Edwards ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 2012 Anthony T. Edwards αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή: Works and Days 317–319 Anthony T. Edwards T WORKS AND DAYS 311–326, In the midst of an exhor- tation to seek prosperity through work and not through theft, Hesiod pauses for three lines over the topic of αἰδώς (317–319): αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένον ἄνδρϱα κϰοµίζει, αἰδώς, ἥ τ’ ἄνδρϱας µέγα σίνεται ἠδ’ ὀνίνησιν· αἰδώς τοι πρϱὸς ἀνολβίῃ, θάρϱσος δὲ πρϱὸς ὄλβῳ. A not-good αἰδώς tends to the indigent man; αἰδώς, which greatly harms and benefits men; αἰδώς before poverty, confidence before wealth. Since αἰδώς is a cardinal virtue for Homer and, to judge from other references in the poem, would appear to be so for Works and Days as well, the question of what αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή might be has puzzled commentators since antiquity. 1. Inappropriate αἰδώς Textual solutions have been offered for the puzzle of line 317’s not-good αἰδώς. Some editors have proposed rearranging the order of the lines, without, however, producing a con- sensus.1 West prints the infinitive κϰοµίζειν rather than the vul- gate κϰοµίζει, arguing that the infinitive is “guaranteed by Od. 17.347” and that “Hesiod is not saying that there is a bad Aidos separate from the good (like the two Erides).”2 That is, 1 E.g. A. Rzach, Hesiodi Carmina (Leipzig 1902), and T. A. Sinclair, Hesiod. Works and Days (London 1932), transpose 318 and 319. P. Mazon, Hésiode. Les travaux et les jours (Paris 1914), transposes 317 and 319. 2 M. L. West, Hesiod. Works and Days (Oxford 1978) 236. At line 500 A 2 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 the indicative, κϰοµίζει, entails that the modifier οὐκϰ ἀγαθή is attributive—a not-good αἰδώς does or is thus and so—but if the infinitive is substituted, ἀγαθή must be construed as a predicate with an infinitive complement—αἰδώς is not-good for a certain purpose. The predicative option diminishes, as West points out, the contradiction of labeling a virtue such as αἰδώς not-good and therefore makes better sense than the alternative. Although West argues from the preferred meaning, three of the four pa- pyri preserving 317–319 do offer the infinitive κϰοµίζειν as does one manuscript of Stobaeus, in which the reading appeared before being corrected. Plutarch, for his part, condemned 317– 318 as interpolated from Homer on the strength of their re- semblance to Od. 17.347 and Il. 24.45 respectively.3 In light of Plutarch’s judgment it is, of course, easy enough to infer how an infinitive might have replaced an indicative in 317: the in- finitive provides a morally more satisfying sense and follows the Homeric line from which 317 is allegedly copied. Is it a more likely scenario, then, that in the course of transmission the line as composed by Hesiod was altered from an original infinitive to an indicative, or the reverse, that Hesiod’s indicative was altered to a Homeric infinitive? Solmsen, in spite of the papyri, prefers the received reading κϰοµίζει, which he believes Stobaeus supports. Verdenius argues, correctly I believe, that the reading κϰοµίζειν for 317 is the result of Homeric influence on the textual tradition of Works and Days and that the attributive usage gives a sense in keeping with Hesiod’s dialectical outlook in the poem, which I will discuss below.4 ___ (ἐλπὶς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένον ἄνδρϱα κϰοµίζει) West (80–82) again prints the infinitive, a reading found in the D manuscript as well as in the related ψ2, though to justify his choice he refers the reader to his note on 317. West remains uncertain whether this reading was subsequently corrected, though F. Solmsen, Hesiodi Theogonia Opera et Dies Scutum (Oxford 1970), expresses no doubt: see their ap. crit. ad loc. 3 See A. Pertusi, Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies (Milan 1955) 107 = Plut. fr.45 Sandbach. 4 W. J. Verdenius, A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days, vv. 1–382 (Mne- mosyne Suppl. 86 [Leiden 1985]) 159; cf. Mazon, Hésiode 89–90. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 3 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 In addition to the attestations at 317–319, the word αἰδώς occurs on three occasions in Works and Days. In the collapse of morality and justice that characterizes the Age of Iron, the phrase κϰαὶ αἰδὼς / οὐκϰ ἔσται, “and αἰδώς will not exist” (192– 193), is inserted between the failure of δίκϰη and the triumph of false swearing and the wicked ζῆλος, certainly a stand-in for the wicked ἔρϱις.5 This apocalyptic description then culminates in the departure of the goddesses Αἰδώς and Νέµεσις (200) for Olympus.6 The only other occurrence in Works and Days is at the end of the passage in question, in line 324, where, once again, the perversion of justice through false testimony is sum- marized αἰδῶ δέ τ’ ἀναιδείη κϰατοπάζῃ, “and shamelessness overthrows αἰδώς.” The association of αἰδώς with νέµεσις at 200 suggests, moreover, that not only does αἰδώς preempt misdeeds before they occur, but it can also be aroused in the minds of offenders after the fact, through public censure (νέµεσις) of such behavior after it has taken place. αἰδώς, then, appears to be both the anticipation of shame and humiliation that forestalls anti-social acts as well as the shame and humili- ation experienced when such actions are publicly criticized.7 5 Verdenius, Commentary 25–26, 115, and West, Commentary 203, both per- sonify Ζῆλος in line 195. Regarding the close parallel between ζῆλος and ἔρϱις in Works and Days, especially in terms of double natures, see Verdenius, West, and U. von Wilamowitz, Hesiodos Erga (Berlin 1928) 44–45, 62. In its only occurrence in Theog. (92) αἰδώς is likewise linked to δίκϰη in the form of the good king’s “straight judgments” (86). 