Critias’ Pirithous and Aristophanes’ Frogs
Metatheatrical Echoes and the Critical Debate
Monica Centanni
Abstract
§ I. Status quaestionis
§ II. Echoes of Pirithous in Frogs. A Dramaturgical Analysis
§ III. Traces of Critias, both as a poet and as a political leader, in Frogs
§ IV. Some (very tentative) Conclusions
This article addresses the topic of Metacriticism from two perspectives. First, with regard to the dialogue between ancient sources and, in particular, the dynamics of metatheatrical parody, it corroborates and extends Wilamowitz’s theory that the entire first act of Frogs could be a parody of Critias’ Pirithous. Second, with regard to contemporary critical debate, the article responds to recent arguments put forward by authoritative scholars who aim to refute Wilamowitz’s hypothesis regarding both the (controversial) authorship of the tragedy and the idea that Aristophanes staged a specific tragic parody. The paper expands on and revises some of the points made in Atene assoluta (Centanni 1997, 159–219).
I. Status quaestionis
The first question relates to the commentary reported in Scholia Vetera on Aristophanes’ Frogs concerning the work that is supposedly parodied in the scene in which Dionysus and Xanthias arrive in the Underworld. Commenting on lines 464 ff. of Frogs, the Scholiast refers five times to Euripides’ Theseus, which the comedy is said to parody: scholia on lines 465a, 465b, 471a, 473, and 475a (Chantry 1999, 71-72; actually, the reference to Euripides’ Theseus in scholium 465b is uncertain and has been added by conjecture: λέγ(ει) <Θησεὺς παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ?> πρὸς τὸν Μίνωα).
The second question concerns the potential overlap between Euripides’ Theseus and another tragedy, Pirithous, which ancient critics attributed to either Euripides or Critias. In particular:
Vita Euripidis IA. 9, 28-29
τὰ πάντα δ᾽ ἦν αὐτοῦ δράματα ϟβ΄ [92], σῴζεται δὲ οη΄ [78]. τούτων νοθεύεται τρία, Τέννης Ῥαδάμανθυς Πειρίθους
TrGF V, T A1 (Kannicht 2004, 47)
Athenaeus XI, 496b
ὁ τὸν Πειρίθουν γράψας εἴτε Κριτίας ἐστὶν ὁ τύραννος ἢ Ἐυριπίδης
F 2 Boschi (Boschi 2021a, 77) = DK 88 B 17 = TrGF I, 43 F 2 (Snell, Kannicht 1986, 173)
In ms. Vat. gr. 2228, f. 482 r, Iohannes Diaconus, commenting on Hermogenes, recounts the argumentum of Pirithous:
ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Πειρίθου ὑπόθεσίς ἐστιν αὕτη· Πειρίθους ἐπὶ τὴν Περσεφόνης μνηστείαν μετὰ Θησέως εἰς ῞Αιδου καταβὰς τιμωρίας ἔτυχε τῆς πρεπούσης· αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ πέτρας ἀκινήτῳ καθέδρᾳ πεδηθεὶς δρακόντων ἐφρουρεῖτο χάσμασιν, Θησεὺς δὲ τὸν φίλον ἐγκαταλιπεῖν αἰσχρὸν ἡγούμενος βίου εἵλετο τὴν ἐν ῞Αιδου ζωήν. ἐπὶ τὸν Κέρβερον δὲ ῾Ηρακλῆς ἀποσταλεὶς ὑπὸ Εὐρυσθέως τοῦ μὲν θηρίου βίᾳ περιεγένετο, τοὺς δὲ περὶ Θησέα χάριτι τῶν χθονίων θεῶν τῆς παρούσης ἀνάγκης ἐξέλυσεν, μιᾷ πράξει καὶ τὸν ἀνθιστάμενον χειρωσάμενος καὶ παρὰ θεῶν χάριν λαβὼν καὶ δυστυχοῦντας ἐλεήσας φίλους.
T1 Boschi (Boschi 2021a, 41) = DK 88 B 16 = TrGF I, 43 F 1 (Snell, Kannicht, 1986, 171-172).
The following is the most substantial part of the drama preserved by tradition. These are the lines in which, according to Iohannes Diaconus, Aeacus addresses Heracles:
Εἰσάγεται γοῦν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ δράματι Αἰακὸς πρὸς ῾Ηρακλέα λέγων·
– ἔα, τί χρῆμα; δέρκομαι σπουδῇ τινα
δεῦρ᾿ ἐγκονοῦντα καὶ μάλ᾿ εὐτόλμῳ φρενί.
εἰπεῖν δίκαιον, ὦ ξέν’, ὅστις ὢν τόπους
εἰς τούσδε χρίμπτῃ καὶ καθ᾿ ἥντιν᾿ αἰτίαν.
εἶτα ῾Ηρακλῆς πρὸς αὐτόν·
– οὐδεὶς ὄκνος πάντ᾿ ἐκκαλύψασθαι λόγον·
ἐμοὶ πατρὶς μὲν ῎Αργος, ὄνομα δ᾿῾Ηρακλῆς,
θεῶν δὲ πάντων πατρὸς ἐξέφυν Διός·
ἐμῇ γὰρ ἦλθε κεδνῇ μητρὶ εἰς λέχος
Ζεύς, ὡς λέλεκται τῆς ἀληθείας ὕπο.
ἥκω δὲ δεῦρο πρὸς βίαν, Εὐρυσθέως
ἀρχαῖς ὑπείκων, ὅς μ᾿ ἔπεμψ᾿ ῞Αιδου κύνα
ἄγειν κελεύων ζῶντα πρὸς Μυκηνίδας
πύλας, ἰδεῖν μὲν οὐ θέλων, ἆθλον δέ μοι
ἀνήνυτον τόνδ᾿ ὤιετ᾿ ἐξηυρηκέναι.
τοιόνδ᾿ ἰχνεύων πρᾶγος Εὐρώπης κύκλῳ
᾿Ασίας τε πάσης ἐς μυχοὺς ἐλήλυθα.
F 1 Boschi (Boschi 2021a, 61) = DK 88 B 16 = TrGF I, 43 F 1 (Snell, Kannicht 1986, 172)
In 1875, Wilamowitz developed a hypothesis previously put forward by Fritzsche and proposed the idea of a tragic parody of Pirithous in Frogs, strongly advocating the attribution of the tragedy to Critias (Wilamowitz 1875, 171; and the prior notes to Frogs, 470-478, in Fritzsche 1845, 206-208). In parallel, Van de Sande Bakhuyzen expressed scepticism regarding the scholia, highlighting the challenge of connecting Theseus and Frogs, and casting doubt on the reliability of the scholia’s account and the similarities between the two texts (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1877, 141 ff.). The objections raised regarding the relevance of the link suggested by the scholia can be summarised into four main points:
1) Euripides’ Theseus is not set in Hades. As far as can be reconstructed from the surviving fragments, the drama was set in Crete and centred on the hero’s liberation of the young men destined to be eaten by the Minotaur. As is well known, in the most substantial passage of the Theseus quoted by Athenaeus (X, 454b-c), an illiterate shepherd sees the hero’s ship approaching, and describes the shape of the letters ΘΗΣΕΥΣ engraved on the side, but does not recognise their meaning. From a quotation provided by Tzetzes and the surviving fragments, we can infer that Euripides’ tragedy was set in Crete, and that the scene in which the shepherd describes the shape of the letters takes place on one of the island’s beaches (see Kannicht 2004, 428);
2) Even if we concede that, in a lost episode of the tragedy, Theseus was in the Underworld (or recalled an adventure there), the context of the dialogue between Theseus and Minos would differ greatly from that between Dionysus and Aeacus at the gates of Hades;
3) In Frogs, Dionysus takes on the role of Heracles, not Theseus.
