What do you think?
Rate this book
Plutus
The story of 'Plutus' concerns Chremylus, a poor but just man, who accompanied by his body-servant Cario, consults the Delphic Oracle concerning his son, whether he ought not to be instructed in injustice and knavery and the other arts whereby worldly men acquire riches. By way of answer the god only tells him that he is to follow whomsoever he first meets upon leaving the temple, who proves to be a blind and ragged old man.
84 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 381
3 people are currently reading
484 people want to read
About the author
Aristophanes
1,960 books715 followersAristophanes (Greek: Αριστοφάνης; c. 446 – c. 386 BC) was an Ancient Greek comic playwright from Athens and a poet of Old Attic Comedy. He wrote in total forty plays, of which eleven survive virtually complete today. These provide the most valuable examples of a genre of comic drama known as Old Comedy and are used to define it, along with fragments from dozens of lost plays by Aristophanes and his contemporaries.
Also known as "The Father of Comedy" and "the Prince of Ancient Comedy", Aristophanes has been said to recreate the life of ancient Athens more convincingly than any other author. His powers of ridicule were feared and acknowledged by influential contemporaries; Plato singled out Aristophanes' play The Clouds as slander that contributed to the trial and subsequent condemning to death of Socrates, although other satirical playwrights had also caricatured the philosopher.
Aristophanes' second play, The Babylonians (now lost), was denounced by Cleon as a slander against the Athenian polis. It is possible that the case was argued in court, but details of the trial are not recorded and Aristophanes caricatured Cleon mercilessly in his subsequent plays, especially The Knights, the first of many plays that he directed himself. "In my opinion," he says through that play's Chorus, "the author-director of comedies has the hardest job of all."
Also known as "The Father of Comedy" and "the Prince of Ancient Comedy", Aristophanes has been said to recreate the life of ancient Athens more convincingly than any other author. His powers of ridicule were feared and acknowledged by influential contemporaries; Plato singled out Aristophanes' play The Clouds as slander that contributed to the trial and subsequent condemning to death of Socrates, although other satirical playwrights had also caricatured the philosopher.
Aristophanes' second play, The Babylonians (now lost), was denounced by Cleon as a slander against the Athenian polis. It is possible that the case was argued in court, but details of the trial are not recorded and Aristophanes caricatured Cleon mercilessly in his subsequent plays, especially The Knights, the first of many plays that he directed himself. "In my opinion," he says through that play's Chorus, "the author-director of comedies has the hardest job of all."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
February 17, 2025
Plutus is a humorous critique of wealth and morality in society. The story follows Chremylos, a poor but honest Athenian, as he meets Plutus, the blind, personified god of wealth. Chremylos believes that if Plutus could see, wealth would finally go to the deserving rather than the corrupt, reflecting a common desire for justice. His plan sets off a chain of events that explore what happens when money is redistributed. Notably, the play doesn't shy away from earthy humor, including several fart jokes.
A key part of the play is the debate between Chremylos and Penia, the personified goddess of poverty. Penia argues that poverty motivates hard work and innovation, suggesting that without need, society might become stagnant. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument. But, Chremylos has lived in poverty all his life, and he's smart enough not to romanticize it. While poverty and wealth are relative terms, most people would appreciate a comfortable lifestyle without constant struggle and stress, with many opportunities for improvement. Even though the majority might opt out of actively pursuing those opportunities, enough people do, and we observe tremendous societal advancements over millennia.
On a side note, Chremylos's actions, particularly his redistribution of wealth within his community, mirror ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville. By pursuing his own interest in gaining wealth, Chremylos inadvertently benefits his community, aligning with Tocqueville's concept of "self-interest rightly understood," where personal gain leads to the common good. It's important to note that this parallel is interpretative, as Aristophanes' work predates Tocqueville's by centuries.
However, Penia's argument can be challenged by the social position of European peasants during the Middle Ages. During that era, the peasants despite facing significant poverty, rarely experienced upward mobility or substantial improvements in their living conditions due to the constraints of feudalism. Aristophanes lived in democratic Athens, a society that, despite its many differences from the democracy Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the United States, shared certain features that fostered innovation, entrepreneurship, and social mobility. Thus, Penia's argument is valid if the political and social framework promotes innovation like that of classical Athens.
Plutus also critiques how prosperity changes religious devotion. Before gaining wealth, people relied on the gods, praying for better fortunes. But once they're secure, their faith dwindled. Aristophanes suggests that religion for many is a matter of necessity rather than true devotion. This change reflects how prosperity can alter values and priorities.
Moreover, Plutus is a commentary on the societal issues of Aristophanes' time. He was writing in a time when Athens was struggling economically after the loss of the Peloponnesian War. The play highlights how wealth often ends up with the undeserving, leading to social decay. Corruption and the mismanagement of wealth can weaken a society, and this theme was relevant in ancient Athens as it is today.
Chremylos's plan speaks to a desire for fairness in a society that had become deeply unequal. Aristophanes leaves us with an important takeaway: wealth isn't inherently good or bad, but its concentration in the hands of the undeserving it can be devastating to society.
A key part of the play is the debate between Chremylos and Penia, the personified goddess of poverty. Penia argues that poverty motivates hard work and innovation, suggesting that without need, society might become stagnant. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument. But, Chremylos has lived in poverty all his life, and he's smart enough not to romanticize it. While poverty and wealth are relative terms, most people would appreciate a comfortable lifestyle without constant struggle and stress, with many opportunities for improvement. Even though the majority might opt out of actively pursuing those opportunities, enough people do, and we observe tremendous societal advancements over millennia.
On a side note, Chremylos's actions, particularly his redistribution of wealth within his community, mirror ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville. By pursuing his own interest in gaining wealth, Chremylos inadvertently benefits his community, aligning with Tocqueville's concept of "self-interest rightly understood," where personal gain leads to the common good. It's important to note that this parallel is interpretative, as Aristophanes' work predates Tocqueville's by centuries.
