Farmers and Political Thinkers: A
Comparison of Hesiod’s Works and
Days and Nate Shaw’s Stories in
All God’s Dangers

Rebecca Simon

“Zeus blesses the affairs of the man who knows justice and proclaims it before the public.” —Hesiod

“God knows I won’t jump back from tellin what I know.”
                                                          —Nate Shaw

Nate Shaw was a black man, a sharecropper born in Alabama; he worked his whole life primarily as a farmer and died in Alabama in 1973. One of the many things he left behind were his stories about his life from childhood to old age. These stories come to us copi­ously in the form of a 556-page book. The book, All God’s Dan­gers is a unique result of interviews, audio recordings, editing and reorganizing of the written transcript, all by a Harvard student, Theodore Rosengarten.

What could such a work possibly have in common with an 828-verse poem composed around the seventh century BCE in ancient Greece? The Works and Days as a work is certainly very different from All God’s Dangers. The former is a short song made up of 828 hexameter verses. All God’s Dangers is a 556-page book of something like prose. The Works and Days was composed by Hesiod, a Boeotian farmer living in the early seventh century BCE. All God’s Dangers was told by a black sharecropper living in Ala­bama during the first half of the twentieth century. [1] The Works and Days was performed at ancient competitions, passed from poet to poet, and eventually written down, surviving today almost 3,000 years later. Nate Shaw’s oral history takes a different path— from interviews to audiotapes, from transcript to book, all within a decade. The differences between the poem and the book are signifi­cant and the list is long. One would imagine that these apparently great differences would make a comparison between the two works a pointless exercise.

Certainly these differences are important to remember in order to improve our understanding of each work. However, below the surface of these ostensibly different works of literature lie many similarities. The Works and Days and All God’s Dangers are simi­lar in form, content, and in their overall purpose and greater mes­sage. Furthermore, although the time periods of Hesiod and Shaw are distinct and unique, a comparison of their worlds will show that both poets occupy similar socio-economic roles within similar soci­eties. Their works are both the products of worlds wrenched by tensions between individual and community interests. A compari­son of the poets, their worlds, and their works that reveals these similarities will show how a poet or storyteller acts as a political thinker and a teacher with a demonstrably timeless message about a need for responsibility to justice in society. A basic understanding of the societies of Hesiod and Nate Shaw and the tensions within both is necessary before comparing the works themselves.

Hesiod, according to most scholars, was a Boeotian farmer liv­ing near a small village north of Athens. He grew mostly grain but raised livestock as well. As one of many small farmers and head of an oikos, he occupied a position of relative economic and political inequality with respect to the basilees. The term basileus refers to the wealthy leaders of the communities in Greece, who acted as judges in disputes, and were in charge of a crop distributive sys­tem. In the poem, when Hesiod has a dispute with his brother, Perses, over their inheritance of land, the basilees decided in Perses’ favor, perhaps Hesiod implies, persuaded by a bribe of acres. Hesiod is resentful toward these basilees because of this decision.

Hesiod’s great dismay at the actions of Perses and the “gift-devouring” basilees is merited in the context of an agricultural world in which the welfare of a farmer depends on the amount of fertile land and good crops he possesses. Furthermore a system of debt slavery that may have existed at the time puts Hesiod’s com­plaint into context. Many scholars believe that a system, similar to the one that existed in Athens prior to the Solonian reforms, was present in Boeotia as well. [2]

Debt slavery refers to a system in which the debtor, through a series of bad harvests, is “sucked down little by little . . . from loan to loan . . .” and eventually the “wealthy aristos . . . gain complete control over the small holder’s production . . .” and thus his per­son (Tandy and Neale 1996: 42). That is, when a farmer could not pay his debts, he sold himself into slavery; his body was his collat­eral. Hesiod is appropriately fearful of this scenario when “interan­nual variability of rainfall in Greece must have resulted in very fre­quent crop failure. . . . ” (Tandy and Neale 1996: 33). The loss of his land meant the loss of his livelihood and possibly his freedom.

Furthermore, Hesiod lived at a time of great change and thus great uncertainty. Sea trade commerce was expanding and freeing the basilees from dependence on the farmers in the countryside. The farmers, however, still depended on the basilees. Also the polis, Thespiae, and its influence were growing over the country­side. Hesiod expresses his wariness of these changes when he warns others to stay away from the places of the city. Of all these changes, Hesiod was rightfully wary in a world of political disad­vantage and the capriciousness of nature. In short, for Hesiod, “life was hard—a perennial struggle with the earth for survival . . . . The small farmer had to protect himself against the whims of the ele­ments and the greed of privileged aristocracy” (Athanassakis 1983: 64).