4) The scholia to Frogs 471a-b read: ἐκ Θησέως Εὐριπίδου. καὶ τὰ μὲν ἑαυτῷ πλάττων λέγει, τὰ δὲ ἐξ Εὐριπίδου (a), πρὸς φόβον Διονύσου (b), and then, on Frogs 473, quote Eur. fr. 386c Kannicht (= 383-384 Nauck), in which the rare adjective αἱμοσταγεῖς appears (echoed by Aristophanes’ αἱματοσταγής).
The verb πλάττειν should refer to the reworking of the plot, thereby constituting a link between the plots of Theseus and Aristophanes’ Frogs. However, perhaps the grammarian who wrote the scholion identified the verbal coincidence of the adjective αἱμ(ατ)οσταγής/ές both in Frogs and in Theseus, pointing it out and extending the recurrence of the single word to the plot of Euripides’ tragedy as a whole.
In addition to the pages he dedicates to Pirithous in Analecta Euripidea, Wilamowitz returns to the subject in his monograph on Euripides’ Herakles:
Wir sehen auch an den dadurch angeregten Fröschen des Aristophanes, dass die Erfindung selbst dem Komiker, der den Bombast verspottete, imponirt hat. […] Aiakos und der Mystenchor, die unabhängig von den Fröschen bezeugt sind […] garantiren die Abhängigkeit der Frösche und bestätigen so meine Vermutung, dass die aristophanische Aiakosscene den Kritias parodiert […] (Wilamowitz 1895², 158 and footnote)
Wilamowitz then reaffirms the idea several times in his writings, thus suggesting corruption in the scholia, which should be read as ἐπὶ Θησεῖ, rather than ἐν Θησεῖ (the same arguments are in Wilamowitz 1927, 291-292) as in the manuscripts. In other words, the scholium should be read as “de Theseo, in Pirithoo scilicet fabula” instead of “in Theseo” (so van Leeuwen 1896, 79). Wilamowitz goes so far as to suggest an attribution of some fragments handed down as Euripides’ Theseus to Critias’ Pirithous: “Thesei fragmenta 386, 387, 388 ad Pirithoum refero” (Wilamowitz 1875, 172; on the matter, see Sutton 1978). Furthermore, he reconstructs a trilogy by Critias, of which Pirithous would be one part, alongside Radamanthus and Tennes; the fourth play, intended as a satyric drama, would be Sisyphus, related to Critias’ fragment about the invention of God by a “wise man” aiming to instil fear in humans (TrGF I, 43 F 19: Snell, Kannicht 1986, 180-182 = DK 88 B 25). The Sisyphus fragment quoted by Sextus Empiricus is also a widely debated topic among critics (for a detailed analysis, see Cipolla 2003, 225-269).
Wilamowitz’s hypothesis that Critias was the author not only of the Pirithous fragments, but also of a complete dramatic tetralogy including the Tennes, Radamanthus and Sisyphus as the Satyric drama, was bound to spark debate among critics (see Alvoni 2008 for an overview of the key points of the critical debate, beginning with Kuiper in 1907). In 1994, the journal “Mnemosyne” published the correspondence between Wilamowitz and Kuiper (for an overview of the importance of Wilamowitz’s “Memorandum über die Peirithoosfrage”, see Bremer and Calder 1994. Alvoni 2011 provides an accurate reconstruction of the scholars’ arguments). In recent decades, the debate has been revived, with important contributions summarising the critics’ positions. The following table supplements and updates Collard’s valuable review (presented in his 1995 and then 2007 editions), and provides an overview of the heated debate among scholars from the beginning to the present day.
CRITIAS |
uncertain |
EURIPIDES |
| VALCKENAER 1767 | ||
| NAUCK 1856, 18892 | ||
| WILAMOWITZ 1875, 18952 | ||
| DIELS 1903 | ||
| WILAMOWITZ 1907 | KUIPER 1907 | |
| WILAMOWITZ 1927 | HUNT 1927 | |
| PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE 1933 | ||
| KRANZ in D.-K., VS 1935, 19526 | ||
| NESTLE 1940 | SCHMID 1940 | |
| PAGE 1942 | ||
| BATTEGAZZORE 1962 | ||
| ARRIGHETTI 1964 | VYSOKY 1964 | |
| WEBSTER 1967 | ||
| DEFRADAS 1967 | ||
| de ROMILLY 1968 | ||
| CARLINI 1968 | ||
| BATTEGAZZORE 1970 | COCKLE 1970 | |
| SNELL 1971 | ||
| LESKY 19723 | ||
| DOVER 1975 | ||
| DIHLE 1977 | ||
| SUTTON 1978 | ||
| PANCENKO 1980 | SCODEL 1980 | |
| SNELL, KANNICHT 1981 | SUTTON 1981 | |
| WEST 1983 | COCKLE 1983 | METTE 1983 |
| KNOX 1985 | ||
| SNELL, KANNICHT 1986 | ||
| WINIARCZYK 1987 | SUTTON 1987 | |
| YUNIS 1988 | ||
| BATTEGAZZORE 1989 | DAVIES 1989 | |
| GAULY 1991 | ||
| DOVER 1993 | ||
| COLLARD 1995 | ||
| OBBINK 1996 | ||
| KANNICHT 1996 | ||
| SOMMERSTEIN 1996 | ||
| CENTANNI 1997 | KAHN 1997 | |
| PECHSTEIN 1998 | ||
| BULTRIGHINI 1999 | KRUMEICH, PECHSTEIN, SEIDENSTICKER 1999 | |
| CLARK 2000 | ||
| DOBROV 2001 | ||
| IANNUCCI 2002 | ||
| EGLI 2003 | ||
| ALVONI 2006 | LLOYD-JONES 2006 | |
| COLLARD 2007 | ||
| ALVONI 2008, 2011 | COLLARD, CROPP 2008 | |
| CARLINI 2012 | ||
| BREMMER 2015 | ||
| ANGIÒ 2020 | CROPP 2020, 2021 | |
| BOSCHI 2021a, 2021b | CARRARA 2021, 2024 |
As can be seen, the critical discussion is very lively and remains controversial. An important turning point that reignited the debate was Dana Ferrin Sutton’s work in 1987, in which he re-examined the sources and fragments and once again proposed Euripides as the author of the drama (Sutton 1987, 5-106; see also Sutton 1978 on Euripides’ Theseus). The arguments put forward by Sutton to return the attribution of Pirithous to Euripides are essentially of two types:
1) Trust in ancient sources that mention “Pirithous by Euripides” more often than “Pirithous by Critias” (with regard to the fragments usually attributed to Pirithous), thus hypothesising a lost Pirithous by Critias, which would have caused confusion in later sources; and
2) Internal evidence, including stylistic and lexical evidence, that demonstrate strong similarities with Euripides’ texts, and Euripidean stylistic features and lexemes that are recognisable in Pirithous: the style and lexicon of Sisyphus, attributable with certainty to Critias, are completely different. It is the same argument of the “Euripidean colour” invoked by Kuiper in 1907 to attribute Pirithous’ authorship to Euripides. Sutton’s methodology has been the subject of some harsh criticism:
Literary analysis of the kind attempted here has little value if it is not quantitatively precise and/or qualitatively sensitive. This study is neither. It is indefensible that in a computer-aided work such vague expressions as ‘repeatedly’, ‘much more frequently’, ‘the number... is impressive’ are used (pp. 34, 55, 60-1) […]. It is useless to point coincidences in phraseology without distinguishing between common and colourful expressions […]. There are misprints and wrong references throughout (Craik 1988, 399).