6 αἰδώς and νέµεσις are paired in Hesiod fr.204.82 again as opponents of violent theft, in this instance of a bride. Regarding the intimate link between αἰδώς and νέµεσις see G. Ricciardelli Apicella, “Αἰδώς e νέµεσις in Omero e in Esiodo,” SMEA 33 (1994) 131–143, and D. L. Cairns, Aidōs. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford 1993) 48–146, esp. 51–54, 83–86. 7 See e.g. Hector’s anticipation of αἰδώς before his fellow Trojans at Il. 22.105 (Cairns, Aidōs 79–83) and Agamemnon’s cry of αἰδώς to rebuke his faltering troops at 8.228 (Cairns 68–71). See additionally Cairns’ discussions of the prospective and contemporaneous temporalities of αἰδώς: Aidōs 84– 85, 99, 141, 145–156. 4 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 Works and Days localizes αἰδώς to its own primary concern of judicial extortion much as the Iliad ties it to the battlefield and the Odyssey to hospitality, but αἰδώς as an ethical concept re- mains essentially the same for Hesiod as in Homer. Explanations of what Hesiod could possibly have in mind for αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή approach αἰδώς from two directions. The one proceeds from Od. 17.347, αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένῳ ἀνδρϱὶ παρϱεῖναι, “αἰδώς is not good for helping an indigent man,” and Od. 3.14, in which Athena-Mentor cautions Telem- achus that he should feel no inhibition due to αἰδώς when he prepares to address Nestor: Τηλέµαχ’, οὐ µέν σε χρϱὴ ἔτ’ αἰδοῦς οὐδ’ ἠβαιόν, “Telemachus, you mustn’t feel any αἰδώς, not a bit.” Athena explains that they have traveled so far solely to get word of Odysseus, implying that it would now be foolish to permit an exaggerated sense of αἰδώς to interfere with that goal. On this basis it has been suggested that the αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή of both Od. 17.347 and Works and Days 317 is a “mis- placed” or “false” αἰδώς, such as that against which Athena warns Telemachus.8 The analogy of these Homeric lines suggests, then, that Perses is a starving peasant paralyzed by other-directed feelings of deference, awe, and humility as he contemplates approaching one of the local great men to beg for aid. Such an overpowering feeling of αἰδώς towards the wealthy 8 Cf. Od. 3.24. This reasoning does not entail that 317 was borrowed from Od. 17. Many do, however, regard Il. 24.44–45 (οὐδέ οἱ αἰδὼς / γίγνεται, ἥ τ’ ἄνδρϱας µέγα σίνεται ἠδ’ ὀνίνησι) as adapted from 318: West, Commentary 236; A. Hoekstra, “Hésiode, Les Travaux et les Jours, 405–407, 317–319, 21–24. L’élément proverbial et son adaptation,” Mnemosyne SER. IV 3 (1950) 89–114, at 99–100; E. Livrea, “Applicazioni della ‘Begriffs- spaltung’ negli Erga (αἰδώς-θάρϱσος-νέµεσις-ζῆλος),” Helikon 7 (1967) 81–100, at 84–85; N. J. Richardson, The Iliad: A Commentary VI (Oxford 1993) 281. For the view, which seems to me correct, that some or all of the lines in both the Homeric and Hesiodic contexts were adapted from preexisting proverbs, see T. A. Sinclair, “On αἰδώς in Hesiod,” CR 39 (1925) 147–148, and Works 35; Hoekstra 99–100; K. J. McKay, “Ambivalent αἰδώς in Hesiod,” AJP 84 (1963) 17–27 and 303; Livrea 83–85; West, Commentary 236–237; Cairns, Aidōs 149–150. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 5 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 would of course prove counterproductive for a beggar and is therefore misplaced or false.9 A fundamental problem for this interpretation of Hesiod’s αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή, however, is the simple improbability that Hesiod would offer, in the midst of a harangue insisting that work is the only secure means of avoiding hunger (299–316), advice about how to become a more effective beggar or that he would suggest that the impoverished should dispense with αἰδώς, the very sentiment likely to spur them to shed the humil- iation of poverty in exchange for ἀρϱετή and κϰῦδος (312–313), preferably through hard work. The passage, moreover, goes on to warn against turning to criminal behavior as an escape from poverty (320–326), although that is hardly a course likely to be adopted by a man so paralyzed by what his neighbors think of him—that is, by an inappropriate sense of αἰδώς—that he can- not bring himself to ask for a handout. Indeed, Hesiod regards begging, living like the idle drones (303–306, cf. 394–404) off of the efforts of others, as not far removed from robbery. So this argument from “misplaced” or “false” αἰδώς runs up against the objection that Hesiod does not at all want Perses to turn to or succeed at begging. A second explanation of αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή presupposes that Perses is a man of aristocratic birth but now down on his luck. Since Perses consequently disdains manual labor, such as would now be required to feed himself, as a shameful and humiliating affront to his birth, he prefers poverty, or even theft, to the labor that he scorns. Thus, a self-directed but com- pletely inappropriate sense of αἰδώς prevents Perses from en- gaging in farm labor.10 Cairns, a proponent of this position, 9 For this interpretation see Sinclair, CR 39 (1925) 148, and Works 35; I. Sellschopp, Stilistische Untersuchung zu Hesiod (Hamburg 1934) 97–98; Hoekstra, Mnemosyne 3 (1950) 102–106; McKay, AJP 84 (1963) 19–24; Livrea, Helikon 7 (1967) 89–92; E. Valgiglio, “Interpretazioni esiodee,” Maia 21 (1969) 161–176, at 172–173; P. Walcot, Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern (Manchester 1970) 60–65; Ricciardelli Apicella, SMEA 33 (1994) 140–144. 