In spite of differences of time and place in world history, Nate Shaw’s Alabama is similar in significant ways to Hesiod’s world. Shaw lived as a tenant farmer growing cotton for much of his life until he saved enough to own land. Just as in Hesiod’s world, land was intimately tied to one’s survival. Shaw says succinctly, “You had to have land” (Rosengarten 1974: 112). Before he owned his own land, he worked on the land of wealthy white landowners (like most black sharecroppers) and did all he could to stay out of debt. The peonage system that existed at this time was almost identical to the one scholars believe existed in Hesiod’s time. Rosengarten explains it was a system that “encumbered [black tenant farmers] with mandatory debts” and “deprived them of authority to sell their crops.” Although Shaw could not be sold and shipped off as a slave, this “system that deprived farmers of sovereignty over their crops,” nonetheless “severely limited their social and political liber­ties” (Rosengarten 1974: xxi). Nate Shaw attests to the harsh real­ity of this system when recounting his debt to one landlord, Mr. Tucker: “Done got all of my crops for five years and I still owed him five hundred dollars. That was his tune. Five hundred and one penny. I labored under that debt…lingered five long years and he was getting every string I had to give” (Rosengarten 1974: 149). Shaw also suffered economic hardship and political disadvantage.

Like ancient Greece for Hesiod, the greater U.S. was changing rapidly during Nate Shaw’s life. Two world wars created economic opportunities in northern cities, sparking a migration of many peo­ple from the rural south to the urban north. Like Hesiod, Shaw is wary of these changes and opts to stay put. He expresses his mis­trust of the city to Rosengarten. In short, the same rapid change, economic insecurity, political disadvantage, and resultant hardship farmers faced in Hesiod’s time, Nate Shaw also faced.

One distinguishing characteristic, however, of Shaw’s Alabama was the racism that governed the economic and political systems. Blacks who had been slaves of white landowners prior to 1863 and were subsequently freed in the process of the American Civil War – continued to be exploited into the twentieth century for their cheap labor secured by race oppression. Rosengarten explains that economic exploitation was intimately connected to their political oppression – “poor black farmers lived under the twin yoke of race oppression and economic peonage” (Rosengarten 1974: xvii). Shaw depicts for Rosengarten the reality of this racism from his perspec­tive: “I was a poor colored man, I had to abide by the conse­quences, I had to accept what went on and what was done. I had long since come in the knowledge of . . . how certain classes and certain colors was mugged down” (Rosengarten 1974: 373).

Although Alabama was distinct as a racist society, the prob­lem for Shaw was still one of economic inequality; notice that Shaw says “certain classes,” as well as “colors,” suffered unequal treat­ment. Later Shaw makes this point explicitly when he says, “The poor white man and the poor black man is sittin in the same saddle today…the controlling power, is in the hands of the rich man” (Rosengarten 1974: 489). Because ultimately the issue is one of poverty, early 20^th century Alabama is still comparable to the world of Hesiod.

Out of this economic inequality arises the same tension. The greatest similarity between these two societies is this tension cre­ated by a common conflict between individual interests and com­munity interests. Both farmers believe that their lives are made more difficult by wealthy landowners, powerful leaders and any­one who acts out of self-interest alone. In the view of both Hesiod and Shaw, such selfish action is always to the detriment of the greater society.

Hesiod attests to the reality of a scenario where land unjustly changes hands. “Such things do happen,” he says of “a man” who “by might of hand seizes great wealth, / or robs with clever words
. . . ” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 321-323). Hesiod criticizes such self­ish action when he condemns the basilees as “gift-devouring kings, fools who want to be judges . . . ” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 39). He also condemns his brother Perses for the land he “grabbed and car­ried away as a fat bribe . . . ” for the kings (Athanassakis 1983: l. 38). For Hesiod, such actions are reprehensible because they injure the greater society. Hesiod’s condemnations show the world of The Works and Days to be gripped by the conflict between self-inter­ests and a greater interest.

