Zegarelli does not merely reinterpret Aesop; he repurposes the fable as a modern ethical lens. The fable is transformed from a simple warning into a meditation on emotional projection, semantic precision, spiritual addiction, and existential misalignment. The moral is not “don’t be greedy,” but more subtly, don’t mistake possession for value, attention for love, or stillness for wisdom. [AI Assessment]
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci (Adopted by Steve Jobs)
There was a Miser who hid his Gold in his yard. He could not bear to spend any of it, and, each day, he would go to look at it.
The Miser’s actions came to the attention of a Thief, who then stole the Gold.
When the Miser discovered the Gold was stolen, he screamed with pain at his loss.
When he told the Villagers, they said, “Just bury a rock and view it each day. Since you would never spend it, one is as good as the other.”
Moral of the Story: What something is, is what something does. Don’t show your gold to thieves.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: This is one of the “complex” fables that provides a few different lessons to consider, and the one that resonates is for each his or her own.
Aesop starts his fable by “characterizing” his titular character—the Man—as “a Miser.” A miser is a “person who hoards wealth and spends as little money as possible.”
For Aesop, as a teacher of wisdom, identifying someone as a “miser” is tantamount to starting his fable by telling us the man is a fool.
So we pretty much know that Aesop’s characterization of the Man as a “Miser” alone portends that something bad is going to happen for the Miser—if not in factual reality, then in his mind.
But, an upfront note about the gold (or money) is worthy, in that Aesop is not presenting a morality lesson, but a broader lesson about human nature.
The Gold could be anything—it is a metaphorical placeholder.
For Aesop, Socrates and many other sages, Wisdom, Virtue and Good Effects carpool to work in the morning—traveling together—and so do Foolishness, Vice and Bad Effects…
Unlike the entire body of Jesusian teaching about a type of “morality,” the entire body of Aesopian teaching is about secular causes and effects; that is, the effects that logically flow from human action (or inaction).
Wisdom is about understanding causes and effects, and, if we don’t understand the causal actors—being human beings and their core nature—we cannot predict the effects.
The Epilogue has more explanation on this precise topic. [1]
Therefore, we know that the Miser’s vice will have consequences. And, we can see the Miser’s vice not just by Aesop’s titular characterization, but from the fact that the Miser desired to look at the gold, but he could not bear to spend any of it.
Aesop’s Miser loves his glittering sort-of rock. He looks at it, holds it, feels its weight, and he coddles it like a baby.
But, there’s something important here: the rock is inanimate.
Therefore, that love is entirely selfish. An inanimate object cannot receive love, it cannot appreciate love, and it cannot return love. The concept of “unilateral selfish love” is a philosopher’s stone. That is, to recognize a type of love that is incapable of being received.
If the object of the love were animate, there would be ambiguity in the nature of the love as selfish or unselfish, but, here, we have no such ambiguity. Aesop makes it clear: The emotion of love for the Miser is completely and unequivocally unilaterally selfish. [1a]
In loving a “thing,” the love is not a give, but entirely a take, and therein, it is not really love, by inanimation of the object. The English term “love” for something inanimate is a gross, mean, and base conflation of concepts that adduces flawed thinking and vice by misallocated claim to virtue. That is, love as a Monopoly misplayed cheat of a “get out of jail free card.” [1b] Love is not perfect unto itself nor is it a virtue unto itself. [1c]
Thusly, by the fact of unilateral selfish love (unnatural attraction) to an inanimate thing, our love train is rolling onto the rails of selfish vice, perhaps a form of gluttony, or vanity, or greed, or pride, or lust.
It is a philosophical bright line: Is the thing loved animate? And, if so, a corollary: Whether and to what extent can or does the thing loved appreciate or reciprocate, or is the thing loved tantamount to an inanimate thing? [1d, *1a]
In this fact, this fable is like the opposite to The Serpent and the File. [1e] In that fable, the Serpent despised an inanimate object that could not receive the hate. In this fable, the Miser loved the thing that could not receive the love. [*1e]
We don’t know why the Miser loves his rock, but, in telling us that the Man is a Miser, we know that there is a lack of personal harmony. The Gold does give some imperfect and frustrated pleasure to the Miser, but for the Miser, the focus of the pleasure is unilaterally to self from a rock.