10 Both this and the preceding interpretation of 317 appear in the scholia 6 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 documents the feeling of αἰδώς experienced by those en- countering a challenge to their status and τιµή generally, but he concedes that Homer and Hesiod provide no evidence that work was in itself regarded as degrading.11 Certainly this inter- pretation gains no support from Odyssey 17.347. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, the village of Ascra is not characterized by such permanent or such deep status divisions that an aristo- cratic scorn of labor—or, for that matter, demotic deference toward a social elite—would suit it.12 The use of the phrases δῖον γένος (299) and δαίµονι δ’ οἷος ἔησθα (314) to support this position seems to me a case of explaining obscurum per obscurius. It appears, then, that there is adequate reason to doubt that an overstated, inappropriate sense of αἰδώς, whether directed out- ward so as to inhibit the confidence needed to beg for support, or self-directed, resulting in arrogant condescension toward labor, adequately explains Hesiod’s αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή. The phrase is problematic because αἰδώς is a virtue not only in Works and Days but continuously throughout the history of ancient Greek thought. Line 317 is, to be sure, very much at odds with the other attestations of αἰδώς in the poem. To posit ___ (schol. 317a and 317–318: Pertusi 107). For Perses as a déclassé aristocrat or at least as adopting an aristocratic hauteur see C. E. von Erffa, ΑΙΔΩΣ und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit (Philologus Suppl. 30.2 [Leipzig 1937]) 48–49; Livrea, Helikon 7 (1967) 89–92 (αἰδώς due to poverty resulting from αἰδώς to engage in labor); Valgiglio, Maia 21 (1969) 169–171, 173; D. B. Claus, “Defining Moral Terms in Works and Days,” TAPA 107 (1977) 73–84, at 80–84; West, Commentary 236; Verdenius, Commentary 159; Cairns, Aidōs 150–151. 11 This condescending view of labor arises in Greek culture at a later date: Cairns, Aidōs 150 n.9, citing F. Nussbaum, “Labour and Status in the Works and Days,” CQ 10 (1960) 213–220; see also C. B. Welles, “Hesiod’s Attitude towards Labor,” GRBS 8 (1967) 5–23, at 19–23. Euripides fr. 285.11–14 is the best evidence that can be mustered for this well-bred αἰδώς towards labor; see e.g. West, Commentary 236, and Verdenius, Commentary 159. Cairns 95–103 discusses αἰδώς as a reaction to an affront to one’s honor. 12 A. T. Edwards, Hesiod’s Ascra (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2004) 99–101. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 7 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 an excessive or misplaced αἰδώς alongside its familiar, positive form amounts, in effect, to splitting this moral concept much as ἔρϱις is famously divided between a good and a bad form at the outset of Works and Days (11–26).13 That ἐλπίς, for example, is an ambivalent concept is evident from the uncertainty dogging what to make of the fact that ἐλπίς alone remains behind in Pandora’s πίθος (96–101; see West, Commentary 169–170). Thus, when Hesiod claims ἐλπὶς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένον ἄνδρϱα κϰοµίζει, “a not-good hope tends to the indigent man” (500), one is prepared to accept that there is a bad or damaging form of “hope” to which the indigent are particularly susceptible— presumably the κϰενεὴν … ἐλπίδα of 498. Of course, ἐλπίς is not a moral term or a virtue for Hesiod, and consequently to label it οὐκϰ ἀγαθή does not entail such a harsh contradiction as results when αἰδώς takes the place of ἐλπίς in the same line. ἐλπίς, moreover, like ἔρϱις, is not paired with an opposing con- cept as are so many of the poem’s other key terms: δίκϰη vs. ὕβρϱις, ἔρϱγον vs. ἀερϱγίη, or λιµός vs. Δηµήτηρϱ (βίοτος), for example.14 I wish to propose an understanding of αἰδώς in 13 It is broadly accepted in the scholarly literature that αἰδώς in Works and Days is to a greater or lesser degree a split or divided concept: Sinclair, CR 39 (1925) 148, and Works 35; Sellschopp, Stilistische Untersuchung 97–100; Livrea, Helikon 7 (1967) 93–98; Valgiglio, Maia 21 (1969) 171–177; Claus, TAPA 107 (1977) 80–84; Verdenius, Commentary 159 with n.593; Cairns, Aidōs 149–50 with n.6; Ricciardelli Apicella, SMEA 33 (1994) 140. Von Erffa, ΑΙΔΩΣ 48–49, and Hoekstra, Mnemosyne 3 (1950) 105–106, seem to me to beg the question through too free paraphrases of the lines. G. Broccia, Tradizione ed esegesi. Studi su Esiodo e sulla lirica greca arcaica (Brescia 1969) 41–61, and G. Arrighetti, “Ancora sullo sdoppiamento dei concetti etici in Esiodo,” SCO 19–20 (1970–1971) 297–301, both argue to qualify the degree to which αἰδώς and other moral terms experience such splitting in Works and Days and to distinguish them from ἔρϱις, for which this dialectical quality is emphatic and explicit. 14 Cf. e.g. 3–7. See A. T. Edwards, “The Ethical Geography of Hesiod’s Works and Days,” in M. Skempis and I. Ziogas (eds.), Geography, Topography, Landscape: Aspects of Space and its Representation in Greek and Roman Epic (Berlin forthcoming), on the role of opposites in Works and Days. Livrea, Helikon 7 (1967) 98, clarifies the distinction between opposites like δίκϰη and ὕβρϱις and 8 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 Works and Days 317–319 that is in line with the word’s other attestations in the poem by locating it within such an explicit opposition. 