One can find this same conflict in Shaw’s world as well. Like Hesiod, Shaw testifies to the selfish actions of the wealthy land­lords: “They only lookin for money . . . the rich man is all in favor of the rich man” (Rosengarten 1974: 489). Shaw goes further and says that poverty is unnatural, because it is the result of the rich stealing from the poor: “If every man thoroughly got his rights, there wouldn’t be so many rich people in the world.” The implica­tion is that rich and poor men are made by the selfish actions of rich men. Like Hesiod, Shaw criticizes such actions. “O, it’s desperately wrong,” he decries (Rosengarten 1974: 545). He implies that the world would be a better place if men stopped acting out of self-interest alone. For Shaw as well as Hesiod, then, this conflict of interest is the greatest problem in his society.

After this brief examination and comparison of Hesiod’s Boeotia and Nate Shaw’s Alabama, one can see that they are dis­tinct, but at the same time they have analogous economic and polit­ical relationships. Most significantly they share a tension arising from a conflict of interests. This conflict, between self-interest and the greater interest, is the most important similarity between the societal workings of Boeotia and Alabama, because it is such con­flict that similarly shapes and forms the message of each work. With these images of Boeotia and Alabama in mind, the stage is set for a comparison of the works themselves.

The Works and Days is according to one scholar a poetic “sequence of instructions on how best to keep an oikos prosper­ous” (Millett 1984: 94). Scholars divide it into three main sections. The first is a history of man and his relationship with the gods. The second section extols the virtues of hard work and justice; for Zeus, Hesiod believes, punishes a community where injustice is allowed to thrive. The final section is almanac-like, offering advice about when and how to go about various agricultural activities.

In All God’s Dangers, Nate Shaw’s stories form his autobio­graphy, beginning with his childhood and continuing chronologi­cally. Time is measured by his moving from one white man’s land to the next. He tells detailed stories of his struggle to get his own land, his involvement in a sharecroppers’ union, the injustice of his subsequent trial, his time in prison, and his homecoming. Rosengar­ten has conveniently divided his book into four sections titled respectively – Youth, Deeds, Prison, Revelation. Throughout, Shaw offers his own opinions about the state of things, his ideas on God and agricultural advice. Although one work is a concise, poetic, how-to manual and the other is a collection of autobiographical sto­ries, comparison will reveal many striking parallels.

The similarity that merits an initial remark is the original form of each piece. The Works and Days was a poem that was probably performed at various lyric competitions and in the homes of pow­erful men. It is an art form then that was meant to be sung, per­formed before an audience. The hexameter format made it fit for singing or reciting publicly. Although it reaches us today as a writ­ten, translated text, we should remember its original form.

All God’s Dangers is an oral history; it is based on stories told aloud to an audience. Thus like Hesiod, Nate Shaw is a performer. After multiple tellings, Nate Shaw has honed and crafted these sto­ries. The story that begins on page 52 is a perfect example of a fine-tuned composition. When in 1905 Shaw has finished working for Mr. Knowland, his father requires that he come home. Throughout this passage, Shaw repeats the phrase, “I said, ‘Papa—’” A rhythm emerges, and the reader imagines he can hear Shaw speaking. Read aloud, the story sounds very similar to modern performance poetry. We get the impression that this is one such story that has evolved into a high art form. Both works there­fore have similar forms: they were meant to be performed or sung before an audience. This similarity justifies further comparison of the content of each work.

Hesiod, as a farmer, discusses agricultural and other matters, like when and how to plant and harvest. Parts of his poem then read like an almanac. For example, with regards to reaping and plowing, Hesiod addresses his brother Perses, “Start reaping when the Pleiades rise, daughters of Atlas, / and begin to plow when they set” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 383-384). The poem continues with discussions about the right times to “prune your vines,” to “sharpen your sickles,” to “thresh Demeter’s grain,” to “start your sowing,” to “geld your boar and bellowing bull,” to “cut / beams for the house,” and to “start building your trim boats” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 570, 573, 598, 780, 790, 807-809). The poem is a veritable “sequence of instructions” as to the timing of tasks (Millett 1984: 94).

Nate Shaw throughout his stories offers similar types of advice and also emphasizes the importance of timeliness in agricul­ture. Of working the land, he says,

New ground, just as soon as you get done gatherin your crop, at your leisure time break that new ground up; if you get a chance, maybe break it twice—the more you break it the better it will work when it comes time to make your crop.