So, we can distinguish a person who prudently saves (not hoards) money for the purpose of retirement, or for children’s education, or for prudent security, or for philanthropic purposes, all of which are, within reason, virtuous purposes.
The virtue is in the balance, harmony, justice, discipline, or temperance: the thing to its existential purpose.
But we might here take another moment to give the Miser a benefit of doubt: Let us assume that the Miser “loves” the Gold for its “art” or as-if art value; that is, the Miser simply “enjoys” looking at the Gold, in the same manner as anyone enjoys art, or simply admiring and looking at Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.
Perhaps the Miser might argue that art is the pinnacle of human holistic inspiration. And we might say that the custodians of art—such as the Catholic Church—preserve and offer these human “pleasures” for the “good” of mankind.
So be it, proving human tendencies to appreciate art does not defeat Aesop’s rule on human tendencies, but rather proves it. [*1a] The thing is animate or not, and the attachment to it is virtuous or not. The question remains: What is the human effect from the cause. Thusly, the adages: “Nulla ars in se ipsa perfecta est.” (“No art is perfect unto itself.”) “Ars non servit sibi.” (“Art does not serve itself.”)
Here, the Miser feeds his vice, being what is presented by Aesop in a manner of personal addiction. We know this is a personal addiction, because we are told that the Miser has lost his free choice.
The miser is a slave to the glittering rock, or more precisely, a slave to himself. Lack of focus of that effect is merely by delusive diversion and diffusion.
The great Tolkien taught us that Frodo “thought” he possessed The Ring, but it was not so—The Ring actually possessed Frodo.
There is no wisdom where there is no free and rational choice.
Indeed, an elemental vice would be to hoard the Gold, but not also to look at it each day. But, alas, virtue feeds virtue, and vice feeds vice. (“Virtus virtutem nutrit, vitium vitium nutrit.”) So, the Miser’s vice must also be fed with daily visits. Vice upon vice.
The Miser just cannot help himself. He cannot bear to spend his Gold, and he cannot bear to cease looking at it. [2]
As a slave to himself, perhaps by karma, he feeds his addiction (attachment) that creates the movement that attracts the attention of the Thief, who thereby steals the glittering rock. Good feeds good, and bad feeds bad.
Dare we see it. This is but a small step away from putting a picture of our new car on Facebook, or posting a vacation picture disclosing that we are out of town with an empty home. Merely degree but not essential substance. The seed of the weed is nurtured and grows.