Along the same lines, with even harsher criticism, Harder 1990 concludes, “In conclusion: this book is best left unread” (Harder 1990, 205).
Despite more than a century of debate, the question of the tragedy’s authorship remains unresolved, with neither the arguments for Euripides nor those for Critias being conclusive. In 2012, Carlini confirmed the attribution of two new papyrus fragments to Pirithous. He summarised the debate on attribution, recalling Albin Lesky’s position in favour of Critias’ authorship. Carlini also dismissed the weak “sonus sermonis” argument, which various scholars have invoked as evidence of Euripides’ authorship. Proof of the difficulty in settling the question is the hypothesis proposed by Wilamowitz that Euripides wrote Pirithous, but Critias suggested the plot (and perhaps the entire tetralogy). While this idea is far-fetched to the point of being untenable, it demonstrates how challenging it is to definitively rule out Critias’ involvement based on the available data. In his 2012 contribution to the small corpus of Pirithous texts, Carlini quotes a note by E.G. Turner from a 1969 correspondence (Carlini 2012, 188 ff.). Commenting on the attribution of one of the fragments to Pirithous, Turner observed that the main argument against Euripides was the static nature of the on-stage action (“the events seem to be so utterly static”). The style of the tragedy’s dramatic writing must be taken into account, as it is a much less discretionary and subjective element than the “sound” or “colour” of Euripides’ writing, which can be found in the lexis of the few fragments of the drama.
There has been no improvement in the uncertainty and disagreement among critics discussing the topic since the end of the 20th Century. In fact, the situation has probably worsened. However, as can be seen from the table, doubts about the attribution of the drama to Euripides seem to have regained the upper hand recently. Indeed, there is also a tendency to return to the idea that Critias was the tragedy’s author, as Wilamowitz suggested.
Martin Cropp has recently revisited the issue of the tragedy’s paternity, expressing serious doubts about the attribution of Pirithous to Critias, and strongly criticising the hypothesis that Pirithous could be parodied in Frogs (Cropp 2020). Cropp’s arguments can be summarised as follows:
– The name ‘Aeacus’ (mentioned by Critias’ fragment source) does not appear in the text of Frogs;
– The similarities between Frogs and what we know of Pirithous are very limited;
– A tradition of Heracles’ katabasis, including his initiation at Eleusis and the rescue of Theseus, probably emerged already in the sixth century; there is nothing in Frogs that cannot be explained by this tradition, rather than by dependence on Pirithous;
– The Chorus of Initiates that greets Heracles/Dionysus in each play was probably part of this earlier tradition;
– References to Pirithous’ plot are notably absent from Frogs’ scholia;
– Frogs has a typical comic doorkeeper scene. In Pirithous, however, Aeacus is already present when Heracles arrives. He has probably delivered the prologue speech and may continue to play an important part in the tragedy.
Therefore, in Cropp’s opinion, Wilamowitz’s argument about Pirithous is an example of “circular reasoning” (Cropp 2020, 246-247). There is no evidence that the Aeacus in Pirithous behaved like the doorkeeper in Aristophanes’ play, nor is this at all likely. Furthermore, the assumption that the descent of Dionysus/Heracles in Frogs was modelled on that of Heracles in Pirithous is unnecessary, since the pattern of Heracles’ katabasis was much older. However, it should be noted that Cropp himself had provisionally accepted the attribution to Critias, using the formula “Critias(?)” in his edition of fragments by Minor Greek Tragedians (Cropp 2019, 180 ff.).
II. Echoes of Pirithous in Frogs. A Dramaturgical Analysis
The critical question is therefore open and twofold, concerning both the attribution of Pirithous to Euripides or Critias, and the possible relationship between the tragedy and Frogs. The heated, century-long debate on the authorship of the drama and the possible parody in Frogs has at least assisted an in-depth examination of the issues, clearing the critical field by excluding some methodologically weak arguments and including others. In particular:
– the quantity and quality of the arguments casting doubt on Frogs being a parody of Theseus are solid enough: the plot of Euripides’ tragedy differs significantly from that of the comedy in terms of setting and characters;
– it is not possible to rely on infra-textual or stylistic evidence to attribute Pirithous’ authorship either to Euripides or Critias, given the scarcity of the surviving fragments. The lexicon, the “sonus sermonis” the Euripidean (or not) “colour” do not seem to be worthy considerations.
At this stage of the debate, it is worth conducting a dramaturgical analysis by comparing the plot and the unfolding of the tragedy Pirithous, as set out in the argumentum, with the plot and text of Frogs.
Dramatic analysis seems to be the only method we have at our disposal to find any points of contact between the two dramas. I therefore present a table below that highlights the parallels between Frogs and Pirithous, based on our limited knowledge of the tragedy, focusing on the characters and plot twists (ἤθη and μῦθος, as Aristotle would say). The table outlines the most evident parallels.
loci paralleli |
|
|---|---|
Pirithous |
Frogs |
|
katabasis of Heracles |
katabasis of Dionysus (with Xanthias) disguised as Heracles |
|
The capture of Cerberus |
The rescue of a great poet from back to life |
|
Outcome |
Outcome |
|
Chorus composed of Mystai |
Chorus composed of Mystai at the gates of the Underworld From the argumentum: τοὺς μύστας παρ’ αὐτὰς τὰς πύλας τοῦ Ἅιδου χορεύοντας Ξανθίας | τί ἔστιν; sch. ad locum: μυστικωτάτη· τῶν ἐν ᾿Ελευσῖνι μυστηρίων. |
|
The violent and brutal manners of the Centaurs |
κενταυρικῶς (the Centaur manner) sch. ad locum: καὶ τοῦτο οἶδεν Ἡρακλῆς ἐκ τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς μάχης |
|
The capture of Cerberus From the argumentum: ἐπὶ τὸν Κέρβερον δὲ ῾Ηρακλῆς ἀποσταλεὶς ὑπὸ Εὐρυσθέως τοῦ μὲν θηρίου βίᾳ περιεγένετο […] |
The (former) capture of Cerberus |
|
Heracles’ visit into the Underworld |
δεῦρ᾽ εἴσιθι: the second visit of Heracles/Dionysus into the Underworld |
|
The increased loot From the argumentum: ἐπὶ τὸν Κέρβερον δὲ ῾Ηρακλῆς ... τοὺς δὲ περὶ Θησέα χάριτι ... φίλους. |
The increased loot [the Gatekeeper to Dionysus/Heracles] |
|
The benevolence of Pluto and Persephone |
The benevolence of Pluto |
III. Traces of Critias, both as a poet and as a political leader, in Frogs
The comedy also contains allusions to the contemporary political situation that are closely linked to Critias. For example, see the allusion at line 47, when Heracles addresses Dionysus:
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ εἴμ᾽ ἀποσοβῆσαι τὸν γέλων
ὁρῶν λεοντῆν ἐπὶ κροκωτῷ κειμένην.
τίς ὁ νοῦς; τί κόθορνος καὶ ῥόπαλον ξυνηλθέτην;
Frogs, 45 ff.
sch. ad loc.: ὅτι ὁ κόθορνος εἰς ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς πόδας ἁρμόζει. ἔνθεν καὶ Θηραμένης κόθορνος λέγεται.
