Aristophanes' Plutus is often regarded as a dull play. According to two of the leading specialists on Aristophanes in Great Britain, the comedy displays ‘a certain amount of disjointedness in its moral and religious themes, and a certain lack of energy in its humour’, and the modern reader feels a ‘decline in freshness, in verbal agility, in sparkle of wit, in theatrical inventiveness’. Others regret alleged or real inconsistencies, the lack of punning and verbal play, the absence of nearly all choral interludes, a parabasis, and political advice in general, and the dearth of references to historical figures. Thus, the temptation is strong to follow those who read a medical history into Plutus: Aristophanes, by now sixty-five years old, had grown tired and saved his esprit for every third or fourth play. But such speculations do not do justice to a poet who did not have to write for a living. Before accepting them, we should first try to explain the change in other ways, admitting that Plutus may differ from the earlier plays for generic reasons. On this path, the linguistic analysis of Plutus will turn out to be helpful.