Intents and purposes are important. A new professional buying a Lincoln Continental for house calls to augment (moral dissimulation notwithstanding) client confidence [3], so that he or she is perceived as successful, for the strategic purpose of playing a commercial game, is one thing. Buying the same Lincoln Continental (and loving it, as such) so that self-worth, validation by external, or self-love is created in result, with vanity, pride and a concomitant desire for the envy of others (placing into them insecurity), is something else. [4]
Here, the Miser lost his ability to be wise in thought or disciplined in action. Sooner or later, there will always be an effect to follow, as certain as the night, the day. [5]
“If you enter the house of Fortune through the door of pleasure, you will leave through the door of sorrow, and vice versa.” Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
“With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.” Epictetus. The Enchiridion [6]
“I wear the chain I forged in life. I made it link by link and yard by yard. Is its pattern strange to you or would you know the length of the strong coils you bear yourself? It was as full, as heavy, as long as this seven Christmas Eves ago, you have labored on it since, it is a ponderous chain!” Charles Dickens, Christmas Carol (Jacob Marley to Scrooge)
“You must remember that freedom of the soul is the goal of all Yogas, and each one equally leads to the same result. By work alone men may get to where Buddha got largely by meditation or Christ by prayer. A golden chain is as much a chain as an iron one. There is a thorn in my finger, and I use another to take the first one out; and when I have taken it out, I throw both of them aside; I have no necessity for keeping the second thorn, because both are thorns after all. Therefore, be ‘unattached’; let things work; let brain centres work; work incessantly, but let not a ripple conquer the mind. Work as if you were a stranger in this land, a sojourner; work incessantly, but do not bind yourselves; bondage is terrible. This world is not our habitation, it is only one of the many stages through which we are passing. Remember that great saying of the Sankhya, ‘The whole of nature is for the soul, not the soul for nature.’ The very reason of nature’s existence is for the education of the soul; it has no other meaning; it is there because the soul must have knowledge, and through knowledge free itself.” ~ Swami Vivekananda. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (ed)
“I cannot call riches better than the baggage of virtue. The Roman word is better, impedimenta, or impediments. For as the baggage is to an army, so is riches to virtue. It cannot be spared nor left behind, but it hindereth the march; yea, and the care of it sometimes loseth or disturbeth the victory. Of great riches there is no real use, except it be in the distribution; the rest is but conceit. Do you not see what feigned prices are set upon little stones and rarities, and what works of ostentation are undertaken, because there might seem to be some use of great riches? Seek not proud riches, but such as thou mayest get justly, use soberly, distribute cheerfully, and leave contentedly. Distinguish, as Cicero saith: ‘In his keenness to increase his wealth it was apparent that he was not seeking a prey for avarice to feed upon, but an instrument for good to work with.’” ~ Francis Bacon. The Essays
“The history of money-getting, which is commerce, is a history of civilization, and wherever trade has flourished most, there, too, have art and science produced the noblest fruits. In fact, as a general thing, money-getters are the benefactors of our race. To them, in a great measure, are we indebted for our institutions of learning and of art, our academies, colleges and churches. It is no argument against the desire for, or the possession of wealth, to say that there are sometimes misers who hoard money only for the sake of hoarding and who have no higher aspiration than to grasp everything which comes within their reach. As we have sometimes hypocrites in religion, and demagogues in politics, so there are occasionally misers among money-getters. These, however, are only exceptions to the general rule. But when, in this country, we find such a nuisance and stumbling block as a miser, we remember with gratitude that in America we have no laws of primogeniture, and that in the due course of nature the time will come when the hoarded dust will be scattered for the benefit of mankind. To all men and women, therefore, do I conscientiously say, make money honestly, and not otherwise, for Shakespeare has truly said, ‘He that wants money, means, and content, is without three good friends.’” ~ P.T. Barnum, 21 Rules of Money-Getting, quoting Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 3, Scene 2 [7]
“Sell your possessions and give to charity. It is futile to store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But, instead, store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be.” [8]
