The source covers selected passages. Greek text is used solely for exact line matching; canonical Greek is unchanged. Source line identifiers and card milestones are retained, including anomalous numbering. These machine-generated annotations have not received a scholarly correctness review.
καὶ μὴν ἐγὼ βουλήσομαι θρεττανελὸ τὸν Κύκλωπα
The compound verb θρεττανελὸ is a unique Aristophanic coinage (hapax legomenon) formed from θρέττω (to rear/nourish) and ἀνέλω (to take up/destroy), creating a semantic tension between nurturing and consuming. While the exact etymology of the first element remains debated—some suggesting a connection to θρέμω (to feed) while others propose a dialectal or onomatopoeic origin—the verb functions here as a grotesque hyperbole, depicting the Cyclops not merely as a predator, but as one who rears his victims before devouring them. This lexical innovation exemplifies the comic poet's tendency to forge new compounds to achieve a specific, visceral comic effect that standard vocabulary could not sustain.
ἡμεῖς δέ γʼ αὖ ζητήσομεν θρεττανελὸ τὸν Κύκλωπα
The word θρεττανελὸ is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanic comedy, a compound noun formed from θρέττω (nurse) and ἀνελὼν (one who has lifted up), referring to a specific type of nurse who also acts as a midwife or caretaker of infants. In this context, the speaker uses it as a metaphorical epithet for the Cyclops, suggesting a grotesque inversion of the nurturing role, as the Cyclops is here being cast in the position of a 'nurse-lifter' who has been found and is now being sought. This neologism is a hallmark of Aristophanic comic invention, blending domestic vocabulary with mythological grotesquerie to create a unique and humorous image.
μεμαγμένον σκῶρ ἐσθίειν, αὐτὴ δʼ ἔματτεν αὐτοῖς,
The phrase μεμαγμένον σκῶρ (memagmenon skōr) presents a striking collocation: σκῶρ (skōr) is a rare Attic term for 'dung' or 'excrement,' often used as a vulgar insult or in scatological comedy, while μεμαγμένον is the perfect passive participle of μίγνυμι, meaning 'mixed' or 'stirred.' The combination suggests 'mixed dung' or 'a mixture of filth,' a hyperbolic image typical of Aristophanic obscenity where the absurdity of the subject matter (eating excrement) is heightened by the grammatical form. This construction is not merely lexical but syntactically unusual in its use of the perfect participle to describe a state resulting from an action that is itself grotesque and unlikely, reinforcing the comedic inversion of normal diet.
τὸν Λαρτίου μιμούμενοι τῶν ὄρχεων κρεμῶμεν,
The phrase 'τῶν ὄρχεων' is a rare genitive plural of ὄρχης (dancer), which appears elsewhere only in the context of ritual or theatrical performance; here it likely refers to the 'dancers of Lartius,' a figure possibly alluding to a specific Roman or Italic tradition known to Aristophanes or his audience, though the exact identity remains debated. The construction 'μιμούμενοι ... κρεμῶμεν' combines a present middle participle with a present subjunctive, suggesting a deliberate, ongoing imitation leading to a proposed action, which is unusual in its syntactic cohesion and may reflect a specific rhetorical or dramatic device.
τὴν ῥῖνα· σὺ δʼ Ἀρίστυλλος ὑποχάσκων ἐρεῖς,
The vocative Ἀρίστυλλος (Aristyllus) is here used as a generic term for a glutton or someone who eats with their mouth open, derived from the character's reputation in comedy (or perhaps a specific, now obscure, historical figure known for this trait) rather than a specific individual present in the scene. The participle ὑποχάσκων (gaping/yawning) modifies the action of speaking, creating a vivid image of someone eating and talking simultaneously, which is a standard comic trope for the 'gluttonous slave' or 'fool', yet the specific lexical choice of ὑποχάσκων for 'eating while speaking' is a notable example of Aristophanic onomatopoeia and physical comedy that relies on the audience's recognition of the specific bodily function being mocked.
θάρρει· βλέπειν γὰρ ἄντικρυς δόξεις μʼ Ἄρη.
The adverb Ἄντικρυς, here modifying the verb βλέπειν, literally means 'face-to-face' or 'straight on,' but in this context of the blind god being restored to sight, it carries the specific semantic weight of 'directly' or 'straight in the eyes.' This usage is distinct from the more common temporal or spatial meanings found in prose, serving here as a precise visual metaphor for the clarity of vision returning to the character, contrasting with his previous state of blindness.