The allusion is to Dionysus’ disguise as Heracles, but, as the scholium reveals, it is also to Theramenes, the so-called “cothurnus” (cf. Xenophon, Hell. II, 3, 31), and most likely to his complicity with Critias in the same political faction during the troubled years of the Athenian stasis that preceded the Thirty Tyrants regime led by Critias and Theramenes themselves. See also the explicit attack on Theramenes’ opportunism and political flip-flopping in the verses recited by the Chorus:
ταῦτα μὲν πρὸς ἀνδρός ἐστι
νοῦν ἔχοντος καὶ φρένας καὶ
πολλὰ περιπεπλευκότος,
μετακυλίνδειν αὑτὸν ἀεὶ
πρὸς τὸν εὖ πράττοντα τοῖχον
μᾶλλον ἢ γεγραμμένην
εἰκόν᾽ ἑστάναι, λαβόνθ᾽ ἓν
σχῆμα· τὸ δὲ μεταστρέφεσθαι
πρὸς τὸ μαλθακώτερον
δεξιοῦ πρὸς ἀνδρός ἐστι
καὶ φύσει Θηραμένους.
Frogs, 534 ff.
sch. at l. 540a σκώπτει αὐτὸν ὡς εὐμετάβολον ὄντα καὶ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν ἁρμόζοντα.
From line 354 onwards, the Chorus denounces those who cause unrest in the city and those who collaborate with the Enemy:
εὐφημεῖν χρὴ κἀξίστασθαι τοῖς ἡμετέροισι χοροῖσιν,
[…]
ἢ βωμολόχοις ἔπεσιν χαίρει μὴ ᾽ν καιρῷ τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν,
ἢ στάσιν ἐχθρὰν μὴ καταλύει μηδ᾽ εὔκολός ἐστι πολίταις,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεγείρει καὶ ῥιπίζει κερδῶν ἰδίων ἐπιθυμῶν,
ἢ τῆς πόλεως χειμαζομένης ἄρχων καταδωροδοκεῖται,
ἢ προδίδωσιν φρούριον ἢ ναῦς […]
ἢ χρήματα ταῖς τῶν ἀντιπάλων ναυσὶν παρέχειν τινὰ πείθει,
ἢ κατατιλᾷ τῶν Ἑκατείων κυκλίοισι χοροῖσιν ὑπᾴδων,
ἢ τοὺς μισθοὺς τῶν ποιητῶν ῥήτωρ ὢν εἶτ᾽ ἀποτρώγει,
κωμῳδηθεὶς ἐν ταῖς πατρίοις τελεταῖς ταῖς τοῦ Διονύσου.
τούτοις αὐδῶ καὖθις ἀπαυδῶ καὖθις τὸ τρίτον μάλ᾽ ἀπαυδῶ
ἐξίστασθαι μύσταισι χοροῖς.
Frogs, 354 ff.
The combination of poetic and political criticism identifies a group of individuals who:
– undermine the canons of true and serious poetry with ‘catchy’ verses;
– stir up hatred between the parties for their own benefit and against the city’s interests;
– maintain various kinds of relations (tactical, military, or commercial) with the Spartan enemies;
– commit sacrilegious acts “against the statues of Hecate” in komoi by singing dithyrambs;
– despite being a “rhetorician” (i.e. someone who plays politcs: “fa politica” as Dario Del Corno brilliantly translates), the person they attack is labelled a poet and pockets the poets’ fees. This is why he is mocked during the Dionysian festivals.
For all these reasons, people with such personalities are kindly asked not to participate in the “Sacred Choirs of the Initiates”.
As Del Corno wrote, they are: “Allusioni personali che erano di immediata identificazione per il pubblico” (Del Corno 1985, 176). In light of the above, it is difficult not to recognise these implicit allusions as clear references to Critias and his circle. The definition of an unscrupulous ‘rhetorician’/politician, who deals with the enemy by “ceding fortresses” and practises poetry by “stealing the craft” and pay of poets, fits Critias perfectly. If the reference to sacrilege against the statues of Hecate is directed generically at Cinesias, the dithyrambographer, as indicated by the scholia, then the most serious example of a sacrilege would undoubtedly still be fresh in the memory of the Athenians: the mutilation of the Hermae. Andocides (De Myst., 45, 47, 68) attests to Critias’ involvement in the Hermocopides affair, one of the most infamous acts of sacrilege at the time (cf. Philostratus, Vitae Soph. I, 16, in which he perhaps confuses different episodes when citing the otherwise inexplicable προυδίδου δὲ τὰ ἱερά as a misdeed of Critias).
Conversely, from lines 686 onwards, the Chorus emphasises a theme that was at the centre of political debate during that period: the revocation of atimia and the restoration of civil rights for all citizens.
[…] πρῶτον οὖν ἡμῖν δοκεῖ
ἐξισῶσαι τοὺς πολίτας κἀφελεῖν τὰ δείματα.
Frogs, 687-688
sch. ad loc.:
– 688a ἐξισῶσαι τοὺς πολίτας· τουτέστιν ´ἐντίμους ποιῆσαι τοὺς ἀτιμωθέντας´. τοιαύτη γὰρ κατάστασις ἐνειστήκει, καθ᾽ ἣνἐφυγαδεύθησάν τινες τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ ἄτιμοι ἐγένοντο.
– 688b [ἐξισῶσαι τοὺς πολίτας]· δημοκρατίαν ποιῆσαι.
– 688c ἀφελεῖν τὰ δείματα· τὰς ἀτιμίας λέγει.
– 688d ἀφελεῖν τὰ δείματα· τοὺς φόβους ἀφελεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐλαβουμένων.
The topic is summarised in the following passage from the argumentum:
Ἐν δὲ τούτῳ, ὁ μὲν τῶν μυστῶν χορὸς περὶ τοῦ τὴν πολιτείαν ἐξισῶσαι καὶ τοὺς ἀτίμους ἐντίμους ποιῆσαι χἀτέρων τινῶν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν διαλέγεται.
(Arg. 14-16 = Chantry 1999, 1).
As noted by scholars in their commentaries ad locum, the reference to the need to restore equality among all citizens could refer to the restoration of civil rights compromised by the regime of the Four Hundred in 411 BCE, in which Callaeschrus, the father of Critias, and perhaps Critias himself, had been involved. Aristophanes appears to be proposing a slogan for the pacification of the city-state, which, by resolving the situation of revenge and partisan conflict (the στάσις ἐχθρά referred to in line 359), could avert the risk of an anti-democratic takeover. In this sense, the scholia correctly interpret that “removing all fear” from citizens would avert the danger of impending war.
This appeal for moderation and pacification is diametrically opposed to the positions of those who derive personal advantage from civil discord, a group attacked by the comedian in lines 358 ff. In opposition to a strategy of exacerbating past and ongoing grudges in order to prepare the ground for an oligarchic coup, Aristophanes proposes a wise ‘soft’ approach, aimed at demotivating the oligarchic faction and its wider supporters, who were harmed by the radicalism of Cleophon’s restoration in 409-407 BCE. So Canfora 2001, 207:
La parabasi delle Rane è tra i testi più espliciti sul piano politico. [...] Il suo [di Aristofane] intervento è un plaidoyer in favore della piena riabilitazione di coloro – ed erano tanti – che, avendo ricoperto cariche e pubbliche funzioni sotto i Quattrocento, erano da cinque anni in una sorta di limbo politico; e inoltre in favore di un generale remissione di tutte le condanne all’atimia.