However, Penia's argument can be challenged by the social position of European peasants during the Middle Ages. During that era, the peasants despite facing significant poverty, rarely experienced upward mobility or substantial improvements in their living conditions due to the constraints of feudalism. Aristophanes lived in democratic Athens, a society that, despite its many differences from the democracy Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the United States, shared certain features that fostered innovation, entrepreneurship, and social mobility. Thus, Penia's argument is valid if the political and social framework promotes innovation like that of classical Athens.
Plutus also critiques how prosperity changes religious devotion. Before gaining wealth, people relied on the gods, praying for better fortunes. But once they're secure, their faith dwindled. Aristophanes suggests that religion for many is a matter of necessity rather than true devotion. This change reflects how prosperity can alter values and priorities.
Moreover, Plutus is a commentary on the societal issues of Aristophanes' time. He was writing in a time when Athens was struggling economically after the loss of the Peloponnesian War. The play highlights how wealth often ends up with the undeserving, leading to social decay. Corruption and the mismanagement of wealth can weaken a society, and this theme was relevant in ancient Athens as it is today.
Chremylos's plan speaks to a desire for fairness in a society that had become deeply unequal. Aristophanes leaves us with an important takeaway: wealth isn't inherently good or bad, but its concentration in the hands of the undeserving it can be devastating to society.
July 27, 2018
Servetin mutluluktan çok mutsuzluk getirdiğini mizahı bir dille oyun olarak sunan "Ploutos (Servet)", Aristophanes’in zamanına göre ne kadar yaratıcı olduğunu bir kez daha okuyucuya sunan eğlenceli bir komedya. Her ne kadar diğer eserleri kadar güçlü bir alt metin ortaya koyamasa da servetin yol açtığı sorunları oldukça güzel bir şekilde özetlemesini biliyor. Yoksulluk sebebiyle servetin değerinin ortaya çıktığının altını çizen oyunda herkesin bir anda zengin olmasıyla her şey kötüye gidiyor. Servet tanrısının Hades ile özdeşleştirilmesi ve kör bir şekilde resmedilmesi yazarın ne kadar zeki olduğunu ortaya koyan oyuna mutlaka bir göz atın derim. Notum: 3.5/5.
29.05.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
29.05.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
September 13, 2022
The first act of this play deserves a five-star review. The second half doesn't, which is sad, but it's still a great play overall.
Zeus made Wealth blind. That's because Wealth wanted to go only to those who were virtuous and ignore those who were vicious. Being blind, he couldn't discriminate. Athens is in a bad place financially, and so some Athenians decide to go get Wealth and restore his eyesight, so he can go to those who need him (i.e., specifically the Athenian main characters). The first act demonstrates the characters' efforts to make this happen, and their argument with Poverty, who talks about all of the good things that she provides. This part is the highlight of the play. The second act is a lot less memorable: characters talk about the good and the bad of having so much wealth, with the unexpected arrivals of many visitors, as one can expect from Aristophanes. This second half just lacked all of the charm and the fun of the first act, and it felt like a typical paint-by-colors Aristophanic outing -- in a generic, not a great, way.
Zeus made Wealth blind. That's because Wealth wanted to go only to those who were virtuous and ignore those who were vicious. Being blind, he couldn't discriminate. Athens is in a bad place financially, and so some Athenians decide to go get Wealth and restore his eyesight, so he can go to those who need him (i.e., specifically the Athenian main characters). The first act demonstrates the characters' efforts to make this happen, and their argument with Poverty, who talks about all of the good things that she provides. This part is the highlight of the play. The second act is a lot less memorable: characters talk about the good and the bad of having so much wealth, with the unexpected arrivals of many visitors, as one can expect from Aristophanes. This second half just lacked all of the charm and the fun of the first act, and it felt like a typical paint-by-colors Aristophanic outing -- in a generic, not a great, way.
January 8, 2016
Πάντα ήθελα να διαβάσω κείμενο αρχαίας τραγωδίας/κωμωδίας ή γενικά έπους κλπ.
Εκτός από το έπος της Οδύσσειας του Ομήρου, που είχα ήδη διαβάσει και καταενθουσιαστεί είπα να ξεκινήσω με κάτι ελαφρύ.
Τί καλύτερο από Αριστοφάνη!
Ο Πλούτος είναι ένα έργο πολύ μικρούλι σε έκταση, αλλά με αρκετό νόημα.
Μου άρεσε πολύ η γραφή και γέλασα αρκετά με τις ατάκες, αλλά αυτό που μου άρεσε πολύ ήταν πως αυτό το έργο μπορεί να διαβαστεί και από παιδιά.
Ανυπομονώ να συνεχίζω με άλλα έργα του ιδίου!!!
Εκτός από το έπος της Οδύσσειας του Ομήρου, που είχα ήδη διαβάσει και καταενθουσιαστεί είπα να ξεκινήσω με κάτι ελαφρύ.
Τί καλύτερο από Αριστοφάνη!
Ο Πλούτος είναι ένα έργο πολύ μικρούλι σε έκταση, αλλά με αρκετό νόημα.
Μου άρεσε πολύ η γραφή και γέλασα αρκετά με τις ατάκες, αλλά αυτό που μου άρεσε πολύ ήταν πως αυτό το έργο μπορεί να διαβαστεί και από παιδιά.
Ανυπομονώ να συνεχίζω με άλλα έργα του ιδίου!!!
June 3, 2019
Compared to some of his other plays, unfunny
(That’s unsurprising, given the main theme’s money);
Still, there were some passages worth a stich,
Like when Poverty tells what happens if all were rich.