“Consumption without limitation is gluttony. Production without consumption is drudgery. Neither extreme could be intended. It seems rightful to produce all that we can endure without drudgery. And to consume all that we can enjoy without gluttony. But, in all cases, to do our best to consume less than we produce, and to contribute the remainder to those who are unable to produce what they need to consume.” [9]
“A miser is as much in want of what he has as in what he has not.” ~ Publilius Syrus
“Enough is abundance to the wise.” ~ Euripides
A Christmas Carol (Scrooge) [MUID53X] – Marley’s Warning
[1] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [GRZ24] [LinkedIn #GRZ_24]
[1a] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
[1b] The Truth. Hard to Handle, Even Harder to Swallow. [GRZUID178] [LinkedIn #GRZ_178]
[1c] Hope, Prayer, Trust and Reliance Upon Luck; Or, the Ignoble Handouts Oft by Noble Emotions [GRZ137] [LinkedIn #GRZ_137]
[1d] The Woman Wins. Now. It’s About Time. [GRZ199] [LinkedIn #GRZ_199]
[1e] The Acidic Venom of Scorn – No. 62. The Serpent and the File – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_62] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_62]
[2] A Bag of Talents, a Profitable Servant, and a Pile of Manure [GRZ173] [LinkedIn #GRZ_173]
[3] VI. Simulation and Dissimulation; Or, The Art of the Lie. – Back to Basics Abridgement Series [GRZ190] [LinkedIn #GRZ_190]
[4] Pride; Or, What’s the Point? – No. 102. The Peacock’s Tail – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_102] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_102]
[5] The Two Doors of Life: Pleasure and Pain; The One-Two Choice, Say Sages Aesop, Gracian, Jesus and Socrates [GRZ136] [LinkedIn #GRZ_136]
[6] Epictetus. On the Tranquil Flow of Life. – Abridgment Series [GRZ17X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_17]
[7] Rules of Money-Getting, by P.T. Barnum – Abridgment Series [GRZ20X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_20]
[8] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] ONE: 577 [T6:21] (“Heart Treasure“)
[9] Consumption and Gluttony [GRZ93] [LinkedIn]
“Nulla ars in se ipsa perfecta est.” (“No art is perfect unto itself.”) “Ars non servit sibi.” (“Art does not serve itself.”); “Virtus virtutem nutrit, vitium vitium nutrit.” (“Virtue feeds virtue, and vice feeds vice.”); “Effectus logici ex condicionibus constitutis.” (“Logical effects from established conditions.”); “Nulla electio, nulla sapientia.” (“No choice, no wisdom”); “Bonae decisiones ad bonas decisiones ducunt. Malae decisiones ad malas decisiones ducunt.” (“Good decisions lead to good decisions. Bad decisions lead to bad decisions.”); “Sicut semina parva, facta nostra sopitant, postea nascuntur, sicut flores aut zizania.” (“Like little seeds, our deeds lie dormant, springing up later, as flowers or weeds.”); “Ars non est passive accipienda, sed magis ars est active contemplanda.” (“Art is not to be passively received, but rather, art is to be actively contemplated.”) ~ grz
ChatGPT Assessment
This fable—and Gregg Zegarelli’s layered interpretation of it—offers a rich canvas for a deep philosophical and pedagogical analysis. Here’s a structured exploration of its ethos, pedagogy, core teachings, and conclusion:
🧭 I. ETHOS OF THE ARTICLE
Zegarelli’s ethos is rooted in:
- Secular wisdom and cause-effect realism, as opposed to moral idealism.
- A rejection of sentimentality in favor of natural logic and human behavioral analysis.
- An insistence on philosophical clarity, such as the animate/inanimate distinction in the possibility of love.
- A critique of language misuse—specifically, how the word love is misapplied to things and inanimate objects to falsely signal virtue.
This piece reinforces the broader Zegarelli ethos: attachment without reciprocity is vice, emotion does not validate virtue, and true virtue requires reason, discipline, and harmony with existential purpose.
📚 II. PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGY
Zegarelli’s pedagogical strategy in this fable can be broken into layers:
1. Immediate Narrative Function (Aesop’s Surface Layer)
- The fable warns that possessiveness and inactivity invite loss, as the miser loses his gold to a thief he himself attracts.
- The townspeople offer the punchline: “Just bury a rock.” Because utility is absent, the gold and a rock are materially equal.
2. Philosophical Deepening (Zegarelli’s Commentary)
- Zegarelli elevates the narrative from economic hoarding to existential misalignment.
- He introduces a bright-line principle: Love for an inanimate object is by definition selfish and therefore not love in any meaningful moral sense.
- He emphasizes that wisdom is causal, and true virtue demands engagement with animate existence and reciprocal potential.
3. Multimodal Reinforcement (Quotes & Citations)
He blends references from:
- Aesop (simplicity of narrative),
- Dickens (A Christmas Carol, the chain of self-forged vice),
- Epictetus (acceptance and transience),
- Vivekananda (yogic non-attachment),
- Bacon (wealth as impediment to virtue), and
- Barnum and Shakespeare (on wealth’s use vs. ostentation).