But before you break your land, you better go ahead, knowin that spring is comin after winter— you got to cut and saw you up enough wood and haul it up and cord it to do you that crop season comin, so you’ll have no trouble and no outside work to take you from your crop . . . New ground, you must tear it up before Christmas. . . . (Rosengarten 1974: 177-8).

Both works are indeed almanacs about the proper times to reap, sow, etc.

They both also emphasize the importance of making an effi­cient use of time through hard work. Hesiod makes this point by drawing a direct connection between idleness and ruin. He tells Perses, “Do not postpone for tomorrow or the day after tomor­row; / Barns are not filled by those who postpone / And waste time in aimlessness. Work prospers with care; / He who postpones wrestles with ruin” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 410-413). By the same token hard work leads to prosperity. While “Hunger and the idling man are bosom friends” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 302), “Riches and flocks of sheep go to those who work” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 308). Thus he commands his brother Perses to work— “Work! Work and then hunger will not be your companion” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 299).

Shaw also stresses the finiteness of time, the necessity of hard work and thus the connection between procrastination and ruin, when he commands his listener:

You get out there and hustle and watch the time, be on time the first time because sometimes you might have to plant that crop over; you don’t know. If you can’t be on time—you must use your time, a heap of times, when God gives it to you. God’s a man, you can’t start His time, you can’t stop it. Some folks don’t use the time God gives em; that’s why they’re liable to come up defeated (Rosengarten 1974: 179).

For Shaw as well nothing short of hard work will lead to prosper­ity. A major theme of Shaw’s stories is the way in which he was able to work his way up in the world by virtue of his own toil: “I begin to rise up; I could help myself some” (Rosengarten 1974: 121).

This similarity is probably not very surprising. Certainly farmers will offer similar advice and warnings about proper timing and hard work. What is remarkable, however, is that both Hesiod and Shaw believe that the willingness to work hard is indicative of something deeper. It is indicative of personal virtue and honesty that carry over into the other affairs of life.

Hesiod associates labor with virtue. Thus he says, “man must sweat / to attain virtue” (ll. 289-290). Hesiod sees a direct relation­ship between hard work and honesty in interpersonal affairs. The logic is simple: if one works hard for oneself then one has no need or desire to steal “by might of hand” or “with clever words” from others who do work hard (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 321-322). He explains to Perses, “if you take my advice and turn your foolish mind / away from the possessions of your fellow men / to labor in the service of what is your own / . . . not stolen wealth, god-given is much better” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 314-316, 320).

As well as praising hard work as a virtue, Hesiod also extols justice. According to Hesiod, Justice is first “a maiden and a daughter of Zeus” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 256). A just society by definition is one that follows the ways of Zeus’ daughter. In the end, this justice is what sets men apart from animals. He explains that “fish and wild beasts and winged birds / know not of justice and so eat one another” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 277-278). To fol­low justice is to “give straight verdicts” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 225). Hesiod connects these “straight verdicts” to prosperity. Thus Hesiod states, “Men whose justice is straight know neither hunger nor ruin” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 230). He further quips, “The seed of him whose oath is true will prosper” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 285). A lack of justice, however, will lead to ruin. Thus Hesiod says of a man who “knowingly swears a false oath / and lies,” “his offspring will sink and slowly vanish” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 282-284). For Hesiod finally it is not only hard work, but also virtuous and just ways, that lead to prosperity, and their absence that leads to ruin. This goes beyond the advice of an alma­nac. This is a teaching about virtuous behavior and how to be a good person.

Shaw also correlates hard work with virtue and honesty in other realms. All God’s Dangers is filled with stories about buying and selling (or sometimes simply taking) mules, horses, fertilizer, seed, crops, etc. This subject matter understandably makes for good stories in a world in which “there’s a whole class of people [that] tries to beat the other class of people out of what they has” (Rosengarten 1974: 544). This, Shaw says is “desperately wrong.” However, as Hesiod says, working for one's self is right. Shaw explains that “a man needs regular work – if he wants to work, it’s right, it’s honorable for him to work and try to help hisself” (Rosengarten 1974: 537). For Shaw, as for Hesiod hard work is indicative of personal probity. Shaw like Hesiod then extols the ways of justice and expresses pride in his own righteousness. His strong sense of right and wrong is clear when he says of himself, “ I aint goin to let you catch me drinkin; I aint goin to let you catch me gamblin; I aint goin to let you catch me walkin the road and tellin lies, runnin after women worse than a hog’ll run at a pot of slops” (Rosengarten 1974: 410).