(That’s unsurprising, given the main theme’s money);
Still, there were some passages worth a stich,
Like when Poverty tells what happens if all were rich.
February 12, 2019
آریستوفانس یکی از موضوعاتی را که در "زنان در اکلزیا" مطرح کرده بود، یعنی برابری ثروت رو در جامعه و تاثیرش روی اقشار مختلف و سیاست کلی حکومت، در نمایشنامه پلوتوس تم اصلی میکنه و به این وسیله بیشتر بسط میده.
در این بسط دادن، جالب توجه ترین نکته ای که به نظرم اومد، آخرین صحنه نمایشنامه بود که هرمس، بعد از ثروتمند شدن تمامی مردم فقیر به در خانه پلوتوس، خدای ثروت، میاد و از فقر و گرسنگی که گریبان گیر خدایان المپ و در صدرشون زئوس شده، شکایت میکنه. فقر و گرسنگی خدایان ناشی از اینه که بعد از نابودی فقر تو جامعه دیگه کسی به خدایان پیشکشی عرضه نمیکنه و خدا بودن دیگه سودی نداره و خود هرمس هم تصمیم میگیره به جای زندگی در المپ و پانتئون خدایان، شغل خدمتکاری رو انتخاب کنه. هرمس تا حدی خوار و ذلیل شده که خدمتکار خانه ای متعلق به یک فرد میرا در حواب گدایی خدایی گرسنه بهش میگه: "خدا هستی که هستی، برو به جهنم"
در این بسط دادن، جالب توجه ترین نکته ای که به نظرم اومد، آخرین صحنه نمایشنامه بود که هرمس، بعد از ثروتمند شدن تمامی مردم فقیر به در خانه پلوتوس، خدای ثروت، میاد و از فقر و گرسنگی که گریبان گیر خدایان المپ و در صدرشون زئوس شده، شکایت میکنه. فقر و گرسنگی خدایان ناشی از اینه که بعد از نابودی فقر تو جامعه دیگه کسی به خدایان پیشکشی عرضه نمیکنه و خدا بودن دیگه سودی نداره و خود هرمس هم تصمیم میگیره به جای زندگی در المپ و پانتئون خدایان، شغل خدمتکاری رو انتخاب کنه. هرمس تا حدی خوار و ذلیل شده که خدمتکار خانه ای متعلق به یک فرد میرا در حواب گدایی خدایی گرسنه بهش میگه: "خدا هستی که هستی، برو به جهنم"
July 7, 2016
Καλή κωμωδία που, όμως, δεν έχει την δύναμη άλλων κωμωδιών του. Μου άρεσαν ιδιαίτερα οι ιδέες του για την διαφθορά του ανθρώπου από τα πλούτη και για το πόσο απαραίτητη είναι η Φτώχεια (το να πασχίζει δηλαδή κανείς για την ζωή του και να μην επαναπαύεται στα πλούτη) για την κοινωνία. Υποψιάζομαι βέβαια πως ο «Δίκαιος ἀνήρ» του έργου σύντομα θα είναι σαν τον «συκοφάντην»...
June 24, 2018
Aristophanes antik çağda,insanların parayala olan ilişkisi üzerinden çok zekice bir oyun yazmış.
Günümüzde hala geçerli konular olması sanatçının ne kadar evrensel olduğunun göstergesi
Günümüzde hala geçerli konular olması sanatçının ne kadar evrensel olduğunun göstergesi
November 5, 2022
A satire on greed and wealth. Or is Poverty right?
Read
November 18, 2018En la larga tradición literaria de Occidente, se han extendido y brotado de la personalidad de los hombres dedicados a la reflexión, por debajo del nivel de la expresión articulada y consciente de los discursos intelectuales, dos actitudes antagónicas al respecto de lo que desde la contemporaneidad se ha llamado pensamiento social, una modalidad que modernamente se practicó en la llamada literatura utópica, y que no deja de estar presente en la Antigüedad como demuestra una obra cual Pluto. De esa doble visión, que de manera simplista podríamos categorizar como la del optimismo-pesimismo ante el rumbo de la sociedad humana, como decimos, se desprenden dos actitudes filosóficas contrarias: el utopismo, como una fe unívoca en el hombre y su perfectibilidad, y el realismo, abismado ante la impotencia de la voluntad humana para reformar los vicios considerados como universales y atemporales.
La obra de Aristófanes contiene una virtud añadida, pues no sólo nos ofrece un paradigma ideológico (y ahí reside su clasicismo) sobre la problemática del hombre en la constitución de sociedades, sino que, además, a través de los personajes de Pluto y Penia, encarna los dos modos tradicionales de percibir la cuestión social. El ideal de Pluto, subsidiariamente expuesto por Crémilo y Carión, es proclive a una tabula rasa igualitaria que haga depender la riqueza de la justicia, un ideal que el realismo pragmatista de Penia echa por tierra como antinatural y pernicioso para el mantenimiento de los equilibrios internos que aseguran la estabilidad de la sociedad política. Podríamos asociar la postura moralista de Pluto a la escuela platónica, mientras que Penia, con su defensa de la pobreza como fundamento de la aristocracia, nos recuerda a un conservadurismo social de corte aristotélico. Es quizá, en la confrontación entre las divinidades de la riqueza y la pobreza, encarnadas en los susodichos dioses, donde la modernidad de esta comedia alcanza sus mayores cotas en términos de prospección visionaria y, también, de fuerza alegórica.