Another theme that could be connected to the myth of Pirithous is the concept and recurrent motif of the expelled body. In lines 689 ff., the Chorus recites:
κεἴ τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν,
ἐγγενέσθαι φημὶ χρῆναι τοῖς ὀλισθοῦσιν τότε
αἰτίαν ἐκθεῖσι λῦσαι τὰς πρότερον ἁμαρτίας.
εἶτ᾽ ἄτιμόν φημι χρῆναι μηδέν᾽ εἶν᾽ ἐν τῇ πόλει.
καὶ γὰρ αἰσχρόν ἐστι τοὺς μὲν ναυμαχήσαντας μίαν
καὶ Πλαταιᾶς εὐθὺς εἶναι κἀντὶ δούλων δεσπότας.
Frogs, 689 ff.
sch. at l. 689b ἵσως καὶ ἐνταῦθα περὶ τῶν δ´ λέγει στρατηγῶν, τῶν σωθέντων έκ τῶν δέκα τῶν περὶ Ἀργίνουσαν ναυμαχήσαντων.
The reference to Phrynichus (here referring to the strategist, rather than the tragedian, as the scholia suggest) highlights the climate of resentment and revenge that preceded and followed the oligarchic regime of the Four Hundred (for the most recent insights the identity of the “Phrynichus” referred to in Frogs, see Lewis 2023, especially pages 44 onwards). Phrynichus had been executed in 411 by a democratic decree for his pro-Lacedaemonian activities (he had been one of the leaders of the Four Hundred), and following Critias’ proposal he was condemned again, post mortem, for treason and his body was disinterred and removed from Athenian territory.
ψηφίζεται ὁ δῆμος Κριτίου εἰπόντος, τὸν μὲν νεκρὸν (Phrynichus, died 411) κρίνειν προδοσίας, κἂν δόξῃ προδότης ὢν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τεθάφθαι, τά γε ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ ἀνορύξαι καὶ ἐξορίσαι ἔξω τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς. DK 88 A 7 [= Lycurg. Leocr. 113]
It should be remembered that Phrynichus had been the fiercest opponent of the revocation of the exile ban issued against Alcibiades two years earlier. Perhaps Critias’ proposal concerning Phrynichus’ corpse, laden with strong symbolic significance, skilfully paved the way for another proposal he would put forward to the democratic assembly in those years: the revocation of the ban on Alcibiades, which Critias himself had proposed in 407 (on the theme of the “expelled body” see now Boschi 2020 and 2021b, with updated Bibliography).
What is certain is that Critias is not mentioned in Frogs, not even in the list of poets more verbose than Euripides: Agathon, Xenocles, Pythangelus and other poets quoted in Frogs at ll. 83 ff. “so verbose that they leave Euripides far behind”. Even though he was undoubtedly connected to Euripides in terms of ideas and poetic and philosophical inspiration, the name of Critias does not appear (for enlightening insights into the strict and necessary relationship between Euripides and Critias, as well as the ideological motivations behind Aristophanes’ attacks, see Canfora 2001, 196-218).
However, for whatever an argumentum e silentio may be worth, perhaps we should not underestimate the significance of the very eloquent silence surrounding a name that was undoubtedly on everyone’s mind at that time, for both poetic and political reasons.
In terms of poetic fame, I believe evidence of Critias’ reputation as a tragedian can also be found in the metaphors and direct references to theatrical experience in two of Plato’s dialogues in which Critias appears as a persona loquens. In Charmides, the young protagonist attempts to define sophrosyne, frequently glancing at his uncle Critias as if seeking his approval. His behaviour suggests to those present that he is merely repeating what he has learnt from his uncle. At one point, Critias impatiently interrupts him and starts speaking in the first person, “like a poet with an actor who mistreats his verses”.
καὶ ὁ Κριτίας δῆλος μὲν ἦν καὶ πάλαι ἀγωνιῶν καὶ φιλοτίμως πρός τε τὸν Χαρμίδην καὶ πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας ἔχων, μόγις δ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν κατέχων τότε οὐχ οἷός τε ἐγένετο· δοκεῖ γάρ μοι παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀληθὲς εἶναι, ὃ ἐγὼ ὑπέλαβον, τοῦ Κριτίου ἀκηκοέναι τὸν Χαρμίδην ταύτην τὴν ἀπόκρισιν περὶ τῆς σωφροσύνης. ὁ μὲν οὖν Χαρμίδης βουλόμενος μὴ αὐτὸς ὑπέχειν λόγον ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τῆς ἀποκρίσεως, ὑπεκίνει αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον, καὶ ἐνεδείκνυτο ὡς ἐξεληλεγμένος εἴη· ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ ἠνέσχετο, ἀλλά μοι ἔδοξεν ὀργισθῆναι αὐτῷ ὥσπερ ποιητὴς ὑποκριτῇ κακῶς διατιθέντι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ποιήματα.
(Plato, Charm. 162c-d).
References to theatrical experience can also be found in a passage from the beginning of Critias. Socrates invites Critias to speak after Timaeus, comparing those present to a demanding audience after an admirable performance by the first poet in the contest (i.e., Timaeus’ speech in the previous dialogue: as is well known, the truncated Critias must be read alongside the Timaeus as a diptych). Shortly afterwards, Critias himself revives the metaphor, reminding his interlocutors of their responsibility “towards our spectators”:
Socrates | προλέγω γε μήν, ὦ φίλε Κριτία, σοὶ τὴν τοῦ θεάτρου διάνοιαν, ὅτι θαυμαστῶς ὁ πρότερος ηὐδοκίμηκεν ἐν αὐτῷ ποιητής, ὥστε τῆς συγγνώμης δεήσει τινός σοι παμπόλλης, εἰ μέλλεις αὐτὰ δυνατὸς γενέσθαι παραλαβεῖν. […]
Critias | οἶδ᾽ ὅτι τῷδε τῷ θεάτρῳ δόξομεν τὰ προσήκοντα μετρίως ἀποτετελεκέναι. τοῦτ᾽ οὖν αὔτ᾽ ἤδη δραστέον.
(Plato, Criti. 108b-d).
On the other hand, in terms of the relevance in the political framework, as the leader of the pro-Lacedaemonian party, it goes without saying that Critias was a prominent figure whose name and actions, including his poetic works, were on everyone’s lips and at the forefront of people’s minds when attending theatrical performances. In this regard, it is worth recalling the political climate in which Frogs was performed in January 405 BCE. Just a few months earlier, the Arginusian trial had taken place; eight months later, the Athenian democratic forces would be defeated at the Battle of Aegospotami, finally bringing the Peloponnesian War to an end. Against the backdrop of these seething events and intense passions, Aristophanes’ comedy portrays a period of unrest and epochal uncertainty, marking the end of one era and the bloody and troubled beginning of another: the brief reign of the Thirty Tyrants, followed by Socrates’ trial and verdict.
During this turbulent period, when playwrights had to strike a balance between freedom and commitment, Aristophanes staged his successful comedy. Perhaps the absence of direct references to Critias reflects his role in dealing with the enemy, and the phobos of the imminent establishment of a pro-Spartan government in opposition to the democratic party in Athens – the fear of a revolution that would sweep away the last remnants of languishing democracy and change Athens forever. So Francesco Donadi: “Nel mezzo di questo magma rovente di accadimenti e di passioni [...] tempi penultimi […] di epocale incertezza, stanno le Rane” (I take suggestions and quotations from Donadi 1978, 48-77).