σὺ μὲν οἶδʼ ὃ κρώζεις· ὡς ἐμοῦ τι κεκλοφότος
The phrase τι κεκλοφότος is a striking example of the genitive absolute construction with the article omitted (a 'genitive of the participle' or 'genitive participle' without the article, sometimes called the 'participle in the genitive'). Here, τι κεκλοφότος functions as an independent genitive absolute, meaning 'since something has been stolen' or 'with something having been stolen'. The omission of the article is rare in this specific construction in Aristophanes, where the article is typically present to mark the participle as a noun. This construction emphasizes the cause or circumstance of the main clause, adding a layer of rhetorical force to the speaker's assertion.
εἰ δʼ ἔστιν ἕτερός τις Ποσειδῶν, τὸν ἕτερον.
The phrase ἕτερός τις Ποσειδῶν relies on a specific semantic distinction in Attic comedy: ἕτερος here functions not merely as 'another' (a different individual of the same class) but as 'a different one' in the sense of a rival or alternative deity with a distinct sphere of influence, contrasting with the standard monotheistic tendency of the play's plot to treat 'Plutus' (Wealth) as the sole true god. The ellipsis of the verb (ἐστίν) and the immediate repetition of the article + adjective (τὸν ἕτερον) create a chiasmus that emphasizes the absurdity of positing a second Poseidon when the play's logic suggests a world reorganized around a single divine figure, a syntactic structure that mirrors the logical fallacy being mocked.
ἐγώ, κατακλίνειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ
The infinitive κατακλίνειν ('to lay down') takes a direct object αὐτὸν ('him') and is followed by a prepositional phrase εἰς Ἀσκληπιοῦ ('into [the temple] of Asclepius') without an explicit noun for the sanctuary (e.g., ἱερόν or ναόν). This construction relies on the elliptical use of the genitive of the deity's name to denote the sacred precinct, a common but syntactically distinct feature in Attic prose and comedy where the noun is omitted when contextually clear.
ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἔσται πρῶτον ἁπάντων οὐδεὶς οὐδʼ ἀνδραποδιστὴς
The triple negative construction (οὐδʼ... οὐδεὶς... οὐδʼ) creates a double negative that, in the context of Aristophanic comedy and the specific logical force of the sentence, functions as a strong positive assertion: 'But no one, not even a slave-catcher, will be the first [to be poor].' The syntax relies on the emphatic reinforcement of οὐδέ to exclude the extreme case (slave-catchers, who profited from the previous era of poverty and war) from the list of those who will experience poverty first, thereby highlighting the universal reversal of fortune under the rule of Plutus. This is a classic example of the 'negative of the extreme' (negatio extremi) used for comic hyperbole.
οὔτε μύροισιν μυρίσαι στακτοῖς ὁπόταν νύμφην ἀγάγησθον.
The construction ὁπόταν with the future indicative (ἀγάγησθον, a form of ἀγείρω used here with a future sense in the optative mood due to the potential or generalizing force of ὁπόταν in this specific comedic context, though often treated as a future indicative in the main clause logic) creates a rare temporal clause where the verb is in the optative with ὁπόταν, a combination that is exceptionally rare in Attic prose but attested in comedy to express a generalized future condition. The form ἀγάγησθον is a future optative (or a conflation of future indicative and optative in the transmitted text) meaning 'whenever they should lead a bride,' highlighting the conditional nature of the inability to anoint oneself.
ὑμεῖς γʼ οἵπερ καὶ Θρασυβούλῳ Διονύσιον εἶναι ὅμοιον.
The sentence contains a specific and historically charged allusion to the relationship between Thrasybulus and Dionysius. Thrasybulus was the Athenian general who led the democratic restoration after the fall of the Thirty Tyrants (403 BCE), while Dionysius refers to Dionysius I of Syracuse, a notorious tyrant. The playwright is likely drawing a satirical parallel between the two, suggesting the addressees are so corrupt or tyrannical that they resemble Dionysius, despite Thrasybulus being the symbol of democratic liberation. This juxtaposition relies on the audience's knowledge of the political irony: Thrasybulus was the enemy of tyrants, yet here he is invoked to describe a tyrant-like figure, or perhaps the joke is that the audience (or a specific group) is so bad they are even worse than the tyrant, or that Thrasybulus himself was being mocked as a tyrant by oligarchs. The precise target of the satire depends on the immediate context of the play, but the allusion itself is a dense piece of political commentary requiring knowledge of the specific historical figures and their opposing reputations in 4th-century Athenian memory.
μέγα βροτοῖσι φέγγος Ἀσκληπιόν.