Mientras que la empresa (auspiciada por Crémilo) de Pluto podría asimilarse a un ideal económico intervencionista, Penia representa los intereses de una economía liberal, temerosa de cualquier tipo de injerencia político-estatal. En este sentido, la ceguera de Pluto podría cobrar una dimensión metafórica del poder económico sobre el político o viceversa: así, la riqueza ciega representaría la libre circulación del capital, sin cortapisas, mientras que la recuperación de la vista del dios sería el símil de un control racional o planificador de la economía. La postura de Aristófanes no queda clara y juega a ser ambivalente, no concediendo razón a ninguna de las partes, si bien es cierto que la presentación de los argumentos de Penia parece estar más dotada de madurez, y los de Pluto cargados de infantil adanismo, también es cierto que el argumentario “pobrista” se sirve de construcciones sofistas para imponerse a los de su adversario. De algún modo, Aristófanes adjudica a Pluto la posesión de la verdad, mientras que a Penia le concede la sabiduría. Verdad y sabiduría quedan, así, divorciadas en un Aristófanes que revela a lo largo de la obra tanto un profundo desencanto por el hombre como desarraigo por el devenir de Atenas. Lo único que deja claro sin ambages es que, como sentencia Blepsidemo en un momento de la obra, todo el mundo se deja vencer por el afán de lucro.
Pluto es, en fin, una comedia menor y postrera de Aristófanes que, pese a no disfrutar de una crítica literaria especialmente positiva, posee una gran vigencia temática, como demuestran las adaptaciones de que esta ha sido objeto en el panorama teatral reciente. En ella se presenta una sátira feroz del proceso de decadencia política, social y religiosa vivido en una Atenas en franco declive institucional. Pese a la tentación moralista que una situación así podría estimular, Aristófanes se limita a retratar desde la distancia y la amargura que proporcionan una edad proterva, la caída en desgracia de la religión tradicional, de las virtudes ciudadanas elevadas a canon patriótico por Pericles y de la corrupción como un mal que alcanza todas las esferas.
El tratamiento de lo religioso, asunto crucial en la obra como espejo de la salud social, roza el ateísmo en un contexto general de irreverencia por los dogmas. Aristófanes hace humor a costa de Zeus, que se presenta como un dios desprestigiado, al contrario que otros de segunda fila que ganan relevancia junto con la proliferación de cultos fragmentarios caracterizados por el individualismo y la relación más directa entre los sujetos y los númenes (desmoronamiento, por tanto, de la religión patriótica, comunitariamente vivida, coincidiendo con la posición degradada de Atenas en la geopolítica helénica).
La idea principal de la obra es que el imperio del dinero gobierna sobre todas las cosas, un imperio al que no escapa ni la religión misma, llegándose a afirmar que, con la extensión de la riqueza promocionada por Pluto, los templos quedan vacíos y los dioses dejan de ser adorados. Esos mismos dioses, como se aprecia en el caso de Hermes, están dispuestos a corromperse con tal de salvaguardar su status, máximo ejemplo de cómo la religión queda supeditada al dinero, pero, sobre todo, del poder absoluto del dinero, que es capaz de algo tan aparentemente imposible como igualar a dioses y hombres, como apreciamos en la transformación de Hermes, un personaje que ilustra también de manera elocuente la facilidad con que las buenas intenciones pueden desaparecer cuando entra en juego el mercadeo y la posibilidad de lucro.
Aristófanes, sin embargo, no ofrece soluciones satisfactorias a los problemas planteados. De hecho, por su final, puede considerarse la obra como inconclusa. Más allá de la descripción que realiza del ambiente y los usos sociales, y de su visión pesimista del presente, hay un problema moral que es el que desencadena el argumento de la obra en el que, sin embargo, no se profundiza: el de si la virtud, la inteligencia y la honradez son cualidades beneficiosas para el éxito o, más bien, si son lastres para su consecución. Pese a sus deficiencias literarias, de estructura, pese a sus fisuras argumentales, podemos concluir que esta obra nos ofrece un buen retablo de la situación histórico-religiosa desde la cual Aristófanes escribe, además de tocar cuestiones tan contemporáneas como lo son la lucha de clases, la corrupción política, los sistemas religiosos como éticas mercantiles o como opios populares (encontramos una prefiguración en Pluto de la célebre concepción marxista de la religión), el populismo social (Pluto, Crémilo), la plutocracia (Penia), los privilegios de las castas y el resentimiento de los excluidos, el problema del campo y la ciudad (simbolizado por los labradores honrados) o el conflicto permanente de intereses en el seno de la sociedad humana, como representa la más proverbial sentencia de la obra, puesta en boca de Crémilo: no me convencerás aunque me convenzas.
Reseña a petición de Manuel Rodríguez Gervás, catedrático de Historia Antigua.
La obra de Aristófanes contiene una virtud añadida, pues no sólo nos ofrece un paradigma ideológico (y ahí reside su clasicismo) sobre la problemática del hombre en la constitución de sociedades, sino que, además, a través de los personajes de Pluto y Penia, encarna los dos modos tradicionales de percibir la cuestión social. El ideal de Pluto, subsidiariamente expuesto por Crémilo y Carión, es proclive a una tabula rasa igualitaria que haga depender la riqueza de la justicia, un ideal que el realismo pragmatista de Penia echa por tierra como antinatural y pernicioso para el mantenimiento de los equilibrios internos que aseguran la estabilidad de la sociedad política. Podríamos asociar la postura moralista de Pluto a la escuela platónica, mientras que Penia, con su defensa de la pobreza como fundamento de la aristocracia, nos recuerda a un conservadurismo social de corte aristotélico. Es quizá, en la confrontación entre las divinidades de la riqueza y la pobreza, encarnadas en los susodichos dioses, donde la modernidad de esta comedia alcanza sus mayores cotas en términos de prospección visionaria y, también, de fuerza alegórica.