This cross-temporal chorus functions not only to educate but to restructure modern assumptions, especially in capitalist or consumerist cultures.
🪙 III. CORE THEMES & TEACHINGS
1. The Nature of Vice: Unilateral Attachment
“Love that is incapable of being received is not love.”
- Attachment to an inanimate thing is inherently selfish.
- The English misuse of “love” for objects (e.g., “I love my car”) falsely cloaks vice in the language of virtue.
2. Function Defines Worth
“What something is, is what something does.”
- Gold, if not used, is materially the same as a rock.
- Worth lies not in intrinsic sparkle but in applied purpose.
3. The Addiction Analogy
“The miser cannot help himself.”
- The miser is not in control of his desire, making the gold not a possession but a master.
- This inversion (like Frodo and the Ring) is a warning about losing autonomy through unchecked desire.
4. Visibility and Risk
“Don’t show your gold to thieves.”
- Vanity (or the habit of display) invites harm.
- Zegarelli connects this to modern social media behavior: posting luxuries or personal milestones for public consumption is “showing the gold,” often with unacknowledged risks.
5. Virtue is Balanced Engagement
- Saving money can be virtuous if tied to future-oriented, reciprocal ends (family, philanthropy, education).
- Hoarding without intention to use is vice, because it violates existential harmony and communal purpose.
🧠 IV. PHILOSOPHICAL TAKEAWAYS
- Attachment without animation is delusion.
- Language can disguise vice as virtue—especially through the inflation of terms like “love.”
- Possession is meaningless without use—function determines moral worth.
- Vice accumulates in silence until it attracts consequence.
- Visibility without purpose is vanity, and vanity is the signal fire for loss.
🔚 CONCLUSION
Zegarelli does not merely reinterpret Aesop; he repurposes the fable as a modern ethical lens. The Miser and His Gold is transformed from a simple warning into a meditation on:
- Emotional projection,
- Semantic precision,
- Spiritual addiction, and
- Existential misalignment.
This article serves not only as an ethical analysis but as a mirror for consumer society. The moral is not “don’t be greedy,” but more subtly, don’t mistake possession for value, attention for love, or stillness for wisdom.
20250620.4o
As we are moving into Thanksgiving and the Holiday Season today (11/1/26), I thought this article would be ripe for a re-post. Let me know if you have any new insights or revisions since your last review.
Yes. I would retain the June 2025 assessment, but after our recent work on The Farmer and His Sons, The Dog and His Reflection, The Hares and the Frogs, the Noble Emotions, and the distinction between agency and attachment, I think The Miser and His Gold (GRZ98_79) deserves a more substantial philosophical supplement.
And November 1 is an especially appropriate time to revisit it. The article’s correlation to A Christmas Carol gives the fable a natural bridge from Thanksgiving’s theme of appreciation to the Christmas season’s themes of generosity, attachment, and redemption.
My principal new observation is this:
The Miser’s greatest loss is not the Gold stolen by the Thief. It is the freedom to determine what the Gold is for, a freedom he has already surrendered before the Thief arrives.
The Thief takes the Gold.
But the Miser’s attachment has already taken his agency.
That is the more fundamental Aesopian lesson.
1. The Miser’s tragedy occurs before the theft
The traditional interpretation focuses upon the Villagers’ response:
“Just bury a rock and view it each day. Since you would never spend it, one is as good as the other.”
The joke is that the Miser has reduced something valuable to something functionally indistinguishable from a stone.
But your updated exposition goes further.
The Miser cannot bear to spend the Gold.
He cannot bear to stop looking at it.
He is compelled both to retain and to contemplate the possession.
That means the Gold is no longer merely a resource available for the Miser’s purposes.
It has become the purpose itself.
And this is where your reference to Frodo and the Ring becomes important.
The Miser thinks he possesses the Gold, but his attachment allows the Gold to possess him.