The phrase μέγα φέγγος (great light) is a striking metaphorical designation for Asclepius, the god of healing. In the context of Aristophanes' comedy, this metaphor operates on two levels: literally, it alludes to the god's role in dispelling the darkness of disease and ignorance, but more pointedly, it likely functions as a satirical allusion to the god's actual cultic status or perhaps to the 'light' of wealth (the play's protagonist) that the character Chremylus is seeking. The use of φέγγος for a deity is rare in this direct appositional form, distinguishing it from more common epithets like 'son of Apollo' or 'healer,' and invites a reading where the god is conceptualized as a source of illumination rather than merely a divine agent of restoration.
κλέπτων δὲ τοὺς βλέποντας ὑπερηκόντικεν·
The verb ὑπερηκόντικεν (aorist active indicative 3rd sg. of ὑπερηκοντίζω) is a hapax legomenon in the surviving corpus of Aristophanes and one of the few attested instances of this verb in all of Greek literature. The compound ὑπερηκοντίζω (to steal from a distance, or metaphorically 'to swindle from afar') is formed on the root ἠκοντίζω (to hit, strike, or shoot), with the prefix ὑπερ- suggesting an action performed beyond the usual reach. In this context, it creates a vivid comic image of Wealth (Πλοῦτος) stealing from the sighted not through proximity, but by some metaphorical or magical distance, playing on the irony that the blind are now seeing and the sighted are being robbed. The usage here is uniquely Aristophanic in its lexical invention and semantic play.
ὀδὰξ ἐλαβόμην ὡς παρείας ὢν ὄφις.
The phrase ὡς παρείας ὢν ὄφις is a vivid metaphor comparing the speaker's deceptive, stealthy approach to that of a snake. The adjective παρείας (meaning 'on the side' or 'sideways') is rare in this specific context and likely refers to the snake's lateral movement or its tendency to strike from an unexpected angle, underscoring the duplicity of the speaker's actions. This construction highlights Aristophanes' use of animal imagery to critique human behavior, a recurring motif in his comedies.
κἀγὼ τότʼ ἤδη τῆς ἀθάρης πολλὴν ἔφλων·
The verb φλῶ (present participle φλῶν) is a rare and dialectally marked form of φλύω, meaning 'to be drunk' or 'to be intoxicated.' While φλύω is the standard Attic form, Aristophanes frequently employs comic archaisms and dialectal variations for metrical or humorous effect. Here, the use of φλῶ (likely an Ionic or Doric variant, or a deliberate comic distortion) alongside the adverbial phrase τῆς ἀθάρης (a hapax legomenon or rare compound meaning 'of the unbridled' or 'of the reckless') creates a vivid, colloquial image of the character's state. The construction itself is straightforward, but the lexical choice is significant for understanding the comic tone and the character's self-deprecating admission of drunkenness.
ὑπηρυθρίασε χἠ Πανάκειʼ ἀπεστράφη
The verb ὑπηρυθρίασε (from ὑπερυθριάζω) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes and extremely rare in extant literature, denoting a sudden blushing or flushing of the face, often with connotations of shame or embarrassment. Here, the personification of Panakeia (the goddess of universal healing) as blushing creates a moment of dramatic irony: the very deity who heals all ailments is shown to be susceptible to the social shame of being exposed as ineffective or complicit in the play's central deception. This lexical rarity and the specific personification device highlight the comic inversion of divine authority.
ἔπειτα παῖς αὐτῷ λίθινον θυείδιον
The phrase λίθινον θυείδιον presents a rare and specific lexical collocation. While λίθινος (stone) is common, θυείδιον (a small altar of thyme or thyme-covered) is extremely scarce in extant literature, appearing almost exclusively in this passage of Aristophanes. The adjective θυείδιος, derived from θυέλη (a thyme bush) or θυμός (thyme), denotes an altar specifically associated with the scent of thyme, a detail likely functioning as a comic hyperbole or a precise reference to a rustic, perhaps even shabby, domestic cult object, contrasting with the grander altars of the polis. The construction λίθινον θυείδιον (adjective-adjective) modifying an implied ἔρμα or similar noun for 'statue' or 'object' is syntactically compressed, relying on the audience to supply the omitted noun, a feature typical of Aristophanic elision for metrical or comic effect.