Mientras que la empresa (auspiciada por Crémilo) de Pluto podría asimilarse a un ideal económico intervencionista, Penia representa los intereses de una economía liberal, temerosa de cualquier tipo de injerencia político-estatal. En este sentido, la ceguera de Pluto podría cobrar una dimensión metafórica del poder económico sobre el político o viceversa: así, la riqueza ciega representaría la libre circulación del capital, sin cortapisas, mientras que la recuperación de la vista del dios sería el símil de un control racional o planificador de la economía. La postura de Aristófanes no queda clara y juega a ser ambivalente, no concediendo razón a ninguna de las partes, si bien es cierto que la presentación de los argumentos de Penia parece estar más dotada de madurez, y los de Pluto cargados de infantil adanismo, también es cierto que el argumentario “pobrista” se sirve de construcciones sofistas para imponerse a los de su adversario. De algún modo, Aristófanes adjudica a Pluto la posesión de la verdad, mientras que a Penia le concede la sabiduría. Verdad y sabiduría quedan, así, divorciadas en un Aristófanes que revela a lo largo de la obra tanto un profundo desencanto por el hombre como desarraigo por el devenir de Atenas. Lo único que deja claro sin ambages es que, como sentencia Blepsidemo en un momento de la obra, todo el mundo se deja vencer por el afán de lucro.
Pluto es, en fin, una comedia menor y postrera de Aristófanes que, pese a no disfrutar de una crítica literaria especialmente positiva, posee una gran vigencia temática, como demuestran las adaptaciones de que esta ha sido objeto en el panorama teatral reciente. En ella se presenta una sátira feroz del proceso de decadencia política, social y religiosa vivido en una Atenas en franco declive institucional. Pese a la tentación moralista que una situación así podría estimular, Aristófanes se limita a retratar desde la distancia y la amargura que proporcionan una edad proterva, la caída en desgracia de la religión tradicional, de las virtudes ciudadanas elevadas a canon patriótico por Pericles y de la corrupción como un mal que alcanza todas las esferas.
El tratamiento de lo religioso, asunto crucial en la obra como espejo de la salud social, roza el ateísmo en un contexto general de irreverencia por los dogmas. Aristófanes hace humor a costa de Zeus, que se presenta como un dios desprestigiado, al contrario que otros de segunda fila que ganan relevancia junto con la proliferación de cultos fragmentarios caracterizados por el individualismo y la relación más directa entre los sujetos y los númenes (desmoronamiento, por tanto, de la religión patriótica, comunitariamente vivida, coincidiendo con la posición degradada de Atenas en la geopolítica helénica).
La idea principal de la obra es que el imperio del dinero gobierna sobre todas las cosas, un imperio al que no escapa ni la religión misma, llegándose a afirmar que, con la extensión de la riqueza promocionada por Pluto, los templos quedan vacíos y los dioses dejan de ser adorados. Esos mismos dioses, como se aprecia en el caso de Hermes, están dispuestos a corromperse con tal de salvaguardar su status, máximo ejemplo de cómo la religión queda supeditada al dinero, pero, sobre todo, del poder absoluto del dinero, que es capaz de algo tan aparentemente imposible como igualar a dioses y hombres, como apreciamos en la transformación de Hermes, un personaje que ilustra también de manera elocuente la facilidad con que las buenas intenciones pueden desaparecer cuando entra en juego el mercadeo y la posibilidad de lucro.
Aristófanes, sin embargo, no ofrece soluciones satisfactorias a los problemas planteados. De hecho, por su final, puede considerarse la obra como inconclusa. Más allá de la descripción que realiza del ambiente y los usos sociales, y de su visión pesimista del presente, hay un problema moral que es el que desencadena el argumento de la obra en el que, sin embargo, no se profundiza: el de si la virtud, la inteligencia y la honradez son cualidades beneficiosas para el éxito o, más bien, si son lastres para su consecución. Pese a sus deficiencias literarias, de estructura, pese a sus fisuras argumentales, podemos concluir que esta obra nos ofrece un buen retablo de la situación histórico-religiosa desde la cual Aristófanes escribe, además de tocar cuestiones tan contemporáneas como lo son la lucha de clases, la corrupción política, los sistemas religiosos como éticas mercantiles o como opios populares (encontramos una prefiguración en Pluto de la célebre concepción marxista de la religión), el populismo social (Pluto, Crémilo), la plutocracia (Penia), los privilegios de las castas y el resentimiento de los excluidos, el problema del campo y la ciudad (simbolizado por los labradores honrados) o el conflicto permanente de intereses en el seno de la sociedad humana, como representa la más proverbial sentencia de la obra, puesta en boca de Crémilo: no me convencerás aunque me convenzas.
Reseña a petición de Manuel Rodríguez Gervás, catedrático de Historia Antigua.
December 2, 2021
Jag sökte upp denna baserat på en formulering om Eros som son till Penia (fattigdom) och Porus (rikedom, tillfredsställelse, kreativitet). Det fick mig att vilja förstå teologin kring Penia, och då fanns det en hänvisning hit. Det gör att jag lika mycket läser denna pjäs som ett mysteriespel som en komedi.
Argumentet är sammanfattningsvis att för många fattiga människor är smartare än de med nedärvd rikedom. Aristofanes förklarar det genom att hänvisa till att Plutos är blind, och att Zeus gjorde honom blind eftersom bekvämlighet försämrar människor, vilket skulle göra helheten sämre. Gjordes alla de goda vämående, skulle inte tillräcklig energi för nyskapande eller hantverk finnas. Penia, som var mitt huvudintresse, levererar samma argument som modern entreprenörskapslitteratur: det är bara från en svaghetsposition visavi världen, som man är uppmärksam på att ta möjligheter, och det är bara i den positionen som självkänsla är möjlig.
Argumentet är sammanfattningsvis att för många fattiga människor är smartare än de med nedärvd rikedom. Aristofanes förklarar det genom att hänvisa till att Plutos är blind, och att Zeus gjorde honom blind eftersom bekvämlighet försämrar människor, vilket skulle göra helheten sämre. Gjordes alla de goda vämående, skulle inte tillräcklig energi för nyskapande eller hantverk finnas. Penia, som var mitt huvudintresse, levererar samma argument som modern entreprenörskapslitteratur: det är bara från en svaghetsposition visavi världen, som man är uppmärksam på att ta möjligheter, och det är bara i den positionen som självkänsla är möjlig.