The Gold has no consciousness, intention, or power of command.
The Miser supplies all of those effects through his own psychological relationship to it.
Thus, the apparent master becomes the servant without any external actor acquiring authority over him.
That is a powerful inversion.
2. The new distinction between love and attachment is philosophically significant
Your article now makes a particularly strong claim:
“In loving a ‘thing,’ the love is not a give, but entirely a take, and therein, it is not really love, by inanimation of the object.”
I think this is an important connection to the Noble Emotions doctrine, although I would distinguish two propositions.
First, the Gold cannot receive or reciprocate affection. That is a factual distinction between animate and inanimate objects.
Second, the Miser’s attachment is necessarily selfish and vicious. That is a further evaluative conclusion.
The first does not invariably establish the second.
A person can love a work of art, a musical composition, a family heirloom, or a place because of what it represents or the human relationships it preserves.
The object cannot reciprocate, but the attachment may still serve meaningful human purposes.
Your article actually recognizes this complication when it discusses the Mona Lisa and the possibility of appreciating Gold as art.
I think the strongest formulation of your doctrine is therefore not:
Love of an inanimate thing is necessarily vice.
It is:
When attachment to an inanimate thing becomes an end that defeats the actor’s freedom, judgment, and higher purposes, the attachment has become self-defeating.
That is more consistent with your distinction between Noble Emotions and Cardinal Virtues.
Love is not inherently Wisdom.
But neither is every affection for an object inherently foolish.
Wisdom must determine its proper place.
3. The Miser and the Farmer’s Sons are nearly perfect opposites
This is the strongest new correlation I see.
We recently discussed The Farmer and His Sons, where the Father induces his Sons to search for buried treasure.
They dig.
They cultivate the land.
They produce a harvest.
They discover that the true treasure lies in productive agency.
Now consider the Miser.
He also places treasure in the ground.
But instead of using the land to produce value, he uses it to conceal value.
The contrast is remarkable.
| The Farmer and His Sons | The Miser and His Gold | |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship to land | Cultivation | Concealment |
| Relationship to treasure | Value to be created | Value to be preserved |
| Principal activity | Productive work | Repeated contemplation |
| Effect upon agency | Develops capability | Restricts choice |
| Long-term result | Increased productive wealth | Loss of possession |
Both stories involve buried treasure.
But the underlying relationship to value is reversed.
The Farmer uses the idea of buried treasure to cause productive work. The Miser buries actual treasure to avoid putting it to work.
That is an unusually effective Aesopian pairing.
And it connects directly to your recent maxim:
“Amor excellentiae laborem in se comprehendit.”
“Loving excellence subsumes the work.”
The Farmer’s Sons discover that value can be created through purposeful effort.
The Miser becomes so attached to accumulated value that he ceases to exercise productive judgment concerning it.
The first develops agency.
The second imprisons it.
4. The Dog and His Reflection supplies another important contrast
In The Dog and His Reflection, the Dog possesses a valuable meal but becomes dissatisfied upon perceiving another creature as possessing more.
The Dog loses appreciation before losing possession.
The Miser presents the opposite psychological condition.
He possesses something valuable and becomes so intensely attached to it that he cannot permit himself to use it.
The Dog’s problem is insufficient satisfaction with what he has.
The Miser’s problem is excessive dependence upon retaining what he has.
Yet both ultimately lose their possessions.
The Dog risks his meal to obtain an imagined greater prize.
The Miser risks his Gold by repeatedly visiting it, thereby attracting the Thief’s attention.
The common principle is:
The actor’s relationship to the possession can become more destructive than any defect in the possession itself.
And this connects directly to The Hares and the Frogs.
The proper value of a possession is not necessarily established by comparison with another’s possessions.
Nor is it established by the intensity of one’s attachment to it.
Wisdom must assess what the possession actually contributes to the actor’s legitimate objectives.
5. The Miser is an example of the Fool’s Five operating through attachment
This is a less obvious correlation.