ἐν τῇ θυείᾳ συμπαραμιγνύων ὀπὸν
The verb συμπαραμιγνύων (present participle of συμπιμνύμι/συμμιγνύμι) denotes the physical act of mixing or blending, here specifically the adulteration of wine. In the context of Aristophanic comedy and the social history of symposia, this construction is significant as it alludes to the common practice of adding substances like opium (ὀπὸν) or henbane to wine to induce intoxication or stupefaction, a detail that underscores the play's thematic focus on the corruption of social rituals and the literal 'blindness' of wealth (Χρυσός/Plutus) to moral distinctions. The use of the present participle here suggests a habitual or ongoing action characteristic of the character's role as a mixer of drinks, rather than a singular event.
εὐαγγέλιά σε κριβανωτῶν ὁρμαθῷ
The noun ὁρμαθῷ is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, occurring only here in the extant corpus. It is a dative of means or instrument ("with the rope of the bakers' news"), forming a rare and striking compound metaphor with εὐαγγέλια (good tidings) and κριβανωτῶν (of the bakers/bakers' ovens). The word itself is etymologically linked to ὁρμάω (to start, rush) or perhaps ὁρμή (impetus), but in this specific context, it is almost certainly a comic coinage referring to a rope used to drag a large baking tray (κριβανός) or perhaps the rope of a cart carrying bread, used here to metaphorically describe the sudden, dragging, or noisy delivery of news. The construction relies on the audience's familiarity with the specific apparatus of Athenian bakeries, a detail not universally known even to advanced students, making this a crucial lexical and semantic clarification rather than a standard syntactic observation.
ὥσπερ νεωνήτοισιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐγώ.
The dative plural form νεωνήτοισιν (neōnētoisin) is a rare Doric dialectal variant of the Attic νεανίαις (neaniais, 'to young men') or more likely a dialectal rendering of νεωτερίστοις (neōteristois, 'to the newly initiated'), though in this context it functions as a specific reference to the 'newly initiated' (neōtoi) in the Eleusinian Mysteries. Aristophanes often exploits dialectal variation for comic effect, and here the Doric form may signal a specific social or ritual register, contrasting with the expected Attic phrasing for 'fresh eyes' or 'newly opened eyes.' The phrase alludes to the disorientation of initiates seeing the sacred objects for the first time, a metaphor for Chremylus's sudden enlightenment in the play.
πρώτιστα καὶ βλέψαντος οὐδὲν ἐκφέρειν
The construction βλέψαντος οὐδὲν ἐκφέρειν presents a rare and syntactically compressed usage of the aorist participle βλέψαντος (from βλέπω) governing an infinitive phrase. While the participle typically denotes a temporal or causal circumstance ('having looked'), here it functions in a conditional sense ('if he should look') with the negative οὐδὲν (nothing) implying a result that fails to materialize. This elliptical construction, where the participle stands in for a conditional clause without an explicit conditional particle or verb, is characteristic of Aristophanic colloquialism and requires the reader to infer the conditional relationship from context rather than explicit morphology.
μύρου γέμουσι, τὸ δʼ ὑπερῷον ἰσχάδων.
The noun ἰσχάδων (genitive plural of ἰσχάς) is a rare and specifically comic term for 'fish' or 'small fry', often implying refuse or cheap food. Its use here creates a stark, grotesque contrast with μύρου (perfume) and highlights the satirical inversion of domestic expectations: the house is filled with the scent of luxury, yet the upper room (the private, intimate space) is stocked with the stench of fish guts or scraps, suggesting a household where appearance is meticulously maintained while reality is squalid.
μῶν οὖν ἐμυήθης δῆτʼ ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ μεγάλα;
The perfect middle indicative ἐμυήθης (from μυέω) is here used in a transferred sense of 'became initiated' or 'was inducted' into a secret, rather than the standard ritual sense of initiation into the Eleusinian or Orphic mysteries. The adverb δῆτʼ adds a tone of incredulous surprise, implying that the speaker finds it astonishing the addressee has undergone such a profound, secret transformation in the very person present. This usage reflects the comedic exploitation of mystery-religion terminology to describe the transformative effect of the god Wealth on the blind man, a recurring motif in the play where 'initiation' parallels the restoration of sight and wealth.
