Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:17:31.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who is Soteira? (Aristophanes, Frogs 379)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. A. Haldane
J. A. Haldane
Affiliation:
Magee University College, Londonderry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The parodos of the Frogs is one of the most controversial passages in Aristophanes. Was it intended to parody the Eleusinian Mystery procession—or some other ritual? A writer wishing to discuss any part of the parodos must first outline his position with regard to this basic problem. I shall therefore as simply and briefly as possible state my own view and the reasons for it before dealing with the specific question posed by the title of the article.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , December 1964 , pp. 207 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1964

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

page 207 note 1 The most important contributions to the controversy (all anti-Eleusinian) have been made by Tucker, T. G. (ed.), The Frogs (1906), pp. xxviiiGoogle Scholar–xxxiv and ‘The Mysteries in the Frogs of Aristophanes', C.R. xviii (1904), 416–18Google Scholar, and J. E. Harrison, ibid., p. 418 (the Lesser Mysteries at Agrae), Tierney, M., ‘The Parodos in Aristophanes’ Frogs', Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy xlii (1935), 199–218Google Scholar (the Lenaea), and Adami, Fr. (Phil. Jahrb. Suppl. xxvi [1901], 224–53 [the rites of chthonic Dionysus]).Google Scholar

page 207 note 2 The is a recurrent feature in mystic writings. Cf. Pind. fr. 114a (Bowra), Pl. Phdr. 248 b, Rep. 10. 614 e, Orph. frr. 32 f. 6, 222 (Kern), Orph. H. 18. 2, Themist. ap. Stob. iv, p. 107 (Meineke).

page 207 note 3 Cf. Pind. fr. 114a, Soph. fr. 837 (Pearson), Orph. fr. 222.

page 207 note 4 For the word in the specialized sense in which it was applied to any private religious society see P. Foucart, , Les associa tions religieuses chez les Grecs, pp. 1 f., and Dodds on Bacchae 56–57, 680.Google Scholar

page 208 note 1 Plut. Alc. 34. 4,I.G. ii2. 1078. 28, and see Mommsen, A., Feste der Stadt Athen im Alter- tum (1898), pp. 232 f., for a discussion of this and the other points mentioned below.Google Scholar

page 208 note 2 Paus. 1. 38. 6.

page 208 note 3 Schol. Soph. O.C. 681.

page 208 note 4 Cf. Eur. Ion 1074 f.

page 208 note 5 This is suggested by Tucker in his note ad loc.

page 208 note 6 e.g. Archil, fr. 30 (Diehl3), A. S.c.T. 145, Ag. 973, Ar. Peace 993–5, Orph. H. 6. 8. Cf. especially Orph. H. 2. 14.

page 209 note 1 372–414 should be compared with Th. 947–1000, where there is the same basic pattern of a number of hymns separated by the instructions of a chorus leader.

page 209 note 2 See the evidence for the title collected by Höfer in Roscher's Lexikon d. griech. u. röm. Myth. s.v. Soteira, to whom I owe this and most of further details cited below.

page 209 note 3 Ammon. De adfin. vocab. differentia, s.v. .

page 209 note 4 Music and song were, of course, in cluded in the mystery celebrations: cf. Paus. g. 27. 2, 30. 12, S.I.G.3 736. 70 f.

page 209 note 5 Paus. 9. 23. 2. Cf. Pind. fr. 18 (Bowra).

page 209 note 6 It was accepted uncritically by Dindorf on the authority of the scholiast.

page 209 note 7 I.G. ii. 1. 305, 3. 1387 (in the ancient forum), I.G. ii. 1. 469. 21 (Piraeus). The abundance of references from all parts of Greece in the third century B.C. shows how widespread was the cult at that period, e.g. S.I.G.3 379 (Delphi), 391. 24 (Delos), 619. 11n (Rhodes), S.E.G. xvi. 63. 21 (Athens), xv. 112. 9 f. (Rhamnus).