Aristophanes Wealth 850

ed. Eugene O'Neill, Jr.

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Wealth. Aristophanes. ed. Eugene O'Neill, Jr.. New York. 1938.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Current edition Experimental

Wealth (OCR draft) (English) (English (Anonymous; 1938 compilation). Migrated from Perseus legacy XML; source wording and notes retained. See TEI header and migration inventory.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (1)
Πλοῦτος Perseus (Aristophanes. Aristophanis Comoediae, Vol. 2. Hall, F. W. and Geldart, William M., editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.) — 850 focus
Translations (1)
English (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) Experimental (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) — 850 focus

Commentary

Commentary (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) focus

858. mvp-tlg0019-tlg011-sanjaya-com-eng1-25

Line 858

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.

885. mvp-tlg0019-tlg011-sanjaya-com-eng1-26

Line 885

† 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.