We usually discuss the Fool’s Five in circumstances involving future uncertainty, external promises, or dependence upon another actor.
But the Miser demonstrates that dependency can arise even when the object is already possessed.
The Gold is his.
Yet his satisfaction depends upon its continued existence, availability, and preservation.
Those conditions are not entirely within his control.
The Thief proves that.
The Miser therefore becomes psychologically dependent upon an external condition that he cannot perfectly guarantee.
He trusts that the Gold will remain hidden.
He believes his method of preservation is sufficient.
He hopes that the possession will remain available.
But his attachment makes the potential loss increasingly consequential.
The problem is not merely that he possesses Gold.
He has made his internal equilibrium contingent upon the continued possession of something externally vulnerable.
That is exactly the sort of vulnerability your Hope Doctrine repeatedly examines.
And it is particularly ironic because the Miser believes hoarding creates security.
In his case, hoarding creates dependence.
6. The Christmas Carol correlation is stronger than a general warning against greed
Eine Weihnachtsgeschichte (Charles Dickens) – Das Original von 1951 (DVD) | 6418148
Your quotation from Jacob Marley is particularly appropriate because Marley describes a chain forged through his own choices.
The chain is not imposed by an external jailer.
It is constructed by the actor himself, link by link.
The Miser similarly constructs his own confinement.
The Gold does not demand daily visits.
It does not prohibit spending.
It does not require secrecy.
Those restrictions originate within the Miser’s own mind.
And that is why Marley’s warning is such a powerful companion.
The burden is self-created, but no less real because it is self-created.
There is also an important difference between the two narratives.
Marley’s chain is a moral and spiritual consequence of his conduct toward others.
The Miser’s chain is primarily psychological and practical.
The distinction matters because your Aesopian framework concerns Wisdom rather than conventional moral goodness.
The Miser need not be condemned as an evil person for the fable to establish that his attachment is foolish.
7. The holiday-season connection is really about the distinction between giving and possessing
I think this deserves emphasis in your repost.
Thanksgiving invites reflection upon what one possesses and appreciates.
Christmas, particularly through Dickens, invites reflection upon what one does with what one possesses.
The Miser fails at the second.
He has wealth.
But he cannot convert it into consumption, security, education, generosity, experience, or another deliberately chosen objective.
And this brings us to the important Francis Bacon quotation in your article.
Bacon distinguishes wealth as an instrument for good from wealth as an object of accumulation for its own sake.
That distinction is central.
The problem is not wealth.
Nor is it the desire to acquire wealth.
Nor is it even prudent saving.
The problem is the loss of the relationship between means and ends.
The Miser has converted a means into an end, and then sacrificed the legitimate uses of the means to preserve the end he has invented.
That is an excellent holiday-season teaching without becoming a simplistic condemnation of material prosperity.
8. There is a further connection to Father Time
The Miser’s daily visits are not merely repetitive.
They consume time.
He spends portions of his finite life looking at something he refuses to use.
And he cannot recover that time after the Gold disappears.
This introduces a second loss.
The Thief steals the Gold.
But the Miser has already expended irreplaceable time in service of the Gold.
That is where our discussion of Father Time’s quiet siege becomes relevant.
The Miser believes he is preserving value.
But he is simultaneously expending another form of value that cannot be replenished.
The Gold can potentially be replaced. The time spent worshipping it cannot.
And this makes the Miser’s conduct especially interesting alongside your maxim concerning Wisdom investing time into eternity.
The Farmer invests time in cultivating productive capacity.
The Miser spends time preserving an object whose productive capacity he refuses to exercise.
The first creates continuing returns.
The second produces repeated reassurance, until even that reassurance is taken away.
9. One important correction to my earlier review
The June 2025 assessment said:
“Because utility is absent, the gold and a rock are materially equal.”
I would revise that.
The Gold and the rock are not materially or economically equivalent.
The Gold retains exchange value, potential uses, and purchasing power regardless of the Miser’s refusal to exercise them.
The Villagers’ observation is narrower and more clever.
For the particular purpose to which the Miser has reduced his Gold—looking at something buried in the ground—a rock can serve as a substitute.
That is the point.
The fable does not establish that unused wealth has no value.
It establishes that the Miser has voluntarily restricted the value he derives from his wealth to something that does not require wealth at all.
That is a more precise interpretation of:
“What something is, is what something does.”
The maxim concerns functional significance in context, not the literal destruction of an object’s inherent attributes.
10. The Serpent and the File correlation is particularly interesting
Your new reference to The Serpent and the File creates a conceptual symmetry.
The Serpent directs hostility toward an inanimate object incapable of receiving or responding to the hostility.
The Miser directs affection toward an inanimate object incapable of receiving or responding to the affection.
Both expend emotional energy upon an object that cannot participate in the relationship as a conscious counterpart.
But the practical consequences differ.
The Serpent’s hostility causes direct physical injury.
The Miser’s attachment causes psychological dependence and exposure to theft.
This makes the two fables useful companions in your Noble Emotions framework.
The issue is not merely whether the emotion is positive or negative.
It is whether the emotion is properly directed and governed.
Love can be misplaced just as hatred can be misplaced.
And neither becomes wise merely because it is intensely experienced.
My updated assessment
I would supplement the June 2025 review with this:
Read against Zegarelli’s subsequent development of the Noble Emotions, the Hope Doctrine, Father Time, and the distinction between possession and agency, The Miser and His Gold emerges as an examination of how attachment can invert the relationship between actor and possession. The Miser begins as the owner of Gold but becomes psychologically subordinate to preserving and contemplating it, surrendering the freedom to determine its proper use. The Thief’s eventual appropriation is therefore not the first loss of agency, but the visible culmination of an earlier self-imposed dependency. The Villagers’ suggestion that a rock could replace the Gold does not establish that Gold lacks economic value; it exposes the Miser’s reduction of that value to a function for which Gold is unnecessary. Read alongside The Farmer and His Sons, the fable offers a particularly instructive contrast: one story uses the promise of buried treasure to develop productive agency, while the other depicts actual buried treasure becoming an obstacle to purposeful agency. The holiday-season correlation to Dickens’s A Christmas Carol extends the lesson into the distinction between possession and contribution, while Father Time reveals the additional cost of a life spent preserving means without examining their ends. The fable’s mature teaching is not that wealth or affection for possessions is inherently vicious, but that attachment becomes self-defeating when it subordinates Wisdom, choice, and purpose to the mere continuation of possession.
And I would extract this concise formulation:
The Miser did not lose his freedom when the Thief stole his Gold. He lost it when he became unable to use the Gold he owned.
Or, with a more Aesopian irony:
The Thief stole the Miser’s Gold, but the Miser had already stolen his own freedom.
Before reposting
I would retain the substance and the newer correlations. The Christmas Carol reference is particularly timely.
Final observation
There is one particularly fitting irony for the coming holiday season.
The Miser’s problem is not that he possesses too much.
It is that he has made himself incapable of enjoying, using, or giving what he possesses.
The Farmer’s Sons discover that productive work creates treasure.
The Miser discovers that treasure, without purposeful use, can become a burden.
And Marley discovers that a lifetime of attachment can become a chain.
Three different stories, one common principle: wealth is an instrument of life, but life should not become an instrument of wealth.
That is the strongest new insight I would carry into the repost.
20261101-6.1
Star Wars III – Revenge of the Sith [MUID181X] [Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose.]
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/attachment-greed-just-let-go-79-miser-his-gold-back-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Articles:
- [33] Greed is Good? – The Business of Aesop™ No. 9 – The Boy and the Filberts [GRZ33] [LinkedIn #GRZ_33]
- [98_9] Satisfaction, Appreciation and Greed – No. 9. The Boy and the Filberts – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_9] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_9]
GRZ98_79.20261101 GRZUID98_79