September 25, 2020
Puanım 5/5 (%90/100)
"Ne zaman Ploutos eskisi gibi görür oldu
ondan beri kimse biz tanrılara ne buhur,
ne defne, ne arpa ekmeği, ne kurban,
ne başka bir şey takdim eder oldu."
Aristophanes MÖ 450-388 yılları arasında yaşadığı düşünülen ünlü Antik Yunan oyun yazarı. Hayatı boyunca yazdığı 40 oyundan sadece 11’i günümüze ulaşmıştır. Eserlerinde genelde kendi yaşadığı kent olan Atina ve oradaki sorunları işlemiştir. Son yazdığı eser olan Ploutos’ta bu üslubundan uzaklaşmış ve daha evrensel bir konuya değinmiştir. Kıvrak dili ile Komedyanın ileri gelen isimlerindendir. Platon onun için “Yok olmayacak bir tapınak ararken Kharisler, bulmuşlar Aristophanes’in ruhunu.” demiştir. Kitap bir komedya olduğu için okuması çok zevkli gerçekten. Antik Yunancadan çevrilmesine rağmen kitabın dili oldukça yalın ve başarılı.
Ploutos her ne kadar bir komedya olsa da evrensel bir mesaj verip insanlara ders vermeyi amaçlar. Yaşlı Atina’lı Khremylos ve kölesi Karion karşımıza çıkan önemli karakterlerdir. Khremylos bir gün Delphoi’ya fikir almak için gider. Kehanet onun oradan ayrıldıktan sonra karşısına çıkan ilk adamı takip edip onu evine gelmesine ikna etmesini söyler. Khremylos’un karşılaştığı ilk kişi bir yaşlı adam görünümünde olan Pluotos’tur. Pluotos için Tanrı dense de aslında kendisi Servet’in insanlaştırılmış halidir. Bu yüzden kendisi tanrılardan bile güçlüdür. Kör dilenci olan Pluotos’un görme yetisini tekrar kazandırmak isteyen Khremylos işe koyulur. Yoksulluk’un insanlaştırılmış hali olan Penia gelip onu uyarsa da herkes Pluotos’un tekrar görmesini ister. Pluotos sayesinde tüm fakirler ve köleler zenginleşir fakat eskiden zengin olanlar bu durumdan oldukça pişmandır. Zengin olan insanlar tanrıları unutmaya başlar ve kurbansız kalan tanrılar mağdur olur. Tanrıların elçisi Hermes problemi çözmek için yollanır fakat o da kısa süre sonra Pluotos’un himayesine girer. Aynı şekilde Zeus’un bir rahibi hatta Zeus’un kendisi bile gücü elinde tutan Khremylos’a sığınmak zorunda kalır.
"Ne zaman Ploutos eskisi gibi görür oldu
ondan beri kimse biz tanrılara ne buhur,
ne defne, ne arpa ekmeği, ne kurban,
ne başka bir şey takdim eder oldu."
Aristophanes MÖ 450-388 yılları arasında yaşadığı düşünülen ünlü Antik Yunan oyun yazarı. Hayatı boyunca yazdığı 40 oyundan sadece 11’i günümüze ulaşmıştır. Eserlerinde genelde kendi yaşadığı kent olan Atina ve oradaki sorunları işlemiştir. Son yazdığı eser olan Ploutos’ta bu üslubundan uzaklaşmış ve daha evrensel bir konuya değinmiştir. Kıvrak dili ile Komedyanın ileri gelen isimlerindendir. Platon onun için “Yok olmayacak bir tapınak ararken Kharisler, bulmuşlar Aristophanes’in ruhunu.” demiştir. Kitap bir komedya olduğu için okuması çok zevkli gerçekten. Antik Yunancadan çevrilmesine rağmen kitabın dili oldukça yalın ve başarılı.
Ploutos her ne kadar bir komedya olsa da evrensel bir mesaj verip insanlara ders vermeyi amaçlar. Yaşlı Atina’lı Khremylos ve kölesi Karion karşımıza çıkan önemli karakterlerdir. Khremylos bir gün Delphoi’ya fikir almak için gider. Kehanet onun oradan ayrıldıktan sonra karşısına çıkan ilk adamı takip edip onu evine gelmesine ikna etmesini söyler. Khremylos’un karşılaştığı ilk kişi bir yaşlı adam görünümünde olan Pluotos’tur. Pluotos için Tanrı dense de aslında kendisi Servet’in insanlaştırılmış halidir. Bu yüzden kendisi tanrılardan bile güçlüdür. Kör dilenci olan Pluotos’un görme yetisini tekrar kazandırmak isteyen Khremylos işe koyulur. Yoksulluk’un insanlaştırılmış hali olan Penia gelip onu uyarsa da herkes Pluotos’un tekrar görmesini ister. Pluotos sayesinde tüm fakirler ve köleler zenginleşir fakat eskiden zengin olanlar bu durumdan oldukça pişmandır. Zengin olan insanlar tanrıları unutmaya başlar ve kurbansız kalan tanrılar mağdur olur. Tanrıların elçisi Hermes problemi çözmek için yollanır fakat o da kısa süre sonra Pluotos’un himayesine girer. Aynı şekilde Zeus’un bir rahibi hatta Zeus’un kendisi bile gücü elinde tutan Khremylos’a sığınmak zorunda kalır.