Perhaps the comic parody served as an outlet for the playwright’s thoughts, which he did not dare express otherwise on the basis of a well-founded premonition of the terror that would soon overwhelm the city.
Aristophanes parodies Pirithous without mentioning Critias – perhaps because he could not or would not – but fiercely attacks everything associated with Critias and his political programme: Alcibiades, who was far away and therefore less dangerous than his powerful friend at that time; Theramenes, who was willing to compromise and had initially shared leadership of the Thirty with Critias; and Euripides and Socrates, who were Critias’ friends and shared his poetic principles and political theories. Critias, the ‘strong man’ of the day and rising star of the 405-404 political season in Athens, is not mentioned in the play except through these indirect references – the masks of his friends.
Therefore, the assertion “Non consta che (Crizia) sia stato berteggiato dalla commedia” (Fraccaroli 1910, 269) is not entirely true and accurate. Despite Critias’ name being absent from the Aristophanic work closest to the advent of the Thirty, Frogs contains numerous allusions (which were probably very clear to contemporaries) to Pirithous, which was most probably written by Critias himself, and in that play the Panhellenic hero Heracles saves the Athenian hero Theseus.
IV. Some (very tentative) Conclusions
The Scholiast’s reference to a parody of Theseus, and not of Pirithous, recalls a reference to Theseus as a character in a tragedy. Theseus appeared as a tragic character in both Euripides’ Theseus and Critias’ Pirithous, but the latter may have been less well known to the Scholiast, or may have been considered less important in his hierarchy. Moreover, even among ancient exegetes, there was some doubt as to whether Aristophanes had used Theseus as the inspiration for his play (see, for example, the scholia on line 465, which acknowledges the similarity but expresses some uncertainty: Chantry 1999, 71; cf. Fritzsche 1845, 207).
I should add that, as far as we know, Euripides’ tragedy was not set in Hades. A further argument can be made against a link between Theseus and Frogs. Euripides’ tragedy was performed ante 422 BCE, while Frogs was performed in 405 BCE. So Kannicht 2004, 428:
Scaena in Creta sita est […]. Fabula docta est ante Vespas Aristophanis (F 385 + 386), i.e. ante a. 422.
Comic parody requires the audience to recognise the reference text immediately, as they are necessary accomplices to the metatextual allusions. Although Frogs makes allusions to many of Euripides’ poetic works, both recent and distant in time, it is highly unlikely, from a dramaturgical point of view, that the comic parody’s first reference was linked with a play such as Theseus, which had a completely different plot and was performed at least seventeen years earlier.
While the dates for Pirithous’ composition and performance are completely unknown, Cropp is right to point out that any circular argument should be avoided. Furthermore, Cropp is undoubtedly right to argue that it would be unfounded to try to reconstruct the lost Pirithous from the text of Frogs. However, there is plenty of evidence linking Pirithous to Frogs, as well as a series of clues.
If one accepts that my proposed interpretation is plausible, two consequences arise: one concerning the emphasis placed on the comic elements of the play and one concerning the tragic undertones reflected by Frogs. Pirithous’ presence in the subtext of Frogs greatly enhances the comedy of the opening scene. Dionysus’ club and lion skin do not refer generically to one of Heracles’ labours, such as the descent into Hades and the capture of Cerberus, but rather parody Heracles’ character in the tragedy Pirithous, which the audience may have seen at the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens only a year or two earlier. In this sense, the jokes, allusions and entire scenography of the first part of the play take on an amplified meaning that enhances the comic spirit of Aristophanes’ work.
Furthermore, if we agree with the critics who attribute Pirithous to Critias rather than Euripides, the link between the work and contemporary political reality is strengthened, as are the references to a powerful figure in Athenian political life at the time: Critias, a poet, philosopher, and political leader who would become one of the protagonists of the anti-democratic coup d’état a few months later. Assuming that the subtext of Critias’ tragedy is present, all references to the contemporary political situation become more noticeable, effective and urgent; they are perceived as burning issues. This lends the comedy a dramatic and almost distressing tone, reflecting the heavy political climate and fear hanging over Athens in the months before the Thirty Tyrants seized power.
What I am proposing is a body of circumstantial evidence, rather than concrete proof. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges is both convincing and consistent. In summary: this is not the place to reopen the controversial question of Pirithous’ authorship. However, if (as Wilamowitz suggests) the parodied author had been the influential Critias (future leader of the Thirty Tyrants), Aristophanes’ play would certainly have been much more caustic and effective for a fifth-century audience.
The issue we have discussed here relates both to the forms of metatheatre employed by Aristophanes in ancient theatre, and to contemporary metacritical debate.
Metatheatre – we find that in his comedy, Aristophanes is not staging a parody of a generic episode of Heracles’ descent to the Underworld, but rather a metatheatrical parody of specific scenes and situations that the audience had recently witnessed in tragic form on stage. Furthermore, the names of Critias and his poetic and political figure loom large throughout the drama, particularly in the numerous references to the issues that fuelled and heated political life in Athens around 405 BCE.
Metacriticism – rather than producing a vicious circle, the critical debate I have reconstructed has taken the form of a ring. Returning to Wilamowitz’s hypothesis has allowed us to confirm the influence of Pirithous’ plot on the play Frogs. It seems essential to understand the plot of Pirithous in order to fully appreciate Aristophanes’ play. Indeed, bearing in mind Pirithous’ plot while reading Frogs makes the comedy, particularly the opening scene, much funnier and more enjoyable. Rather than considering the opening act as a mere parody of the myth, this interpretation renders Frogs more brilliant and meaningful. At the same time, through this interpretative lens, Aristophanes’ comedy appears more imbued with the tragic atmosphere of the stasis that shook the polis at the time, when the Thirty Tyrants' coup d'état was imminent.
Bibliography
Editions
- Vita Euripidis
R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 5, Euripides, pars prior, Göttingen 2004. - Aristophanes’ Frogs
D. Del Corno, Le Rane, Milano 1992. - Scholia ad Aristophanis Ranas
M. Chantry, Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. 1a: Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Ranas, Groningen 1999.
M. Chantry, Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. 1b: Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Ranas, Groningen 2001. - Critias
B. Snell, R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1, Ed. correctior et addendis aucta curavit Richard Kannicht, Göttingen 1986.
