–35; Konstan (n.5 above), 304–08; Reckford (n.1 above), 424–32.

17. On the differences between these characters and the Athenian playwrights cf. Higgins (n.3 above), 71–72.

18. On the play with dramatic illusion in Aristophanes see K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley 1972), 55–65Google Scholar; Muecke, F., ‘Playing with the Play: Theatrical Self-Consciousness in Aristophanes’, Antichthon 11 (1977), 52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford 1977), 3–7Google Scholar; Chapman, G.A.H., ‘Some Notes on Dramatic Illusion in Aristophanes’, AJP 104 (1983), 1–23Google Scholar; Russo, C.J., Aristofane autore di teatro 2nd ed. (Florence 1984), 85Google Scholar; Taplin, O., ‘Fifth-Century Tragedy and Comedy: A Synkrisis’, JHS 106 (1986), 163–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thiercy (n.5 above), 139–49.

19. Dionysos agrees with Mr Aeschylus that death is an appropriate punishment for a poet who has made bad citizens out of good (1010–12).

20. On the idea of ‘stamping’ in Mr Aeschylus’ poetics and its relationship to the theories of Gorgias see Walsh (n.1 above), 83–84 and 90.

21. Segal (n.1 above)passim.

22. Segal (n.1 above), 218.

23. Cf. Strauss (n.3 above), 252.

24. On Lamachus cf. Wycherley (n.3 above), 38 n.1; Strauss (n.3 above), 252; Walsh (n.1 above), 95. For a different interpretation of Mr Aeschylus’ reference to Lamachus see Radermacher (n.6 above), 293.

25. Cf. Henderson, J., ‘Lysistrata: the Play and its Themes’, YCS 26 (1980), 180, 185–86Google Scholar.

26. Walsh (n.1 above), 92, 94–95, 156 n.42.

27. The traditional moral and aesthetic notions of Mr Aeschylus should not be taken as signs that he is opposed to the demagogues. On the contrary: the demagogues, like those who prosecuted Socrates for not believing in the gods of the state (cf. Connor, W.R., The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens [Princeton 1971], 164–68Google Scholar), appealed to the traditional notions of the common people as against the novel ideas of intellectuals like the sophists. The speech of Cleon at Thuc. 3.37ff. bristles with patriotic concern for the welfare of the polis, resistance to changes in its laws, and disdain for the Athenians’ forensic mode of decision making. All of these characterize him as a rhetorical brother of Mr Aeschylus. Kagan, D., The Fall of the Athenian Empire (Ithaca 1987), 255–62Google Scholar points out that by the late fifth century democracy was the traditional form of government in Athens, and shows that the restoration of democracy in 411 was followed by an official program of patriotic-religious propaganda. The chorus’ comparison of the demagogues who are misleading the city to copper coinage plated with silver (tois ponērois khalkiois 725) should also deter us from regarding Mr Aeschlyus as a spokesman for Aristophanes’ own patriotism, since the metaphor implies that the leaders who are base do not appear to be so. Therefore the appearance of civic virtue presented by Mr Aeschylus is consistent with demagoguery, and the fact that Mr Aeschylus is quite unlike the playwright Aeschylus in critical ways suggests precisely the misleading appearance of quality that the parabasis attacks in both the Athenian coinage and leadership. On the differences between Mr Aeschylus and the Athenian playwright see Higgins (n.3 above), 71–72.

28. Segal (n.1 above), 214, 230.

29. Taplin (n.18 above), 166–67. See also Reckford (n.1 above), 430, who does not draw the conclusion that I do.

30. On the problems of lines 1424–67 see Radermacher (n.6 above), 343–47; Wycherley (n.3 above), 34–38; Dörrie, H., ‘Aristophanes’ Frösche 1433–67’, Hermes 84 (1956), 296–319Google Scholar; Stanford (n.7 above), 194–96; McDowell, D.M., ‘Aristophanes, Frogs 1407–67’, CQ 9 (1959), 261–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wills (n.10 above), 48–57; Marr, J.L., ‘Who Said What About Alcibiades? Frogs 1422–34’, CQ 20 (1970), 53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Dübner, F. (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem (Paris 1883), 312–13Google Scholar. For different interpretations of the lines see Tucker, T.G., The Frogs of Aristophanes (London 1906), 258Google Scholar, and Sommerstein, A.H., ‘Aristophanes, Frogs 1463–65’, CQ 24 (1974), 24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tucker bases his reading on the assumption that Aeschylus must express the view of Aristophanes, Sommerstein his on the assumption that ‘in order to make sense of the result of the contest, the advice given by Aeschylus must… not be less relevant and reasonable than that of Euripides’ (25). Neither assumption is justified. For a defense of Tucker’s interpretation see Hugill (n.16 above), 211–17.

32. The text is not so explicit about the means of Cleophon’s death. For this interpretation, cf. Stanford (n.7 above), 199.

33. Indeed, far from being the solution to the Athenians’ situation, tragedy is to some degree the cause of it. In the parabasis the chorus suggests that the Athenians have aggravated their situation precisely by acting in a tragic manner when they describe the Athenians’ refusal to forgive those who had been disenfranchised as ‘puffing ourselves up and giving ourselves airs’ (ogkōsomestha kaposemnunoumetha, 703). Both of these words point to a style of speech and behavior typical of tragedy. Within the Frogs we find aposemnuneitai used of the silences in Mr Aeschylus’ tragedies (833), semna of his diction (1004), semnunomenos of his demeanor in the agōn (1020), semnoteroisin of the costuming of real demigods and implicitly of those in Mr Aeschylus’ tragedies (1061), and semnoisi of the arguments of Socrates and implicitly of Mr Euripides (1496). Aristotle uses apesemnunthē to describe the development of tragedy’s characteristic grand diction (Po. 1449a.20). And according to Plutarch, Sophocles described the style of Aeschylus as ogkos (ton Aiskhulou : … ogkon [Moralia 2.79b]).

34. Whitman (n.10 above), 255–58.

35. Cf. the exchange between Strepsiades and the Cloud-chorus at the climax of Aristophanes’ Clouds (Clouds 1452–61): ST. I suffered this on account of you, O Clouds, since I put all my affairs in your hands. CH. Nay, but you brought this on yourself, by turning yourself to bad business. ST. Then why didn’t you tell me that at the time, instead of urging me on, an unsophisticated old man? CH. We do this whenever we identify anyone as passionately desirous of wrongdoing, until we cast him into misfortune, so that he may know to fear the gods. I am suggesting, therefore, that the audience of Frogs holds the same position vis-à-vis the play Frogs that Strepsiades holds vis-à-vis the Cloud-chorus. For interpretation of the Cloud-chorus as ‘comic spirits’, ‘much like the comic playwright himself, see Reckford, K.J., ‘Aristophanes’ Ever-flowing Clouds’, Emory University Quarterly (1967), 222–35Google Scholar.

36. The accuracy of this passage has sometimes been doubted, but without justification. For a recent defense, see Kagan (n.27 above), 377 n.3.

37. Cf. Reckford (n. 1 above), 295, and the ethos of carnival as described by Bakhtin, M.M, Rabelais and his World, tr. Iswolsky, H. (Bloomington 1984)Google Scholar, e.g. 18–22.

38. To my knowledge, the only reading to lay any emphasis upon Xanthias’ suffering is that of Strauss (n.3 above, 236).

39. Cf. Lys. 512, eit’ algousai tandothen humas epanērometh’ an gelasasai (‘then, although aching inside, we would laugh and ask you …’).

40. Thanks to Professors Anthony T. Edwards, David Konstan, Ra’anana Meridor and Gregory Nagy for their helpful comments.