διὰ τὸν θεὸν τοῦτον, τὸν ἐσόμενον τυφλὸν
The phrase τοῦτον ... τυφλὸν relies on the future participle ἐσόμενον ('about to be' or 'coming to be') to describe a deity whose blindness is not yet actual but prophesied or destined. In the context of Aristophanes' *Plutus*, this anticipates the plot's central reversal: the god of Wealth (Plutus) is currently blind, causing the current disorder of the world, but the play's resolution involves his healing. The use of the future participle here, rather than the present participle (ὄντα) or an adjective (τυφλός), creates a specific temporal irony, marking the god in his current state of ignorance as one who is 'to become' blind (or, depending on the precise moment of the utterance in the play's progression, perhaps referring to the prophecy of his future condition if the line precedes the blinding, or more likely, highlighting the paradoxical nature of the god's identity as one defined by a future state of defect). However, the most critical grammatical point is the construction of the future participle with the article to denote a characteristic or destiny rather than a simple immediate future action, a usage that requires careful parsing to distinguish from a standard temporal clause.
† ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔνεστι συκοφάντου δήγματος.†
The sentence is marked with daggers (†) in the critical apparatus, indicating that it is widely regarded as a spurious interpolation by modern editors. The line is absent from the best manuscripts (such as the 14th-century Parisinus 2713) and appears only in later, less reliable witnesses. Its inclusion likely stems from a marginal gloss explaining the preceding context that was erroneously incorporated into the main text by a scribe. The syntax itself is grammatically sound, but the textual history renders the line a crux of authenticity rather than an authentic Aristophanic utterance.
ἐκέλευσεν ἂν τῇ μητρί θʼ ἱματίδιον·
The particle ἂν here marks the apodosis of a conditional sentence, implying that the protasis has been elided from the preceding context. In the immediate dramatic context, this is not a hypothetical but a rhetorical device (oratio obliqua within a reported speech) where the speaker (Charon) describes what the god would do if the specific circumstances of the scene allowed it. The construction highlights the speaker's irony: the god is commanding a gift that, in the reality of the play's satire, he is incapable of granting effectively.
διὰ δακτυλίου μὲν οὖν ἔμεγʼ ἂν διελκύσαις.
The phrase διὰ δακτυλίου is a specific idiom for 'through a ring' (i.e., using a signet ring to stamp or authenticate a transaction or letter), functioning here as a metaphor for a trivial or easily manipulated means of control. While the idiom itself is known, its application in this context—where the character suggests he could be dragged out of poverty or a situation by such a minor token—highlights the satirical critique of how easily social status and wealth could be altered by bureaucratic or legal formalities in Athens. The construction διελκύσαις (aorist active subjunctive of διελκύω) with the preposition διὰ emphasizes the instrumentality of the ring as the means of extraction.
εἰ τυγχάνοι γʼ ὁ δακτύλιος ὢν τηλία.
The verb τυγχάνω, when followed by a participle (ὢν), typically denotes coincidence or chance occurrence ('happen to be'), but in the context of Aristophanic comedy, particularly in a passage concerning the god Wealth (Πλοῦτος), the phrase 'if the ring happens to be a talisman' (τηλία) likely plays on a specific folkloric or magical belief regarding the protective or luck-bringing properties of rings, possibly alluding to the story of Gyges or a specific local custom regarding rings as amulets (ἀμύλακες). The use of the optative (τυγχάνοι) with the particle γʼ suggests a hypothetical scenario that the speaker hopes will materialize, reflecting the play's broader theme of divine intervention or the capricious nature of fate in human affairs.
ὥσπερ παλαιὰν εἰρεσιώνην καύσεται.
The noun εἰρεσιώνη (ireisionē) refers specifically to the 'ship of the state'—the sacred vessel used for the annual pilgrimage to Delos. In this context, Aristophanes employs a metaphorical 'crux' where the verb καύσεται ('will burn') is applied to this ship. While the ship itself is not literally on fire, the phrase functions as a biting political allusion: just as a ship's timber is consumed by fire, the state (or its administration) is being consumed by the 'fire' of Chremylus's new wealth or the corruption of the old order. The rarity lies in the specific application of 'burning' to the state-ship, transforming a standard metaphor of renewal or destruction into a specific critique of the Athenian political machine, which the audience would recognize as the ship commanded by the 'pilot' (the statesman).
Ἑρμῆν παλιγκάπηλον ἡμᾶς δεῖ τρέφειν;
The compound adjective παλιγκάπηλος (paligkápēlos) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, appearing only here in the surviving corpus. It is a rare formation combining παλίν ('again' or 'back') with κάπηλος ('huckster' or 'retailer'), effectively meaning 'a huckster who turns back' or 'a double-dealing merchant.' In this context, Chremylus uses it to describe Hermes not merely as a liar, but as a figure who repeatedly reverses his stance or deals in falsehoods, reflecting the play's central theme of economic instability and the capricious nature of divine favor. The term's novelty here underscores the satirical intensity of the accusation against the god.