A. Boschi, Crizia tragico. Testimonianze e frammenti, Roma 2021.
References
- Alvoni 2006
G. Alvoni, Nur Theseus oder auch Peirithoos? Zur Hypothesis des Pseudo-Euripideischen „Peirithoos‟, “Hermes” 134 (2006), 290-300. - Alvoni 2008
G. Alvoni, Eracle ed Eaco alle porte dell’Ade (Critias fr. 1 Sn.-K.), “Philologus” 152 (2008), 40-48. - Alvoni 2011
G. Alvoni, Ist Critias Fr. 1 Sn.-K. Teil des „Peirithoos‟-Prologs? Zu Wilamowitzens Memorandum über die “Peirithoosfrage”, “Hermes” 139 (2011), 120-130. - Angiò 2020
F. Angiò, Qualche osservazione su ἀπευθής e ἄπυστος nella poesia greca, “Papyrologica Lupiensia” 29 (2020), 9-28. - Arrighetti 1964
G. Arrighetti, Satiro. Vita di Euripide, “Studi Classici e Orientali” 13 (1964), 1-168. - Battegazzore 1962
A. Battegazzore, Crizia, in A. Battegazzore, M. Untersteiner (a cura di), I Sofisti. Testimonianze e frammenti, IV, Antifonte e Crizia, Firenze 1962, 214-363. - Battegazzore 1970
A. Battegazzore, Il termine καθέδρα nell’hypothesis del Piritoo di Crizia, in Mythos. Scripta in honorem Marii Untersteiner, Genova 1970, 73-79. - Battegazzore 1989
A. Battegazzore, Critias, in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina, parte I: Autori Noti, vol. I, Firenze 1989, 442-466. - Boschi 2020
A. Boschi, La politica del corpo maledetto: per una ricostruzione del significato civico della sepoltura tragica, “Frammenti sulla scena, Studi sul dramma antico frammentario” 1 (2020), 1-13. - Boschi 2021a
A. Boschi (a cura di), Crizia tragico. Testimonianze e frammenti, Tivoli (Roma) 2021. - Boschi 2021b
A. Boschi, Condemned to Oblivion in Hades: some Notes on the Pirithous Attributed to Critias, “Dionysus ex machina” 12 (2021), 73-90. - Bremer, Calder 1994
J.M. Bremer, W.M. Calder, Prussia and Holland: Wilamowitz and Two Kuipers, “Mnemosyne” n.s. 4, 47 (1994), 177-216. - Bremmer 2015
J.N. Bremmer, Theseus’ and Peirithoos’ Descent into the Underworld, “Les Études classiques” 83 (2015), 35-49. - Bultrighini 1999
U. Bultrighini, “Maledetta democrazia”. Studi su Crizia, Alessandria 1999. - Canfora 2001
L. Canfora, Storia della letteratura greca, Roma-Bari 2001. - Carlini 1968
A. Carlini, Un nuovo frammento di tragedia greca, “Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa” II/37 (1968), 163-171. - Carlini 2012
A. Carlini, Due frammenti di tragedia (Piritoo?) di uno stesso volumen: P.Köln 2 e PSI inv. 3021, in G. Bastianini, W. Lapini, M. Tulli (a cura di), Harmonia: scritti di filologia classica in onore di Angelo Casanova, Tomo 1, Firenze 2012, 183-194. - Carrara 2021
L. Carrara, Giovanni Tzetze, il dramma satiresco ed il Fortleben di Euripide a Bisanzio: nuove letture di Vecchi testimoni, “Medioevo greco. Rivista di storia e filologia bizantina”, 21 (2021), 171-214. - Carrara 2024
L. Carrara, Il nome e il genere. Il dramma satiresco e il ‘quarto dramma’ nel teatro greco, Venezia 2024. - Centanni 1997
M. Centanni, Atene assoluta. Crizia dalla tragedia alla storia, Padova 1997. - Chantry 1999
M. Chantry, Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. 1a: Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Ranas, Groningen 1999. - Chantry 2001
M. Chantry, Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. 1b: Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Ranas, Groningen 2001. - Cipolla 2003
P. Cipolla, Poeti minori del dramma satiresco. Testo critico, traduzione e commento, Amsterdam 2003. - Clark 2000
R.J. Clark, P. Oxy. 2078, Vat.gr. 2228, and Vergil’s Charon, “The Classical Quarterly”, Vol. 50/1 (2000), 192-196. - Cockle 1970
W.E.H. Cockle, P.Oxy. XVII 2078: Euripides(?) or Critias(?), Pirithous, “The Classical Review” 20/2 (1970), 136-137. - Cockle 1983
H.M. Cockle, P.Oxy. 3531. Euripides (or Critias), Pirithous, in “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, L”, London 1983, 29-36. - Collard [1995] 2007
C. Collard, The Pirithous Fragments, in J.A. López Férez (ed.), Da Homero a Libanio. Estudios actuales sobre textos griegos, vol. II, Madrid, 183-193 [= C. Collard, Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans. Selected Papers, Exeter 2007, 56-68]. - Collard, Cropp 2008
C. Collard, M. Cropp, Euripides: Fragments. Oedipus-Chrysippus. Other Fragments, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 2008. - Craik 1988
E.M. Craik, Review of Two Lost Plays of Euripides by Dana Ferrin Sutton, “The Classical Review” 38/2 (1988), 399-400. - Cropp 2019
M.J. Cropp, Minor Greek Tragedians. Fragments from the Tragedies with Selected Testimonia. I. The Fifth Century, Liverpool 2019. - Cropp 2020
M.J. Cropp, Euripides or Critias, or Neither? Reflections on an Unresolved Question, in A.A. Lamari, F. Montanari, A. Novokhatko (eds.), Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin-Boston 2020, 235-256. - Cropp 2021
M.J. Cropp, Minor Greek Tragedians. Fragments from the Tragedies with Selected Testimonia. II. Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Poets, Liverpool 2021. - Davies 1989
M. Davies, Sisyphus and the Invention of Religion (‘Critias’ TrGF 1 (43) F 19 = B 25 DK), “Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies” 36 (1989), 16-32. - Defradas 1967
J. Defradas, Une image présocratique du Temps, “Revue des Études Grecques” 80 (1967), 152-159. - Del Corno 1985
D. Del Corno (a cura di), Aristofane. Le Rane, Milano 1985. - Diels 1903
H. Diels (hrsg. von), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Vol. 1, Berlin 1903. - Diels, Kranz 1935
H. Diels, W. Kranz (hrsg. von), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Vol. II, Berlin 1935. - Diels, Kranz 19526
H. Diels, W. Kranz (hrsg. von), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, III, Berlin 19526. - Dihle 1977
A. Dihle, Das Satyrspiel Sisyphos, “Hermes” 105 (1977), 28-42. - Dobrov 2001
J.W. Dobrov, Figures of Play Greek Drama and Metafictional Poetics, Oxford 2001. - Donadi 1978
F. Donadi, Gorgia, Elena 16 (Quel quattrocentocinque), “Bollettino dell’Istituto di Filologia Greca” 4 (1977/1978), 48-77. - Dover 1975
K.J. Dover, The Freedom of the Intellectual in Greek Society, “Talanta” 7 (1975), 24-54. - Dover 1993
K.J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Frogs, Oxford 1993. - Egli 2003
F. Egli, Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössischer intellektueller Strömungen. Analyse der Funktion philosophischer Themen in den Tragödien und Fragmenten, München-Leipzig 2003. - Fraccaroli 2010
G. Fraccaroli, I lirici greci, (Elegia e Giambo), Torino 1910. - Fritzsche 1845
F.V. Fritzsche, Aristophanis Ranae, Turici 1845. - Gauly 1991
B.M. Gauly, Kritias, in B.M. Gauly (hrsg. von), Musa Tragica. Die griechische Tragödie von Thespis bis Ezechiel. Ausgewählte Zeugnisse und Fragmente griechisch und Deutsch, Göttingen 1991, 108-124. - Harder 1990
M.A. Harder, Review of Two Lost Plays of Euripides by D.F. Sutton, “Mnemosyne”, Vol. 43, Fasc. 1/2 (1990), 204-205. - Hunt 1927
A.S. Hunt, Euripides (?), Pirithous, “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri”, vol. XVII, London 1927, 36-45. - Iannucci 2002
A. Iannucci, La parola e l’azione. I frammenti simposiali di Crizia, Bologna 2002. - Kahn 1997
C.H. Kahn, Greek Religion and Philosophy in the Sisyphus Fragment, “Phronesis” 42/3 (1997), 247-262. - Kannicht 1996
R. Kannicht, Zum Corpus Euripideum, in C. Mueller-Goldingen, K. Sier, H. Becker (eds.), ΛHNAIKA. Festschrift für Carl Werner Müller, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1996, 21-31. - Kannicht 2004