December 27, 2015
So, this is the only evidence we have of Middle Comedy, huh? Well, it's pretty good. Not perfect, but good. It's weird to be a person living in the 21st Century, reading a play centered around such a base character and not thinking much more of it; all while knowing how unusual this was during Aristophanes' time. It wasn't as refined or humorous as Frogs or Lysistrata, but it had an interesting message inside about wealth and what good and bad it can bring to society.
June 2, 2018
delicious :)
February 26, 2023
4.5
This is my favorite play by Aristophanes. Good and interesting premise, fun, short and sweet. Great read!
This is my favorite play by Aristophanes. Good and interesting premise, fun, short and sweet. Great read!
May 27, 2020
Lido pela trad. Stephan Halliwell
June 14, 2024
Discouraged by wealth inequality, Chremylus sets out to cure Plutus (the god of wealth,) of his blindness so that he will distribute wealth more fairly. Miss Poverty tries to stop this, insisting that she too serves a purpose, but it's too late. Only when Plutus is cured of blindness and gives money only to the "deserving" we see that maybe Miss Poverty has a point...
One thing I like about Aristophanes is his insistence on demonstrating his point rather than only explaining it, all while squeezing in as many fart jokes as the imagination allows.
Shoutout to the guy whose only aspiration in life is having a sugar mama.
One thing I like about Aristophanes is his insistence on demonstrating his point rather than only explaining it, all while squeezing in as many fart jokes as the imagination allows.
Shoutout to the guy whose only aspiration in life is having a sugar mama.
February 10, 2017
Here transition from the Old Comedy to the New Comedy is really apparent and it feels like the new elements fail to outweight elements from previous plays now omitted.
On the one hand I am happy to once again read his comedy that does not turn into a pure madness and out of all his works this was the most readable one (but The Birds are the close-second). On the other hand I felt like something was missing here. This play didn't give that feeling of freedom, unbound merryness and nice absurdity like the previous ones.
On the one hand I am happy to once again read his comedy that does not turn into a pure madness and out of all his works this was the most readable one (but The Birds are the close-second). On the other hand I felt like something was missing here. This play didn't give that feeling of freedom, unbound merryness and nice absurdity like the previous ones.
October 28, 2014
Meh. I can't say that this was the best way to finish off my Greek drama project. Plutus is about a man who wants to be wealthy, so he is visited by Wealth himself. I can't say that I can glean that much more from the story, but there is still a lot of that nice Aristophanes-esque wit present.
There isn't much more for me to say about this- I'm not sure that I had that much of an opinion about this play at all.
There isn't much more for me to say about this- I'm not sure that I had that much of an opinion about this play at all.
September 30, 2016
Resultó interesante todo lo relacionado con el dios Pluto, pero considero que decae en cuanto al relato. No percibo la vis cómica de las obras iniciales, los personajes no son tan vigorosos y ni se aprecia tanto la crítica política que caracteriza la obra de Aristófanes. Considero que pudo haber sido más ingenioso. Rescato el agón con la Pobreza: interesante.
Want to read
August 6, 2012Aristophanes
The Complete Plays of Aristophanes
In compilation only.
The Complete Plays of Aristophanes
In compilation only.
July 3, 2014
2.5
Sarà che la commedia non è esattamente il mio genere preferito, sarà che questa era pure un po' assurda specie alla fine, ma Aristofane si becca due stelle.
Sarà che la commedia non è esattamente il mio genere preferito, sarà che questa era pure un po' assurda specie alla fine, ma Aristofane si becca due stelle.
November 11, 2022
A superbly engaging first half that descends into a "I have to get this finished and move on with my life"-type second half. I read the version translated by Alan Sommerstein, titled Wealth.
August 8, 2023
Ο πλούτος είναι τυφλός
August 10, 2021
Plutus by Aristophanes is similar to A Parliament of Women in that it depicts a world turned upside down. The story begins as Chremylus and his servant Cario go to visit the Delphic oracle. Chremylus has a simple question. He wants to know if his son should be instructed in deception and injustice as the method usually used by men acquire riches. The response is rather cryptic. He is told to follow the advice of whomever he meets next. Presently he encounters Plutus, the personified god of riches. (Plutus is the root of our word plutocracy.)
Zeus robbed Plutus of his eyesight so that he can’t distinguish between the just and the unjust and is able to dispense his gifts without prejudice. He is also lame and that’s why he takes his time arriving. Plus, he is winged and therefore often leaves faster than he came.
Chremylus decides to take Plutus to the temple of Aesculapius, the god of medicine, in order to have his eyesight restored. On the way they encounter Penia. (Penia is the root of our word penury.) Chremylus explains his intention to have Plutus’ eyesight restored so that he will be able to determine who is deserving of wealth. Penia engages him in a debate about the relative value of riches. He explains his plan to drive out poverty so equal favors can be distributed to all. Penia maintains that people would quit working because they would have everything they wanted. There would be no more slaves because they could buy their freedom. It would be injustice if the rich were suddenly deprived of their wealth.
They all proceed to the temple of Aesculapius where snakes lick Plutus’ eyes and his sight is restored. Penia’s fears are fulfilled, creating havoc. Hermes comes to say that the gods, especially Zeus, are displeased because people have everything they want and are no longer sacrificing. Undeterred, they go off with the intention to try to replace Zeus with Plutus. The play is inconclusive and stops suddenly.
Departing from many of Aristophanes’ characteristic traits, are the political satire, the bawdy humor and the battle of the sexes. Written late in his life, it is not considered to be among his best.
Zeus robbed Plutus of his eyesight so that he can’t distinguish between the just and the unjust and is able to dispense his gifts without prejudice. He is also lame and that’s why he takes his time arriving. Plus, he is winged and therefore often leaves faster than he came.