2. Works and Days 317–319 in Context Relying on Homer’s testimony for our understanding of these lines from Works and Days has led us to split the concept of αἰδώς into positive and negative aspects. A different outcome is reached, however, if lines 317–319 are rigorously situated both within their immediate context in Works and Days as well as within the broader thematic oppositions of the poem as a whole. My examination of the passage will show that it is or- ganized by a series of overlapping oppositions that locate lines 317–319 as a transitional passage within an overarching con- trast between wealth won from labor and wealth gained from theft. Lines 317–319 occur in a segment of Works and Days that runs from 293 to 335. The passage as a whole can be broken down into five sections—I 293–310, II 311–316, III 317–319, IV 320–326, and V 327–335—but I will focus on sections II– IV:15 II ἔρϱγον δ’ οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ἀερϱγίη δέ τ’ ὄνειδος. εἰ δέ κϰεν ἐρϱγάζῃ, τάχα σε ζηλώσει ἀερϱγὸς πλουτεῦντα· πλούτῳ δ’ ἀρϱετὴ κϰαὶ κϰῦδος ὀπηδεῖ. δαίµονι δ’ οἷος ἔησθα, τὸ ἐρϱγάζεσθαι ἄµεινον, εἴ κϰεν ἀπ’ ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων ἀεσίφρϱονα θυµὸν ἐς ἔρϱγον τρϱέψας µελετᾷς βίου, ὥς σε κϰελεύω. III αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένον ἄνδρϱα κϰοµίζει, αἰδώς, ἥ τ’ ἄνδρϱας µέγα σίνεται ἠδ’ ὀνίνησιν· ___ a split concept (‘Begriffsspaltung’, ‘dialettizzazione’) such as αἰδώς is claimed to exemplify. 15 See W. Nicolai, Hesiods Erga. Beobachtungen zum Aufbau (Heidelberg 1964) 69–71, with notes 120 and 124, regarding the boundaries between sections and sub-sections in the passage. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 9 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 αἰδώς τοι πρϱὸς ἀνολβίῃ, θάρϱσος δὲ πρϱὸς ὄλβῳ. IV χρϱήµατα δ’ οὐχ ἁρϱπακϰτά, θεόσδοτα πολλὸν ἀµείνω· εἰ γάρϱ τις κϰαὶ χερϱσὶ βίῃ µέγαν ὄλβον ἕληται, ἢ ὅ γ’ ἀπὸ γλώσσης ληίσσεται, οἷά τε πολλὰ γίνεται, εὖτ’ ἂν δὴ κϰέρϱδος νόον ἐξαπατήσῃ ἀνθρϱώπων, αἰδῶ δέ τ’ ἀναιδείη κϰατοπάζῃ, ῥεῖα δέ µιν µαυρϱοῦσι θεοί, µινύθουσι δὲ οἶκϰον ἀνέρϱι τῷ, παῦρϱον δέ τ’ ἐπὶ χρϱόνον ὄλβος ὀπηδεῖ. II Work is no reproach; no work is a reproach. If you get to work, soon your workless neighbor will envy you as you grow rich: excellence and prestige attend wealth. Regardless of your luck, working is better, if, turning your wayward mind from the possessions of others to your own work, you attend to your livelihood, as I advise you. III A not-good αἰδώς tends to the indigent man; αἰδώς, which greatly harms and benefits men; αἰδώς before poverty, confidence before wealth. IV Property must not be stolen; what is god-given is better by far. For if someone seizes great wealth by force of hand or steals it with his tongue, such as often occurs whenever greed deceives the prudence of men and shamelessness overthrows αἰδώς, the gods easily cause such a man to dwindle, they diminish his house, and his wealth abides for but a brief time. Section I, introducing the passage, announces that work will bring Perses the hatred of Λιµός and the love of Demeter in the form of a full grainery (299–301). Λιµός is developed in terms of the νέµεσις directed at the ἀερϱγός (cf. στυγέουσιν ἀερϱγούς, 310) and through the simile of the slothful drones who eat the livelihood of the industrious bees (302–306), introducing the theme of indolence and prosperity through theft. The Demeter branch of the opening contrast at 299–301 is then filled out by the promise of wealth and the favor of gods and men for those 10 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 who work (306–310). This opening section presents a series of opposed terms: indolence and theft vs. work, blame vs. admira- tion, and hunger vs. prosperity. Section II asserts that work is the source of prosperity (πλου- τεῦντα· πλούτῳ) and a good reputation (οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ζηλώσε, ἀρϱετὴ κϰαὶ κϰῦδος) but that shiftlessness is a source of blame (ὄνειδος, cf. νεµεσῶσι at 303 and στυγέουσιν at 310). The con- ditional clause of 315–316 restates and amplifies the opposition of ἔρϱγον and ἀερϱγίη from 311 by opposing work, ἔρϱγον and βίου, to the possessions of others (ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων), which of course implies theft, reverting to the simile of the idle drones feasting on the toil of others (304–306). Moreover, the com- parative ἄµεινον in τὸ ἐρϱγάζεσθαι ἄµεινον presupposes shift- lessness as the missing term of comparison—working is better than not working. The elements of toil, reputation, and wealth line up against shiftlessness, disrepute, and the possessions of others. The possessions of others are condemned as an alterna- tive to wealth from one’s own labor. This system of oppositions repeats that of the preceding lines and echoes lines 11–41 pre- senting the twin ἔρϱιδες, for which the “possessions of others” (κϰτήµσ’ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρϱίοις, 34) invoke false-swearing and judicial theft. As my goal at this point is to clarify the context of lines 317– 319, I will postpone discussion of those lines themselves and turn to the lines immediately following, 320–326. From section IV’s opening contrast of ἁρϱπακϰτά and θεόσδοτα it is the first term, ἁρϱπακϰτά, that Hesiod selects for detailed development. If θεόσδοτα names the wealth that comes from toil (reverting to 299–301, 306–310 in section I and 311–313, 316 in section II), then ἁρϱπακϰτά resumes the theme of the idle drones (304–305) and of ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων (315) that tempt the ἀερϱγός (311– 312) in spite of Hesiod’s advice.16 ἁρϱπακϰτά is in turn subdivided between the contrasting modes of theft through force and theft through false swearing (321–322), the thematically salient form 16 The identity in Hesiod’s mind of what is gotten through labor with what is granted by god (θεόσδοτα) is evident in lines 299–310. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 11 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 of theft for Works and Days.17 When κϰέρϱδος overrules νόον and ἀναιδείη overrules αἰδῶ, then wealth is sought through theft (ἁρϱπακϰτά) rather than labor (θεόσδοτα). Even though αἰδώς, restraint and fear of public rebuke (cf. νεµεσῶσι, 303, and ὄνειδος, 311), ought to forestall such behavior, the attraction of prosperity through theft can nevertheless often overwhelm it along with a livelihood won through labor.18 In the final section (327–335) the theme of ἁρϱπακϰτά loses focus as Hesiod con- tinues to catalogue various crimes, closing with another warn- ing against Zeus’ retribution and another direct appeal to Perses. Each of sections I through IV repeats the contrast of work with theft. Within, however, the larger frame of the entire passage, sections II and IV contrast respectively as an exhorta- tion to work and a warning against theft. It is certainly noteworthy that the account of the good ἔρϱις (17–26) and the following appeal to Perses to flee the wicked ἔρϱις (27–41) exhibit clear thematic links with sections II (311– 316) and IV (320–326) respectively of our passage. Lines 20–26 in particular contrast the idle man with his diligent neighbor who keeps to his plowing and planting in his quest for wealth, the one envying and striving to rival the other. Lines 312–313 compress this same drama of work bringing wealth that the shiftless man then wishes to match.19 Similarly in lines 27–41 17 Perses’ threatened litigation (27–41) establishes the theme of false swearing and judicial theft, which I discuss in Edwards, “The Ethical Geography.” 18 αἰδώς is closely linked to νέµεσις, for which ὄνειδος is arguably a synonym (see n.6 above). 19 The two passages exhibit significant verbal echoes: cf. ζηλοῖ δέ τε γείτονα γείτων / εἰς ἄφενος σπεύδοντ’ (23–24) to τάχα σε ζηλώσει ἀερϱγὸς / πλουτεῦντα (312–313); ἔρϱγοιο χατίζων (21) to ἀερϱγὸς (312); πλούσιον (22) to πλουτεῦντα· πλούτῳ (313). Additionally, the phrase ἀπ’ ἔρϱγου θυµὸν ἐρϱύκϰοι (28) inverts θυµὸν / ἐς ἔρϱγον τρϱέψας in section I (315–316); κϰτήµασ’ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρϱίοις (34) inverts in context the sense of ἀπ’ ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων (315); cf. ἄλλα τε πολλὰ / ἁρϱπάζων (37–38) to χρϱήµατα δ’ οὐχ ἁρϱπακϰτά (320); ἐκϰ Διός εἰσιν ἄρϱισται (36) to θεόσδοτα πολλὸν ἀµείνω (320); and βίος (31) to βίου (316). 12 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 toil and livelihood contrast with the possessions of others that are sought through courtroom swindling in opposition to Zeus much as they do in lines 315–316 of section II and 320–326 of section IV. Hesiod’s divided ἔρϱις, moreover, would seem to stand in the same relation to this contrast in lines 11–41 as does αἰδώς in 293–335 Lines 317–319 are firmly set within this fundamental conflict of the poem, that between prosperity through work and pros- perity through theft. This contrast, in fact, finds its most concentrated expression, at least within the passages under examination, in lines 315–316 in section II: εἴ κϰεν ἀπ’ ἀλ- λοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων ἀεσίφρϱονα θυµὸν / ἐς ἔρϱγον τρϱέψας µελετᾷς βίου, ὥς σε κϰελεύω, “if, turning your wayward mind from the possessions of others / to your own work, you attend to your livelihood, as I advise you.” The contrast of ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων with ἔρϱγον and βίου in these lines seems to offer an excellent transition from the preceding focus upon prosperity through work of section II to that of prosperity through theft taken up in section IV. From this perspective section III, lines 317–319, appears actually to interrupt the movement from section II into IV, suggesting that the passage as a whole would do well enough without them. But, setting this problem aside, αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή, at least understood as inappropriate or misplaced αἰδώς, cannot in any case suffice as the patron deity of theft and false oaths, the topic developed in lines 320–326 im- mediately following, the domain of the wicked ἔρϱις. The notion of a split or divided concept seems an inadequate explanation of the relationship between αἰδώς and the oppositions within which it is so prominently placed. 3. Paths out of Poverty The rhetorical goal that Works and Days announces for itself in its introductory section is to persuade Perses to abandon the life of the wicked ἔρϱις for that governed by the good ἔρϱις. Wickedness must, however, possess some attraction since there would otherwise be no need for Works and Days. Hesiod ac- knowledges the appeal of the wrong choice in his description of the paths of κϰακϰότης and of ἀρϱετή (287–292): ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 13 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 τὴν µέν τοι κϰακϰότητα κϰαὶ ἰλαδὸν ἔστιν ἑλέσθαι ῥηιδίως· λείη µὲν ὁδός, µάλα δ’ ἐγγύθι ναίει· τῆς δ’ ἀρϱετῆς ἱδρϱῶτα θεοὶ πρϱοπάρϱοιθεν ἔθηκϰαν ἀθάνατοι· µακϰρϱὸς δὲ κϰαὶ ὄρϱθιος οἶµος ἐς αὐτὴ κϰαὶ τρϱηχὺς τὸ πρϱῶτον· ἐπὴν δ’ εἰς ἄκϰρϱον ἵκϰηται, ῥηιδίη δὴ ἔπειτα πέλει, χαλεπή περϱ ἐοῦσα. For there is wickedness in abundance to pick easily: its approach is smooth and it certainly lies nearby. But the immortal gods have placed sweat in front of virtue: long and steep is the path to it and rough at first; but when one reaches the top, therafter it becomes easy even though it is tough. Much as κϰακϰότης sums up the values covered by the wicked ἔρϱις, ἀρϱετή comprehends the positive terms associated with the good ἔρϱις.20 The path of wickedness lies near at hand, makes for light traveling, and consequently is an easy choice. The road towards ἀρϱετή, not surprisingly, is the opposite: it takes effort to reach and it is long, steep, and rough, though once you reach the peak it becomes easy to follow. This allegory illuminates Hesiod’s later description of the counsel the idler takes with himself as he suffers the hardships of poverty (498–501): πολλὰ δ’ ἀερϱγὸς ἀνήρϱ, κϰενεὴν ἐπὶ ἐλπίδα µίµνων, χρϱηίζων βιότοιο, κϰακϰὰ πρϱοσελέξατο θυµῷ. ἐλπὶς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰεχρϱηµένον ἄνδρϱα κϰοµίζει, ἥµενον ἐν λέσχῃ, τῷ µὴ βίος ἄρϱκϰιος εἴη. The workless man, marking time in empty hope, needing a livelihood, deliberates many evils in his heart. A not-good hope tends to the indigent man, idling in conversation, who lacks enough to live on. In this passage, with its echo of line 317, Hesiod pictures the slacker (496–497) whom idle hopes have steered into starva- 20 I discuss Works and Days as a persuasive appeal in Edwards, Ascra 176– 184; see 91–92, 111–112, for discussion of lines 287–292. Cf. lines 213–218, where the choice between ὕβρϱις and δίκϰη is similarly envisioned as a road. 14 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 tion. In his state of want he commences deliberating evils in his heart (κϰακϰὰ πρϱοσελέξατο θυµῷ), contemplating, it seems likely, the path of κϰακϰότης as an exit from his troubles. For Works and Days the salient form that wickedness takes is the courtroom swindling that brings retribution and ruin hot on its heels.21 Hesiod would not repeatedly caution against such behavior if he considered it an easy task to turn Perses from its temp- tations. The alluring path of κϰακϰότης and the wicked scheming of the indigent place us back in the territory of the idle drones who feast on the toil of others since shiftlessness has made hunger their companion (302–306). As I have noted, νέµεσις can be characterized as blame justifiably directed against those whose behavior exhibits a lack of αἰδώς. Since αἰδώς as a moral term designates not only the restraint exercised over behavior in order to avoid such censure but also the feeling of embarrassment or humiliation experi- enced in the face of explicit νέµεσις, implicit in the use of νέµεσις is the conviction that if its object felt no restraining αἰδώς in advance of some transgression, he should be made to experience it after the fact through public condemnation. The assertions, therefore, that τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεµεσῶσι κϰαὶ ἀνέρϱες ὅς κϰεν ἀερϱγὸς / ζώῃ, “Gods and men feel νέµεσις for that man who lives workless” (303–304), likening the idler to the “work- less drones” who eat the toil of the bees (304–306), and that ἀερϱγίη δέ τ’ ὄνειδος, “no work is a reproach” (311), presuppose that the shiftless violate αἰδώς through their indolence and con- sequent dependence on others. This offense leaves such indi- viduals liable to νέµεσις and ὄνειδος intended to correct their behavior by provoking a reaction of αἰδώς, much as Hesiod hopes to correct that of Perses through the appeal of Works and Days itself. Conversely, wealth in Works and Days attracts pres- tige and envy: εἰ δέ κϰεν ἐρϱγάζῃ, τάχα σε ζηλώσει ἀερϱγὸς / πλουτεῦντα· πλούτῳ δ’ ἀρϱετὴ κϰαὶ κϰῦδος ὀπηδεῖ, “If you get to 21 I discuss line 499 and the topos that the profits of crime are temporary (89, 213–218, 265–266, 320–326, 333–334, 352, 356–362, 760–764) in Edwards, “The Ethical Geography.” ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 15 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 work, soon your workless neighbor will envy you / as you grow rich; excellence and prestige attend wealth” (312–313).22 As if the physical pain of hunger were not in itself enough of a motive to evade poverty, Hesiod acknowledges equally the social hardship of disgrace, the experience of αἰδώς in public, as an incentive to repair one’s fortunes and to seek the approval that prosperity attracts. If νέµεσις and αἰδώς can serve to spur the shiftless to escape poverty, there is nevertheless, as the passages just discussed indicate, a right way and a wrong way to achieve prosperity. Hesiod so consistently opposes αἰδώς to the crime of false swearing in Works and Days because that is one of the two paths he specifically identifies for escaping poverty. The options of prosperity through work and prosperity through judicial theft that appear in 11–41 and in the contrast of section II (311–316) with section IV (320–326) acknowledge the risk that the shift- less, experiencing both λιµός and νέµεσις, might prefer the easier path of κϰακϰότης to that of ἀρϱετή, that is, not the path ruled by αἰδώς but that commended by ἀναιδείη as a way out of poverty and disgrace. If αἰδώς is indeed a motive for escap- ing the shame of poverty, then Works and Days confronts the paradox that αἰδώς can stir the indigent either to work or to theft, that is, to the path of αἰδώς itself and to the opposite path of ἀναιδείη.23 In a discussion of the destructive quarrel that erupts between Agamemnon and Achilles in Iliad 1, Cairns comments on the courses of action open to both: “Two kinds of response are thus envisaged: one of self-control and one of self- assertion—one of regard for the timē of others, one of regard for one’s own. Aidōs moreover, may be part of both responses, aidōs for one’s philoi and superiors on the one hand, and aidōs at the prospect of humiliation resulting from the failure to avenge 22 Cf. 21–24, 477–482; see Edwards, Ascra 91–92. 23 In actual usage νέµεσις and αἰδώς exhibit a certain amount of overlap in regard to the blame offered and the humiliation experienced in a given setting. See Cairns, Aidōs 83–87, and Ricciardelli Apicella, SMEA 33 (1994) 131–135. 16 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 the affront on the other … Obviously, the two responses con- flict.”24 4. αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή If αἰδώς parallels ἔρϱις in embarking individuals upon either the course of justice or that of ὕβρϱις, is it, like ἔρϱις, a divided concept or does it function as one half of an explicit pair of opposites? The expression οὐκϰ ἀγαθή is an example of litotes, a figure that appears not uncommonly in Hesiod and in Homer. Speaking, for example, of the goddess Δίκϰη, Hesiod complains that ἄνδρϱες … / δωρϱοφάγοι have dispensed her οὐκϰ ἰθεῖαν (220–224), that is, they have dispensed crooked justice, the σκϰολιῇς δὲ δίκϰῃς of 221 (cf. 219). Again, a woman who is οὐ γαµετήν is κϰτητήν (406), a matter that is οὐ δήµιος is ἰδίη (Od. 3.82), and Charybdis is οὐ θνητή, ἀλλ’ ἀθάνατον κϰακϰόν (Od. 12.118). Likewise the assertion that ἔρϱγον δ’ οὐδὲν ὄνειδος (311) amounts within the logic of the passage to identifying ἔρϱγον as the opposite of ὄνειδος, namely, the source of ἀρϱετὴ κϰαὶ κϰῦδος (313). In these examples the specific adjective or noun negated must be interpreted as meaning its opposite. To cite a final illustration, as Odysseus tests Laertes in the last book of the Odyssey, he says to the old man: αὐτόν σ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰοµιδὴ ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἅµα γῆρϱας / λυγρϱὸν ἔχεις αὐχµεῖς τε κϰακϰῶς κϰαὶ ἀεικϰέα ἕσσαι, “not-good provisioning sustains you; rather you’ve reached a miserable old age, you’re ill-washed, and you’re disgracefully clothed” (24.249–250). In this passage, however, it is not ἀγαθή itself that is negated but rather the noun, κϰοµιδή, modified by οὐκϰ ἀγαθή, that is glossed by oppos- 24 Cairns, Aidōs 100. In connection with Works and Days it appears sig- nificant that Achilles reacts to Agamemnon’s appropriation of Briseis not only with an accusation of shiftlessness (ἀερϱγός: Il. 1.226–228, 9.320), while stressing his own toil on behalf of the army (1.161–168, 9.321–329), but also of ἀναιδείη (1.149, 158, 9.372) and in effect theft (1.229–231, 9.334–336). Agamemnon may therefore parallel Perses as an example of an individual faced with disgrace who is driven by αἰδώς onto the path of ἀναιδείη as the easiest remedy to his loss of face. I am indebted to Leslie L. Collins for this example. ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 17 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 ing terms—γῆρϱας λυγρϱόν, αὐχµεῖς … κϰακϰῶς, and ἀεικϰέα ἕσσαι. οὐκϰ ἀγαθὴ κϰοµιδή goes beyond “bad (not good) treatment” to be restated as “miserable old age,” “ill washed,” and “dis- gracefully clothed.”25 Theses examples clearly suggest that αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή at 317 should be understood to mean the opposite of αἰδώς, that is, ἀναιδείη. The appearance of the litotes αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή in 317 thus anticipates and prepares for the explicit opposition of αἰδώς and ἀναιδείη in line 324 in section IV’s elaboration of theft with the tongue. Similarly, the only other attestation of ἀναιδείη in Works and Days occurs precisely in a contrast between giving willingly and stealing, describing the latter ὃς δέ κϰεν αὐτὸς ἕληται ἀναιδείηφι πιθήσας, “whoever takes on his own, trusting in shamelessness” (359).26 The transition from prosperity through work to prosperity through theft is intro- duced in the closing lines of section II (315–316), where Hesiod invites Perses to turn his attention from the possessions of others to his own farm and livelihood. This warning against theft in these lines that introduce the phrase αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή suggests again that it should be understood to mean ἀναιδείη. To return briefly to section II, lines 311–313 oppose work and prosperity to shiftlessness and blame (ὀνειδός) while 314– 316 oppose work and prosperity to shiftlessness and the pos- sessions of others (ἀπ’ ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων). Blame ought to provoke the feelings of αἰδώς that inspire the indolent to turn to 25 Cf. Theognis 408, where γνώµης οὐκϰ ἀγαθῆς lends itself to interpreta- tion as ἀγνωµοσύνη (as at 895–896), especially in the context of 405–406. Hesiod’s fondness for such periphrases is also evident in the use of χειρϱο- δίκϰαι (189) and δίκϰη δ’ ἐν χερϱσί (192) to express the opposite of δίκϰη, that is, ὕβρϱις (191). 26 This passage exhibits lexical and thematic links to section IV (320– 326): ἅρϱπαξ (356) and ἁρϱπακϰτά (320), δότειρϱα (356) and θεόσδοτα (320), ἀγαθή (356) and ἀµείνω (320). The phrases θανάτοιο δότειρϱα (356) and τό γ’ ἐπάχνωσεν φίλον ἦτορϱ (360) arguably parallel the warning at 325–326 that the gods cause the house of the thief to waste away and ill-gotten gains soon vanish. 18 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 labor and rise into prosperity. But the shift between blame in 311 and the possessions of others in 315 acknowledges that blame and humiliation might place a Perses not onto the path of ἀρϱετή but onto the path of κϰακϰότης. As a buttress, then, to his advice not to go down this road (ὥς σε κϰελεύω), Hesiod addresses in 317–319 precisely this risk that αἰδώς, the very sentiment that ought to forestall criminal behavior, could mis- fire in this way, that criticism of the ἀερϱγός and the shame he consequently feels could push him in the direction of theft rather than towards the socially sanctioned pursuit of labor. The subsequent three-line meditation on αἰδώς (317–319) exhibits a modulated trajectory from the socially destructive vice of ἀναιδείη to the virtue of αἰδώς, which, as 192–201 attest in their treatment of αἰδώς, is essential to life in a community. αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή, that is, shamelessness, ἀναιδείη, tends to the needy man. Line 317 states as a general law the risk that Hesiod has just alluded to in 315–316, that the indigent may out of shameful desperation attempt to improve their fortunes by stealing (cf. 498–501, quoted 13 above), the activity with which ἀναιδείη is consistently associated in Works and Days (324, 359). The next line, αἰδώς, ἥ τ’ ἄνδρϱας µέγα σίνεται ἠδ’ ὀνίνησιν, “αἰδώς, which greatly harms and benefits men,” though it depends for its meaning entirely upon the interpreta- tion of the phrase αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή in 317, is perhaps the most difficult of the three lines since it requires that αἰδώς itself, the desire to flee opprobrium, can cause harm. According to the proposed interpretation, the line provides an explanation of 317 by acknowledginng that αἰδώς can indeed, perverse as it may seem, damage men by leading them onto the path of ἀναιδείη, stealing what belongs to others, as much as it can benefit them by pointing them on the way to ἀρϱετή and κϰῦδος as the rewards of their own labor. In 319, αἰδώς τοι πρϱὸς ἀνολβίῃ, θάρϱσος δὲ πρϱὸς ὄλβῳ, “αἰδώς before poverty, confi- dence before wealth,” Hesiod works his way out of the paradox that αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή comprises by placing αἰδώς in an explicit opposition, in fact in a double antithesis, that both attests to the concept’s own coherence and integrity and re- ANTHONY T. EDWARDS 19 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 integrates it with section II’s themes of prosperity, reputation, and toil. αἰδώς is opposed to θάρϱσος, disentangling it both from the litotes of 317 and from its opposite, ἀναιδείη.27 That is, αἰδώς in 319 names that same sentiment that it does elsewhere in Works and Days, the feeling of humiliation before failure pro- voked by νέµεσις, or ὄνειδος, that functions as a goad to bring one’s behavior and aspirations in line with accepted norms. Line 319 invites the ἀερϱγός to exchange the humiliation (αἰδώς) and blame of impoverished indolence for the confident pros- perity that labor provides. After 319 Hesiod proceeds to reinforce his point about the proper role of αἰδώς by returning in section IV to the dangers of ἀλλοτρϱίων κϰτεάνων (315), which triggered his three-line excursus on αἰδώς to begin with. The theme of αἰδώς reaches its conclusion in line 324 with the explicit opposition between αἰδώς and ἀναιδείη. αἰδώς, supplanted in 324 by ἀναιδείη, gets the worst of this confrontation here just as it does in lines 192– 201, when the goddesses Αἰδώς and Νέµεσις flee mankind’s unjust behavior, but its autonomy as a virtue in opposition to its vicious opposite has been reestablished along with the moral ascendancy of labor over theft. This interpretation of αἰδὼς δ’ οὐκϰ ἀγαθή as ἀναιδείη draws αἰδώς into the system of oppositions announced in the intro- ductory passage at 11–41 as well as in the immediated context 27 I.e., θάρϱσος is the feeling of confidence resulting from his prosperity for the man of ἀρϱετή and κϰῦδος; cf. γηθήσειν at 476 as parallel to θάρϱσος here: κϰαί σε ἔολπα / γηθήσειν βιότου αἰρϱεύµενον ἔνδον ἐόντος. For Homer θάρϱσος is a good quality almost without exception. θάρϱσος in 319 has, however, been regarded as a vice, for the most part the arrogance typical of a wealthy aristocrat, by Sellschopp, Stilistische Untersuchung 97–98; von Erffa, ΑΙΔΩΣ 48–49; Hoekstra, Mnemosyne 3 (1950) 102–105; and West, Com- mentary 237. Contra, see Wilamowitz, Hesiodos Erga 79; McKay, AJP 84 (1963) 20–22, 26–27; Walcot, Greek Peasants 60–61; and Claus, TAPA 107 (1977) 83–84. Livrea, Helikon 7 (1967) 89–92, sees θάρϱσος as either vice or virtue depending on class perspective, and Valgiglio, Maia 21 (1969) 169– 173, and Cairns Aidōs, 150–151, view it as a virtue in 319 but with negative potential that is elaborated in 320 ff. 20 ΑΙΔΩΣ Δ’ ΟΥϒΚ ΑΓΑΘΗ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 1–20 at 293–335. Dispensing with the explanation from “misplaced” or “false” αἰδώς relieves Hesiod of the improbable burden of instructing Perses to forget about αἰδώς in order to succeed as a beggar. Nor must we resort to the anachronisms of an aristo- cratic aversion to work or a steeply stratified Ascra to account for Perses’ work-shy behavior. By this account, moreover, αἰδώς does resemble ἔρϱις both in mediating between the options of prosperity through work and prosperity through theft and in playing its paradoxical role as an impulse towards both work and, perversely, theft. Notwithstanding this func- tional equivalence between αἰδώς and ἔρϱις in Works and Days, the two are not at all similar in their meanings, nor can ἔρϱις approach the importance of αἰδώς in the history of Greek ethical thought. αἰδώς stands between the two forms of ἔρϱις, one that of the courtroom and its crooked judgments, the other that of the farm with its store of Demeter’s grain, to guide loafers onto the better path to prosperity. But those who choose the other course, preferring to scheme against the prosperity of others, even though they perhaps flee poverty out of a sense of shame, nevertheless embark on a course of shamelessness, ἀναιδείη. If the phrase is understood in this way, finally, lines 317–319 no longer interrupt the movement from the topic of prosperity through work to that of prosperity through theft but facilitate it by providing a clarificiation of the mechanism com- mon to the two opposed paths out of poverty, the good and the not-good.28 January, 2012 University of California, San Diego Department of Literature 9500 Gilman Dr. 0410 La Jolla, California, 92093-0410 aedwards@ucsd.edu 28 I wish to thank Leslie L. Collins and GRBS’s anonymous reader for criticisms and suggestions that have greatly improved this paper.