Like Hesiod, he also has a strong sense of justice. This is apparent when Shaw describes his own trial in which as Hesiod would say, “Verdicts are crooked” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 221). He says of his trial and the trial of the Scottsboro Boys, “the trials was just a sham…I might tell em everything just like it was but they’d kick against me in court, in regards to my color…when it comes to speakin out in his own defense, nigger weren’t heard in court . . . a niggers word never has went worth a penny unless some white man backed it up. . . . ” (Rosengarten 1974: 340). Shaw, like Hesiod, believes that these unjust ways lead to ruin. Shaw explains of “every man that I heard talk against me . . . is dead and gone” (Rosengarten 1974: 520). He believes that they deserved what came to them because of their false oaths. Finally, Shaw makes a statement about the justice that sets men apart from beasts that is eerily similar to ll. 277-8 of The Works and Days. “Treat everybody right,” Shaw says, “treat em with respect for God’s sake. He didn’t put us down here to live like dogs and brutes” (Rosengarten 1974: 553). Like Hesiod, in these tellings, Shaw teaches that hard work is a sign of the virtuous and just ways that lead to prosperity. In Shaw’s stories and in Hesiod’s poem then, we find not only an almanac, but also a prescription for pros­perity through justice.

There is a problem, however, with the effectiveness of this prescription as seen in the lives of Hesiod and Shaw. Their hard work and upright ways did not always pay off. Hesiod seemed to lose out in his dispute with Perses. Shaw was unfairly sent to pri­son, lost many of his possessions and the last laboring years of his life. How do they reconcile this conflict between their teachings about justice and the reality of their lives? The answer to this ques­tion reveals another similarity between Hesiod’s and Shaw’s ideas, for they resolve this contradiction in similar ways.

Why should men be virtuous and follow the justice that sets them apart from “wild beasts?” Why does Hesiod argue that this justice will lead to prosperity? Hesiod states that he does “not believe yet that Zeus’ wisdom will allow this,” that is “wrongdoers to win the court decisions,” because, he says, Zeus punishes those who do not heed his daughter and rewards those that do (Athanas­sakis 1983: ll. 273, 272). The answer then lies in his beliefs about the gods: man should work hard, be virtuous and follow justice, because he says, “Zeus who sees far and wide blesses the affairs / of the man who knows justice and proclaims it before the public” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 280-281). “Men whose justice is straight know neither hunger nor ruin” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 230). Mean­while, Zeus punishes those who follow unjust ways, “acts of injustice anger Zeus himself, / who rewards them harshly upon their completion” (Athanassakis 1983: ll. 333-334). It is a divine order then, that hard work and just ways lead to prosperity.

Shaw provides a similar answer to the question of how hard work and virtue lead to prosperity. Although Shaw believes in the Judeo-Christian God and not the Greek pantheon, he still posits that the connection between hard work, personal integrity, and prosperity is part of a divine order. Shaw believes that God pun­ished those who acted unjustly and mistreated him. He explains of those whose “verdicts [were] crooked when they s[a]t in judg­ment” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 221) on his trial, that “they died like sheep with the rock . . . ” “The old judge that sentenced me, he didn’t live to see me make my sentence. Tom Heflin, man that prosecuted me, he didn’t live . . . The jury a heap of them gone . . .” He believes that they all died in accordance with a divine order of justice: “God says revenge is his…Every man that I heard talk against me…God removed em from this earth . . . God moved em” (Rosengarten 1974: 520). Although Hesiod and Shaw believe in a different God, they both attribute the relation between uprightness and prosperity to a divine order. Men should act justly because there is a divine power that rewards just acts and punishes unjust ones.

For Hesiod, this divine order bestows men with a choice of just or unjust actions. According to Hesiod, Zeus has provided his daughter, Justice, as a guide for right doing. “Justice, the best thing there is, [Zeus] gave to men” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 279). Man has the responsibility in following this guide to forge a just society. It is significant that Hesiod draws a distinction between justice and its implementation. Zeus merely provides the means (Justice) to create a good society. Humans have agency because they have the choice to follow justice (or not). Thus Hesiod says, “You can choose to have evil, and heaps of it, too” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 287).