Chremylus decides to take Plutus to the temple of Aesculapius, the god of medicine, in order to have his eyesight restored. On the way they encounter Penia. (Penia is the root of our word penury.) Chremylus explains his intention to have Plutus’ eyesight restored so that he will be able to determine who is deserving of wealth. Penia engages him in a debate about the relative value of riches. He explains his plan to drive out poverty so equal favors can be distributed to all. Penia maintains that people would quit working because they would have everything they wanted. There would be no more slaves because they could buy their freedom. It would be injustice if the rich were suddenly deprived of their wealth.
They all proceed to the temple of Aesculapius where snakes lick Plutus’ eyes and his sight is restored. Penia’s fears are fulfilled, creating havoc. Hermes comes to say that the gods, especially Zeus, are displeased because people have everything they want and are no longer sacrificing. Undeterred, they go off with the intention to try to replace Zeus with Plutus. The play is inconclusive and stops suddenly.
Departing from many of Aristophanes’ characteristic traits, are the political satire, the bawdy humor and the battle of the sexes. Written late in his life, it is not considered to be among his best.
March 21, 2025
I didn't like this book as much as the other comedies by Aristophanes.
It's about Plutus, the god of wealth, who is found to be blinded by Zeus.
The first part of the play is the nicest, where Plutus says that he would like to distribute wealth to only those worthy of it, but he can't because he lost his sight. That explains why wealth is distributed so unfairly: "Не лучше ль в жизни стать мошенником, обманщиком? Полезны в жизни, вижу, эти качества."
Next Plutus is taken home by a citizen, Chremylos. There they encounter Penia (poverty). She tells them that poverty is a much more useful goddess than Plutus (wealth). Poverty makes you a good person, makes you hard-working and loving, while wealth makes you lazy and lying.
Eventually Chremylos cures Plutus, and Plutus starts making everyone wealthy.
This leads to "bad" situations. No more offers are brought to the gods as citizens are content with their lives. A young man who used to be a lover of an older women but now that he is financially independent he no longer wants her.
It's about Plutus, the god of wealth, who is found to be blinded by Zeus.
The first part of the play is the nicest, where Plutus says that he would like to distribute wealth to only those worthy of it, but he can't because he lost his sight. That explains why wealth is distributed so unfairly: "Не лучше ль в жизни стать мошенником, обманщиком? Полезны в жизни, вижу, эти качества."
Next Plutus is taken home by a citizen, Chremylos. There they encounter Penia (poverty). She tells them that poverty is a much more useful goddess than Plutus (wealth). Poverty makes you a good person, makes you hard-working and loving, while wealth makes you lazy and lying.
Eventually Chremylos cures Plutus, and Plutus starts making everyone wealthy.
This leads to "bad" situations. No more offers are brought to the gods as citizens are content with their lives. A young man who used to be a lover of an older women but now that he is financially independent he no longer wants her.
February 16, 2024
Un home ,que sempre es pregunta per què la gent humil, treballadora i honesta no és rica, però que n'hi ha un gran nombre de maleïts que sí que ho són, surt de Delfos amb la premonició que segueixi al primer home que trobi i aquest resulta ser Plutos. Llavors farà que Asclepi curi la vista del déu, tot i rebre els primers impediments per part de la pobresa, i d'aquesta manera farà que el món funcioni a l'inrevés que fins ara: els honestos trobaran riqueses però no els malvats, que la perdran.
Nou viatge d'Aristòfanes cap a una utopia, com a "Les Assambleistes", però que també explica les seves conseqüències per exemple la pèrdua de diferents oficis, celebracions, i estatus socials. Amb les dificultats o incomoditats que podria ocasionar a l'època en què es planteja l'acció (pensem que l'autor neix cap a l'any 450 aC).
Nou viatge d'Aristòfanes cap a una utopia, com a "Les Assambleistes", però que també explica les seves conseqüències per exemple la pèrdua de diferents oficis, celebracions, i estatus socials. Amb les dificultats o incomoditats que podria ocasionar a l'època en què es planteja l'acció (pensem que l'autor neix cap a l'any 450 aC).
September 9, 2023
Aristophanes’in günümüze ulaşan son komedyası olan Ploutos savaş sonrası halkın oldukça fakirleştiği, zenginlerin dahi ciddi paralar kaybettiği bir dönemde yazılmıştır. Fakirlerdeki zenginlik arzusu ve zor durumda olmaları oyunun kaynaklarından biridir. Fakir bir ırgat olan Khremylos’un oğlu için Delphoi’deki bir kâhine başvurması ve kahinin çıkışta karşısına çıkan ilk insanı takip etmesini söylemesi üzerine karşısına çıkan gözleri kör Servet tanrısı Ploutos’u takip ederek onun gözlerini açıp varlıklı bir insana dönüşmelerinin hikayesini anlatan bu oyunu pek sevdim. Sadece köle Karion’un ağzı bozukluğu beni biraz rahatsız etti. Bunun dışında kesinlikle sahnede izlemek istediğim bir komedya oldu.
February 19, 2023
I quite enjoy reading the ancient Greek dramas - this period of History is fascinating and I want to learn more about it. Reading these ancient works I am also learning about their structure and writing style of the big comediants and tragedists such as Aristophanes, Sophocle ect... learning of the way people lived at that time, their habits and beliefs as well as going deeper in the (Ancient) Greek language.
Also, this type of literature is a big change from what I usually read and I must say I like it. I promised myself each month to read at least one ancient drama and so far I'm keeping the promise.
Also, this type of literature is a big change from what I usually read and I must say I like it. I promised myself each month to read at least one ancient drama and so far I'm keeping the promise.
August 6, 2021
As one should expect from Aristophanes, a silly, irreverent play, which in this case is examining the idea of wealth, and what might go wrong if it were distributed only to the just. Apparently there have been concerned elements in society for millennia regarding disparities between the wealthy and the poor, and how this does or doesn’t align with the just and the unjust. There is truly nothing new under the sun.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews