Horatian Urbanity in Hesiod's Works and Days 9781463222338

Citation preview

Horatian Urbanity in HesiocT Works and Days

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

362 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Horatian Urbanity in HesiocTs Works and Days

Edward Kennard Rand

1 gorgia* press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-649-7

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 32 (1911)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

AMERICAN

JOURNAL VOL. X X X I I , 2.

OF

PHILOLOGY WHOLE NO. 126.

I . — H O R A T I A N U R B A N I T Y IN H E S I O D ' S AND DAYS.

WORKS

Hesiod's Works and Days have served too long as a corpus vile for critical dissection. Such treatment cannot entirely kill the life of this sturdy old poet : invenies eadem disiecti membra poetae.

But why tear him into fragments? Stimulated by Eduard Meyer's recent article on Hesiod, 1 and heartily concurring in his general attitude of conservatism, I would go farther still in this direction and try to show that the poem as we have it is substantially a unit. There may of course be minor corruptions or interpolations in the text, but the argument here presented does not need, for the chief points at issue, to assume any interpolation, and it declines, with some vigor, an emended text.5 1 Hesiods E r g a und das Gedicht von den f ü n f Menschengeschlechtern, in G e n e t h l i a k o n Carl R o b e r t . . . überreicht von der Graeca H a l e n s i s , B e r l i n , 1910, pp. 1 5 9 - 1 8 7 . I arrived at the conclusions presented in this paper after reading M e y e r ' s article and studying again the W o r k s and D a y s . I have since examined some of the recent literature on H e s i o d , and am interested in finding the unity of the poem maintained in the e x c e l l e n t dissertation of P . W a l t z (Hésiode et son Poème Moral, P a r i s - B o r d e a u x , 1906) and in that of E . L i s c o (Quaestiones H e s i o d e a e C r i t . et Mythol., Gottingae, 1903, 48-62). O n W a l t z , see below, p. 158 ff. L i s c o , f o l l o w i n g his master L e o , explodes K i r c h h o f f s theory, and g i v e s a most c a r e f u l analysis of the first half or so of the p o e m , showing how the parts are l i n k e d inextricably together. I am g l a d to find that he and W a l t z have anticipated various of the details set forth b e l o w . T h e whole question is w e l l treated by W . Fuss (Versuch einer A n a l y s e von H e s i o d s "Epya ml 'Hfiépai, B o r n a - L e i p z i g , 1910) who agrees essentially with M e y e r ; but see below, p. 148, n. 5. s T h e number and age of the M S S of the W o r k s and D a y s justify this initial assumption. T h e case of the T h e o g o n y is different. T h e complete 10

AMERICAN

132

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

T a k i n g o u r p o e m , t h e n , a s t h e m a n u s c r i p t s g i v e it t o us, w e i n q u i r e first for w h a t o c c a s i o n it w a s w r i t t e n . be derived evidence.

solely from the

text before

O u r answer

must

u s ; we have no

other

H e r e , it s e e m s t o m e , is t h e s i t u a t i o n as t h e p o e m s e t s

it f o r t h . 1 Hesiod and Perses had received each a share of their father's estate.

But Perses,

amount

besides,

not content, appropriated

with

w h o p r e s i d e d at trials.

a

considerable

the connivance of the Boeotian

princes

T h e e p i t h e t ' g i f t - d e v o u r i n g ', a p p l i e d t o

these j u d g e s , explains w h y they were r e a d y to favour

Perses.2

H e s i o d a c c e p t e d w h a t w a s l e f t h i m a n d tilled his little p a t c h w i t h s u c c e s s , w h i l e P e r s e s f a r e d n o b e t t e r for his u n r i g h t e o u s t r i u m p h of the

moment.

A f t e r wasting

brother, with considerable H e s i o d refused.3

his p o r t i o n , h e a p p l i e d t o h i s

effrontery,

to

help

P e r s e s , in r e v e n g e , b r o u g h t

him

out.

suit a g a i n s t

But his

MSS of this poem are late and these all go back to one archetype in which various interpolations may have been made and which, as Rzach rightly denotes, lacked the end of the poem. The closing lines do not, I believe, give a transition to the Catalogue of Women, as is maintained, for instance, in Christ, Griech. Litteraturgeschichte, 1910, p. 113; they are parallel, word for word, with verses 965 f. There the poet tells of mortal men whom goddesses visited. With v. 1021 he goes on to tell, doubtless, of mortal women whom gods visited. We should probably find "oacai the first word of 1023. The Theogony has sufficient unity in the part preserved ; a very important element in it is the exaltation of Zeus and the reign of righteousness, intellectual order and spirituality. 1 1 hardly need say that I accept the statements in the poem as referring to actual history. See Croiset, Hist, de la Litt. Grecque, I, 472. Gilbert Murray, Hist, of Greek Lit., p. 53, calls Perses a lay figure. 2 V. 37 : i¡Ó7¡ fiev yáp tü.rjpov kSaaoáfied', aXXa re iroAAá | ápirái^uv éifiópeig fiéya Kvóaivuv f)aaiArjaq \ óupoáyovg. The time distinctly antedates the period in which the poem was composed. The fjót; with the aorist followed by the imperfect has, I take it, the face of a cum inversum construction in Latin ; ' we had already received our shares, when you proceeded to take some more'. On this much of the passage I agree with Mair, Hesiod . . . done into English prose, 1908, p. xix. 3 V. 3Q5 : ilf vvv £7r' i/i' r/Wef • cya éé roí ovic étuóáaa | ovó' ém/ierpr/aa. 1 SWsc refers, of course, to a time previous to the writing of the poem, but as vvv shows, not to so early a time as that designated by éóaaaáfieda and itjtiptiQ in v. 37. Since then, Perses has become a beggar. Besides the statement later in the poem (vv. 393-396), the implication is clearly made in vv. 30-34; see below, p. 134. We must therefore allow Perses some months at least in which to squander the property mentioned in vv. 37-38. The trial in question, then, cannot relate, as Mair thinks (op. cit., p. xix), merely to the

H0RAT1AN

URBANITY

IN

HESIOD.

133

b r o t h e r ; the case was to be tried before the same g i f t - d e v o u r i n g j u d g e s who had assisted him before. 1 Hesiod, u r g i n g his brother to settle the matter justly by private conference, 2 either sent to him, or read before an audience, al! of the present poem, which h e either then or later entitled ' W o r k s and D a y s ' . L e t us see if this account is not consistent with what the poem contains. If it can be p r o v e d that the w o r k has essential unity, and was written for Perses before the trial, we must conclude that Horatian urbanity was an important element in Hesiod's temperament. T h e most of this paper must be d e v o t e d to an analysis of the poem, but only in this w a y may we approach our intended g o a l . O n the other hand, a new estimate of the poet's character will help to establish the unity of the poem. T h e poem opens with a solemn invocation (vv. 1 - 1 0 ) to the Muses and to the m i g h t y Zeus, w h o can bring d o w n the scornful from their seat and exalt the humble and m e e k . " L o o k on me and hear m e " , he cries, " a n d g u i d e thou j u d g m e n t s justly ; and to P e r s e s 3 I will speak a word of t r u t h " . T h e s e last words indicate the purpose of the poem. It begins on the plan of m a n y an ancient w o r k , as for instance the different b o o k s in Lucretius's D e R e r u m Natura ; first c o m e s some sort of invocation, here a prayer, and then the theme is announced. T h e appeal for a righteous j u d g m e n t shows that the trial has not y e t come off. 4 T h e religious note sounded clearly in the opening lines will be heard at intervals throughout the poem. original misappropriation of Perses.

J u s t w h a t P e r s e s h o p e d to g e t f r o m h i s

b r o t h e r b y t h i s s e c o n d a s s a u l t is n o w h e r e s t a t e d .

H e m a y have had designs

o n a l l o f H e s i o d ' s p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e , or h e m a y h a v e c l a i m e d m e r e l y e n o u g h t o I t w a s at

any

rate a critical s i t u a t i o n for H e s i o d , as the fable of the n i g h t i n g a l e and

p a y h i s d e b t s , to w h i c h t h e p o e t a l l u d e s in v v . 404 a n d 6 4 7 .

the

h a w k implies (vv. 202-212). 1

V . 39 ( i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e q u o t a t i o n g i v e n a b o v e , p . 1 3 2 , n. 2 ) : 01 ryvde

d'lKrjv kdelovai

Si/caacai.

most naturally mann's

T h e d e m o n s t r a t i v e Ttjv&e s e e m s e m p h a t i c , a n d

to the future.

' e m e n d a t i o n ' (hdelovri

M a i r w e l l o b s e r v e s (op. c i t „ p. x x ) of 6'ntaaaav),

already t a k e n place, " an assumption

which

at once

implies

refers Schoe-

that the trial

more gratuitous and more

variance with the context can hardly be imagined ".

had at

J u s t so M e y e r , o p . c i t . ,

p . 1 6 1 , n . 2. 1 3

V . 35 : aXV aide dianpivafieBa m/cof | idsiqtji Sinrig, al T' in Ai6( clcriv apteral. R e a d i n g Uipoy r a t h e r t h a n Tttpoti, t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e M S S b e i n g u n c e r -

tain. 4

S e e M e y e r , o p . c i t . , p . 160, n. 1 .

W e l l shown by M e y e r , ibid.

134

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Hesiod's first message to his brother ( 1 1 - 4 2 ) is a somewhat leisurely exposition, in the manner of gnomic poetry, of the meaning of ' S t r i f e ' (*Epis). There are two kinds, evil strife, which involves men in wars and feuds, and good strife, which is the clue to wealth. F o r " she rouseth even the inefficient man (aTTuXa/xov ) to work. F o r when he that lacks work, looks on another who has wealth, she asks him to plough and sow and to keep well his h o u s e " (20 ff.).1 W o r k i n g , farming, and duties domestic and social, will be treated later on, as we shall see, under separate heads. Thus far, though the reference to the inefficient man carries a thrust, Hesiod has not addressed Perses directly. Turning now to Perses, he exhorts him to cleave to the good and forsake the evil strife. " F o r small time has he for quarrel and dispute who has not stored within his house a year's supply of the seasonable fruits that the earth brings forth, Demeter's grain. Should you have full stock of that, y o u 2 could then stir quarrels and contentions for the goods of others. But for you 'twill not be possible to do the same a second time " . Perses, that is, may have enough left to bribe the judges on the present occasion, or can make satisfactory promises, but with his extravagant tastes, his fund for corruption cannot last forever.® Clearly, Perses is as poor at this moment, that is before the trial, as the latter part of the poem makes him out to be.4 Hesiod now appeals to him to settle the affair privately, as Zeus and justice shall direct. H e reminds him, in words I have quoted before, 5 that they both received a share of the property, but that Perses had added to his amount unjustly, with the help of the " gift-devouring princes who are anxious to adjudge the present case. Fools they are, and know not that the half is better than the whole, nor that there is great profit in mallow and asphodel." It is a splendid and magnanimous spirit that speaks here. Hesiod has suffered injustice and is probably to suffer more, from 1

I n the citations w h i c h f o l l o w I d o not a l w a y s aim at a c o m p l e t e t r a n s l a -

tion.

A p a r a p h r a s e o f t e n saves time as it is both translation a n d interpreta-

tion.

B u t the reader should consult the text in each i n s t a n c e , to s e e if the

p a r a p h r a s e is true to it. * A g a i n , S c h o e m a n n ' s ' e m e n d a t i o n ' of bal/Loif to

oipeUoi

in v . 3 3 is h i g h l y

objectionable. 3 J u s t so, l a t e r on ( v v . 4 0 1 ff.), H e s i o d tells P e r s e s that h e m a y s u c c e e d t w i c e or thrice at b e g g i n g b u t not f o r e v e r . 4

S o L i s c o , also, interprets v v . 3 0 ff. (op. cit., p. 49).

" S e e a b o v e , p. 1 3 2 , n. 2.

HORATIAN

URBANITY

IN HESI OD.

135

his own brother. In reply, he does not lay on the heavy flail of indignation, but invites the offender to reason the matter out with him. One weapon he has more effective than the flail; it is the sharp sword of urbane satire. Perses, the impoverished, the short-sighted, is made out more fool than knave, while the princes, who are plainly called fools, are treated not with an anathema but with a proverb, with an exhortation to Horatian contentment and the prescription of a familiar article of Horatian diet. 1 I detect in this introduction the more or less explicit mention of four main principles on which Hesiod is to base his appeal; Justice, 2 Work, 3 Contentment* and Religion. 6 But before discoursing on these themes in detail, the poet inquires, in as leisurely a spirit as before why the gods have concealed the fruits of the earth (/3iof) from man (43-212). So far from exploding in righteous invective, Hesiod is going into the philosophy of the matter. Had not the gods made agriculture so difficult, he declares, " you, by working for a day might easily have laid by enough for even an idle year. You might quickly have put up your rudder 6 above the fire, and let the work of oxen and of patient mules go hang ". But this glimpse of what Perses would doubtless consider a golden age must give place to the stern actuality of hard work. Zeus has begrudged mankind an easy livelihood because Prometheus cheated him. Zeus hid fire as well, but Prometheus stole it back. Hesiod had told the story of Prometheus before in his T h e o g o n y ; he gives a somewhat shorter version here, repeating several lines and phrases from his earlier account. 7 H e draws the same moral 1

2

C a r m . i , 3 1 , 1 5 : m e p a s c u n t o l i v a e | me c i c h o r e a l e v e s q u e m a l v a e .

3 V. 36: Weiycrc d'tKyc, etc. V. 20 f.: sirl Ipyov iyeipcv, etc. V. 40 f.: TTAeov r/tiLOV Tvavrhr^ etc. 5 V . 3 6 : at r ' £K Aide e'taiv aptarai. C f . also the i n v o c a t i o n , v v . 1 - 1 0 . Lisco,

4

op. cit., p. 50, s h o w s the connection b e t w e e n this p a s s a g e a n d the i n v o c a t i o n a n d a d d s : his autem v e r s i b u s [ 1 1 - 4 8 ] utrumque c a r m i n i s a r g u m e n t u m quod ad P e r s e n attinet s i g n i f i c a t u r , s c i l i c e t : et iustitia et l a b o r i b u s opus esse, quae d i f f e r e n t i a ad totius c a r m i n i s structuram pertinet. 6 W h y r u d d e r ? T h e B o e o t i a n f a r m e r w a s sailor, t o o ; l a t e r the poet w i l l devote a s p e c i a l section to the art of s a i l i n g . N o t e the l i k e n e s s of v . 45 :

ahpa ice Trr/iiaXiov fiev vTrep nairvov mraBeio to v. 629 : Titi&ahiov d' evepyss inep Kanvov KpeuaaaaOat. L i s c o , op. cit., p. 49, a p t l y r e m a r k s : ergo hie iam (i. e., v. 45) u t r u m q u e c a r m i n i s e x t r e m i a r g u m e n t u m s i g n i f i c a t , cum t e m p o r a et a g r i c u l t u r a e et n a v i g a t i o n i s postea sit expositurus. ' S e e M e y e r , op. cit., p. 1 6 6 .

136

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

from the m y t h that H o r a c e d o e s in O d e s I, 3 : P r o m e t h e u s b y his disobedience to the divine will, b r o u g h t u p o n m a n k i n d all w o e , in the person o f P a n d o r a . F o r before, in the early d a y s of earth, men lived without ills or hard toil or g r i e v o u s diseases,' but P a n d o r a let all these calamities o u t o f the b o x , leaving only H o p e within. 2 1 V . 91 f. : vóof^LV àrep re nanúv nal àrep xa"^E7Toïo TTÓVOÍO ¡ vovouv r' ápya'/ i:Í>iv. T h e q u a l i f y i n g adjectives are important. Hesiod would by no means exclude w o r k altogether. See below, p. 137. 2 W a l t z ( R e v u e des E t u d e s Grecques, 1910, p. 49ff.) revives L e b è g u e ' s ingenious theory that è?Liriç means ' f o r e k n o w l e d g e ' (préscience). H e concludes (p. 57): " Loin que l ' E l p i s s'identifie avec l ' E s p é r a n c e , c'est justement en la retenant prisonnière que les dieux nous permettent encore d ' e s p é r e r " . True enough, but can 'EAuiç- mean ' foreknowledge'? T h e definitions of Plato (cSófaí ¡ISAXÓVTUV, L e g g . 644 C ) and of Hesychius (npoaôonia) to which W a l t z appeals, certainly do not contain this idea. I agree with W a l t z and others w h o regard éAm'f as one of the evils imprisoned in the box ; that Hesiod could tinge the word with a sinister m e a n i n g we see from v. 500, where it refers to the idle visions of Perses and his l i k e . N o w man still has ¿Am'j, as he has Pandora and all that goes with her, but his possession of H o p e differs from his possession of all the other evils in that they are everywhere dispersed and revealed but the nature of H o p e is concealed. So M e y e r takes this part of the myth (op. cit., p. 163), though he apparently regards ' E W ç as a good. Hesiod's profound idea is not inconsistent with a b e l i e f in the ultimate triumph of j u s t i c e , as w e may see from the myth of the ages (v. the discussion of Hesiod's pessimism, below, p. 140 ff.), but he heartily detests any g a m b l i n g with the future. H o p e is an evil for the idle Perses, and that is the chief point for H e s i o d at the moment. I n t e l l i n g the story of Pandora before, he w a s interested in drawing a different moral, namely the reason for feminine perversity ( T h e o g . 590 ff.) ; 'EXniç and the box do not appear at all. T h e interpretation I have suggested here would include the fact that man has not forek n o w l e d g e , as part of the Prometheus story (Plato, Gorg. 523 D) shows, but it attains this result without distorting the m e a n i n g of ÎXTVÎÇ (Croiset, Jour, des Savants, 1909, 474, rightly calls L e b è g u e ' s interpretation forced). W e must k e e p to this, and remember too that Hesiod had before him a tangle of myths w h i c h he used for his own moral purposes. W h i l e his own t h i n k i n g is straight and clear, he was bound to commit some inconsistencies with tradition. T h e athetizing of v. 99: a'iyi&xov [iovAyai A¿óf vetjie'Á'rfyepÉTa.o is peculiarly senseless. Hesiod's personal theology is as grand and simple as that of A e s c h y l u s and the prophets of the Old- T e s t a m e n t ; he must express it at every turn regardless of its relevancy to myth. H e gets into almost ridiculous plights in telling the story of Zeus's deception by Prometheus ( T h e o g . 550 ff.) a n d especially in attributing universal providence to the still embryonic Z e u s ( T h e o g . 465). But brackets and emendation w i l l not help m a t t e r s ; the interpreter of Hesiod must get at his thought and distinguish it from tradition, not seek its explanation there. See M e y e r ' s admirable remarks on this matter (p. 163).

H0RAT1AN

URBANITY

IN

HESIOD.

137

T h e r e is no mention of Perses in this story ; 1 naturally, H e s i o d h i s lifted the subject to a plane from which personalities are e x c l u d e d . But now addressing Perses (106), t h o u g h not calling him by name, he bids him g i v e heed to another legend, which will show that g o d s and mortal men are sprung from the same stock. 2 H e has another purpose also in this second story, the transition to which has been indicated by his brief description of the h a p p y times before Pandora (90 ff.). T h i n k i n g of the present plight of humanity, Hesiod determines to set forth at greater length the reasons of its d e g e n e r a c y ; but one idea will also be the kinship of g o d s and men. T h e l e g e n d of the a g e s is not m y t h but parable. It has, like the story of Prometheus, a definitely pointed moral, and shows in many of its details the deliberate invention of the poet. Thus in the Golden A g e (109-126), t h o u g h life is easy and the earth bears fruits of itself, men till their fields with a will. 3 Hesiod reads back a gospel of work into that primitive peace, not as M e y e r says, 4 because he is bound to think of man as a peasant, but rather because the gospel of w o r k is a cardinal point in his philosophy. Indeed, by what right d o we call Hesiod a peasant at all ? H e is at least a cultivated peasant, master of an A e s c h y lean t h e o l o g y 5 and of a highly artificial v o c a b u l a r y , which I question if Boeotian peasants understood. In the present poem, he is to all appearances, a land-owner, a gentleman farmer. H e p l o u g h e d , but so did a certain noble in early R o m a n history. H e also wrote poetry, as Cincinnatus did not do. Milton was not a peasant, and yet he finds w o r k in Paradise for our first ' C o l . M u r e , A C r i t i c a l H i s t , o f t h e L a n g , a n d L i t . o f A n c i e n t G r e e c e , 1850, I I 386, s u s p e c t s a t o u c h o f i m m e d i a t e a l l e g o r y in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e w i s e P r o m e t h e u s and the thoughtless E p i m e t h e u s , " w h o c o n s i d e r e d not w h a t Prom e t h e u s t o l d to h i m " (v. 86). 2

and

V . 108:

(•>VT£(; STV' alav are e x c l u d e d b y R z a c h , M e y e r (op. cit., p. 1 7 6 ) and others.

T h e y are in the M S S , a n d the f a c t o f r e p e t i t i o n m a k e s r a t h e r f o r

t h a n a g a i n s t t h e i r g e n u i n e n e s s ; s e e b e l o w , p. 145.

T h e only external proof

a g a i n s t t h e m is t h a t P l u t a r c h ( M o r a l . 361 B), M a c r o b i u s ( C o m . in S o m n . S c i p . 1 , 9, 7) a n d P r o c l u s ( C o m . in H e s i o d . , in G a i s f o r d , P o e t . M i n . G r a e c i I I I 101 if.) do not notice the lines.

B u t P l u t a r c h a n d M a c r o b i u s , it s e e m s to m e , do n o t

n e e d f o r t h e i r p u r p o s e t o q u o t e in extenso.

Macrobius gives a metrical render-

i n g i n t o L a t i n f r o m 1 2 2 to 126, b u t it is n o t e x a c t ; t h u s he h a s n o t h i n g for iaSXoi

(or ayvol)

quondam

homines

or

f o r emx66vioi,

which

otherwise

unless

he

corresponds

is m i s t r a n s l a t i n g to

that

n o t h i n g in these

with lines;

r a t h e r he is s u g g e s t i n g b y this p h r a s e t h e p r e v i o u s part of the d e s c r i p t i o n . P r o c l u s , I w i l l g r a n t , has a c o m m e n t o n v. 255, t h o u g h n o n e o n 125 ; it m a y b e t h a t t h e s u s p e c t e d l i n e s w e r e not in h i s M S of H e s i o d .

B u t o n e reason

w h y n o n o t i c e s h o u l d b e t a k e n of at l e a s t v e r s e 124 of the 01 c l a u s e is t h a t its m e a n i n g is v i r t u a l l y g i v e n in t h e p r e c e d i n g p h r a s e 0i>/ta/ief avdpairuv.

Those

w o r d s w o u l d m e a n , j u d g i n g not o n l y b y v . 254, b u t b y T h e o g . 735 (of the t h r e e set to s t a n d g u a r d o v e r t h e c o n q u e r e d T i t a n s ) , n o t ' p r o t e c t o r s ' of m e n b u t 'keepers', 'watchers', 'inspectors'.

I f P r o c l u s d i d not h a v e the s u s p e c t e d

l i n e s in h i s t e x t , he r e a d this m e a n i n g in ^ii^iixef, as h i s c o m m e n t ovrac; 6e if>v-

2. aicac; rov ¡3tov ruv avOpimuv, daifwvag tca'/JI, nap A ayada nal

nana

roif avdpGnroii; s h o w s .

TO

daf/vat.

ra

Ttavra, y fiepi^tiv ra

P r o c l u s a l s o r e f e r s to P l a t o (daifiovat•

HORATIAN

URBANITY

139

IN HESIOD.

then, that a c l o u d o f u n s e e n witnesses s u r r o u n d s t h e c o u r t - r o o m , a n d that these a r e r e a d y to punish villainy or, w h a t w o u l d also a p p e a l to P e r s e s , to d i s p e n s e wealth to the virtuous. T h e a c c o u n t o f the S i l v e r A g e ( 1 2 7 - 1 4 2 ) l i k e w i s e s e e m s almost biographical. In t h o s e d a y s , s a y s the p o e t , a lad g r e w to b e an h u n d r e d y e a r s b e f o r e l e a v i n g his m o t h e r , still p l a y i n g g a m e s , the foolish c h i l d , a n d then after s t a r t i n g out in life, surv i v e d but a short time, such was m e n ' s violent t r a n s g r e s s i o n of one a n o t h e r ' s r i g h t s (C/3pis) and their s a c r i l e g i o u s n e g l e c t of the g o d s . S o Z e u s hid t h e m u n d e r earth. T h o u g h divinities (futKapfc), t h e y are mortal, 1 a n d d e g r a d e d in c l a s s ; y e t after all s o m e h o m a g e is their due. 2 T h i s part o f the l e g e n d , too, is l a r g e l y H e s i o d ' s invention. 3 I v e n t u r e the g u e s s that P e r s e s h a d been tied t o o l o n g to his m o t h e r ' s apron s t r i n g s ; at any rate he l a c k e d i n d e p e n d e n c e of character. W h e n a w e a k l i n g of this sort has to shift for himself, the only m e t h o d of s e l f - s u p p o r t that h e c a n invent is to g r a b , l i k e a c h i l d , for the p r o p e r t y o f others. T h a t c o u r s e , if practised b y all m e m b e r s of s o c i e t y , w o u l d be the ruin of s o c i e t y . A new t y p e of d e g e n e r a c y is p r e s e n t e d . T h e m e n of b r o n z e ( 1 4 3 - 1 5 5 ) illustrate a n o t h e r v i c e not alien to P e r s e s ' character. T h e y e n g a g e in g e n e r a l war a n d d e s c e n d n a m e l e s s to H a d e s . M o r e h o p e f u l is the race of h e r o e s that now s u c c e e d s ( 1 5 6