LAUSR

landowner held up by Olivier de Serres’s Theatre d’agriculture as “a rural prototype of unhurried, moderate, and altruistic capitalism” (179). Patterson also sheds light on the little-known Paradoxe de l’avarice of Antoine Hotman, who argues that those who avidly acquire wealth are also more likely to spread their wealth to others in an anticipation of “modern civic philanthropy” and the “capitalistic spirit of future ages” (196, 198). Similarly, Patterson shows how Montaigne attempts to reconcile Stoic moderation and impassivity with Serres’s mesnagerie, and provides examples of how avarice can enable prudence and discretion. In chapter 6, “Before and beyond Molière,” Patterson points out aspects of Molière’s L’Avare that seem to hearken back to the previous century, but the chapter doesn’t offer much in the way of new observations on the play, and the parallels it proposes often seem like Procrustean stretches. More useful is Patterson’s suggestion that his study might be relevant to “society, or the state of the economy,” and especially to “avarice that has been methodically controlled, or dressed up as beneficial to others” (277). I agree wholeheartedly with this possibility, and while I gleaned much from Representing Avarice as a seiziémiste who has worked on Marguerite de Navarre, the querelle des amies, and Montaigne, I think its most unique and provocative contribution is its unearthing of Serres’s and Hotman’s defense of the avaricious pursuit of wealth as beneficial to the economy, which will no doubt sound eerily familiar in a moment when many are quick to applaud the so-called job creators who amass untold sums by exploiting the labor force and rigging politics in their favor.