Shaw also believes that God has given men the choice to work hard and be virtuous. He explains of agricultural pursuits that although God is almighty, He “has a part for you to do—He aint goin to come down here and plant nary a seed of no sort for you
. . .  ” Just as Zeus has given men Justice as a guide, in Shaw’s worldview, God has given man knowledge. But it is a human responsibility to make good use of that knowledge. Shaw contin­ues, “He give you wisdom and knowledge to do it. But if you set around and don’t do nothin, wont work, you burnt up, you hear? You get out here and do your part . . . ” (Rosengarten 1974: 182). The implication is that you can choose to take this part or not. Because God has given man knowledge and therefore also because man has a choice, man has the responsibility to act justly. Shaw explains succinctly of God: “He made you responsible to that knowledge; a man is responsible, a woman is responsible, for the acts of their flesh and blood and the thoughts of their minds” (Rosengarten 1974: 228).

Because Hesiod and Shaw both believe humans have God-given guides to just action (Hesiod’s female divinity, Justice, and Shaw’s knowledge), they would agree on the fact of human agency in forging a just world. They would concur that humans are respon­sible for their own fate. They would both agree that humans have a responsibility to resolve the conflict between individual and com­munal interests, the greatest tension in both societies and the prob­lem both Shaw and Hesiod seek to address.

The Works and Days and Nate Shaw’s stories play analogous roles in their respective contexts: both offer a solution to the main conflict of their societies: men should forego self-interest because the God(s) punish those who act out of reckless greed. Instead of being “tricked by the greed for profit,” men should act justly (Athanassakis 1983: l. 321). In both Hesiod’s and Shaw’s world­views to act justly is to overcome self-interest in favor of greater interests.

This responsibility to follow justice is a collective one for both Hesiod and Shaw. If the community allows unjust acts of a single individual the whole community suffers. Thus Hesiod says, “many times one man’s wickedness ruins a whole city…” (Athanassakis 1983: l. 240). By the same logic, “Those who give straight verdicts and follow justice, / both when fellow citizens and strangers are on trial, / live in a city that blossoms, a city that prospers” (Athanas­sakis 1983: ll. 225-227). This contains a simple logic. The world would be a better place if honesty and virtue governed men’s inter­actions—with or without divine punishment.

Shaw would agree that forging a more just society is the responsibility of all members of that society. His criticism of Booker T. Washington is telling. Although Washington worked to improve the plight of blacks, Shaw claims that he was not willing “enough to go rock bottom with” his race of people. He criticizes him for leaning “too much to the white people that controlled the money – lookin out for what was his worth” (Rosengarten 1974: 543). In light of the greater message of these two works—that jus­tice is a collective responsibility—this criticism of self-interest is unsurprising. Shaw implies a more fitting approach to the amelio­ration of society. He asks rhetorically, “Why would I not care who sinks just so I swim?” to suggest a more appropriate attitude for Washington (Rosengarten 1974: 543). Shaw like Hesiod envisions everyone in the same predicament: “the poor white man and the poor black man is sittin in the same saddle” (Rosengarten 1974: 489). He also knows that the improvement of society, the achieve­ment of justice is a collective responsibility.

After this comparison of the two poets, their worlds, and their works, the similarities are abundantly apparent. The works them­selves are similar in form, content, and their greater message. Their similarities lie in the fact that both poets seek to address the main conflict that affects their societies. The Works and Days and Shaw’s stories provide a resolution to this problem of collective versus individual interests: divine power rewards a just community and punishes the unjust one.

This comparison illuminates the similar roles Hesiod and Shaw play in their societies. On the most immediate level, they are sing­ers of stories. The preceding comparison, however, proves them much more than this. They are political thinkers, but not of the privileged, university-situated kind. They are thinkers and theorists with first-hand experience of the tangible and painful reality of an unjust society. Furthermore their works give them away not only as thinkers, but also as teachers. As a final exercise, we need only remember that singing or telling a story is a public act, with the purpose of imparting some knowledge. The composers of the Works and Days and the stories of All God’s Dangers have a similar purpose in telling their words to an audience—to educate. In this action Hesiod and Nate Shaw are taking part in the process of forging a more just society.

References

Tandy, David W. and Walter C. Neale. 1996. Hesiod’s Works and Days. Lon­don: University of California Press, Ltd..

Millett, Paul. 1984. “Hesiod and his World,” Cambridge Philological Society Proceedings, no. 210 (new series no. 30): 84-107.

Rosengarten, Theodore. 1974. All God’s Dangers. Chicago: University of Chi­cago Press.

Athanassakis, Apostolos N.. 1983. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Shield. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.