R. Kannicht (hrsg. von), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. 5, Euripides, pars prior, Göttingen 2004. - Knox 1985
B.M.W. Knox, Minor Tragedians, in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Vol. I, Cambridge-London-New York 1985, 339-345. - Krumeich, Pechstein, Seidensticker 1999
R. Krumeich, N. Pechstein, B. Seidensticker (hrsg. von), Das griechische Satyrspiel, Darmstadt 1999. - Kuiper 1907
J. Kuiper, De Pirithoo fabula Euripidea, “Mnemosyne” 35 (1907), 354-85. - Lesky 19723
A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen. Dritte, vôllig neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Göttingen 19723. - Lewis 2023
A.S. Lewis, Aristophanes vs Phrynichus in Frogs, “The Classical Quarterly” 73/1 (2023), 40-52. - Lloyd-Jones 2006
H. Lloyd-Jones, Review of The Owl of Minerva. The Cambridge Praelections of 1906: Reassessments of Richard Jebb, James Adam, Walter Headlam, Henry Jackson, William Ridgeway, and Arthur Verrall. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society ed. by Christopher Stray, “Mouseion” III/6 (2006), 79-83. - Mette 1983
H.J. Mette, Perithoos-Theseus-Herakles bei Euripides, “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 50 (1983), 13-19. - Nauck 1856
A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Lipsiae 1856. - Nauck 18892
A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Lipsiae 18892. - Nestle 1940
W. Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos. Die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen Denkens von Homer bis auf die Sophistik und Sokrates, Stuttgart 1940. - Obbink 1996
D. Obbink, Philodemus on Piety, Part I, Oxford 1996. - Page 1942
D.L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri, I, Cambridge Mass. 1942. - Pancenko 1980
D.V. Pancenko, Euripides or Critias? [Критий или Еврипид?], “Вестник древней истории” 151 (1980), 144-162. - Pickard-Cambridge 1933
A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, Tragedy, in J.U. Powell (ed.), New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature: Third Series, Oxford 1933, 68-155. - Pechstein 1998
N. Pechstein, Euripides Satyrographos, Ein Kommentar zu den Euripideischen Satyrspielfragmenten. Stuttgart-Leipzig 1998. - de Romilly 1968
J. de Romilly, Time in Greek tragedy, Ithaca-New York 1968. - Schmid 1940
W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Vol. 4, Munich 1940. - Scodel 1980
R. Scodel, The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides, Göttingen 1980. - Snell 1971
B. Snell, Szenen aus griechischen Dramen, Berlin 1971. - Snell, Kannicht 1981
B. Snell, R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Fragmenta adespota; testimonia, Volumini 1 addenda; indices ad volumina 1 et 2, Vol. 2, Göttingen 1981. - Snell, Kannicht 1986
B. Snell, R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. I. Didascaliae tragicae, catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum, testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum, ed. B. Snell. Editio correctior et addendis aucta cur. R. K., Göttingen 1986. - Sommerstein 1996
A.H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes. IX. Frogs (ed. with Transl. and Notes), Warminster 1996. - Sutton 1978
D.F. Sutton, Euripides’ “Theseus”, “Hermes” 106 (1978), 49-53. - Sutton 1981
D. Sutton, Critias and Atheism, “Classical Quarterly” n.s. 31/1 (1981), 33-38. - Sutton 1987
D.F. Sutton, Two Lost Plays of Euripides, New York 1987. - Valckenaer 1767 [1824]
L.D. Valckenaer, Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatvum reliquias, Lipsiae 1767 [1824]. - Van de Sande Bakhuyzen 1877
W.H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, De parodia in comoediis Aristophanis, Utrecht 1877. - van Leeuwen 1896
J. van Leeuwen, Aristophanis Ranae, cum prolegomenois et commentariis, Lugduni Batavorum 1896. - Vysoký 1964
Z. Vysoký, Euripidův Peirithoos, “Zprávy Jednoty klasických filologů” 6 (1964), 1-7. - Webster 1967
T.B.L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides, London 1967. - West 1983
M.L. West, The Orphic Poems, Oxford 1963. - Wilamowitz Moellendorff 1875
U. von Wilamowitz Moellendorff, Analecta Euripidea, Berlin 1875. - Wilamowitz Moellendorff 18952
U. von Wilamowitz Moellendorff (hrsg. von), Euripides, Herakles, Berlin 18952. - Wilamowitz Moellendorff 1907
U. von Wilamowitz Moellendorff, Zum Lexikon des Photios, “SB Preuss. Akad. Wiss” 1907, 2-14 [= Kleine Schriften, IV, Berlin 1962, 528-541]. - Wilamowitz Moellendorf 1927
U. von Wilamowitz Moellendorff, Lesefrüchte CCXXIII, “Hermes” 62 (1927), 276-298 (=Kleine Schriften, IV, Berlin 1962, 431-453]. - Winiarckyk 1987
M. Winiarczyk, Nochmals das Satyrspiel „Sisyphos“, “Wiener Studien” 100 (1987), 35-45. - Yunis 1988
H. Yunis, The Debate on Undecteded Crime and an Undecteded Fragment from Euripides’ Sisyphus, “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 75 (1988), 39-46.
Abstract
In his commentary on lines 464 ff. of Frogs, the Scholiast refers five times to Euripides’ Theseus, the play said to be parodied in the comedy. Wilamowitz was the most vocal opponent of the validity of this connection. In his initial refutation, published in Analecta Euripidea in 1875, he argued that the Scholiast had identified only a verbal similarity between the two texts despite significant differences in theme and chronology. According to Wilamowitz, the real object of parody in Frogs was another tragedy: Pirithous. Furthermore, in the same essay, Wilamowitz himself strongly argues for attributing authorship of Pirithous to Critias, and not to Euripides – a notion that still divides critics. This article summarises the arguments of leading contemporary scholars seeking to confirm or refute Wilamowitz’s hypothesis concerning the authorship of the tragedy and the idea that Aristophanes staged a tragic parody of Pirithous by Critias. Regarding the metatheatrical dimension of the 5th Century BCE, the paper proposes that the similarities and assonances between Frogs and Pirithous, acknowledged by critics in the passage from Frogs 464 ff. (the encounters between Heracles and Aeacus, and between Dionysus and the guardian of the Underworld), could extend much further than previously recognised, encompassing thematic and dramatic recurrences, textual parody, and references to the political situation at the time. Rather than considering the initial act of Frogs as a generic parody of the myth of Heracles’ descent into the Underworld, it is concluded that bearing in mind the plot of Pirithous and attributing the tragedy to Critias, the reading of Frogs becomes much more brilliant and meaningful. At the same time, the comedy appears more imbued with the tragic atmosphere of the stasis that shook the polis, when the coup d'état of the Thirty Tyrants was imminent.
keywords | Critias’ Pirithous; Aristophanes’ Frogs; Metatheatre; Metacriticism.
La Redazione di Engramma è grata ai colleghi – amici e studiosi – che, seguendo la procedura peer review a doppio cieco, hanno sottoposto a lettura, revisione e giudizio questo saggio
(v. Albo dei referee di Engramma)
Per citare questo articolo / To cite this article: Monica Centanni, Critias’ Pirithous and Aristophanes’ Frogs. Metatheatrical Echoes and the Critical Debate, “La Rivista di Engramma” n. 225, giugno 2025.