Specific accusations of dishonour or moral slackness, especially by known enemies, have little effect on a person's standing. But households, generally poor households, may become known as ritually slack, or worse, as careless of their honour, while others, sometimes also fairly poor, may conversely earn a reputation for morality, or for nobility and generous conduct. These two extremes apart, the majority of villagers are impossible to distinguish in terms of morality and honour.
Moreover, the scales or factors influence each other in complicated ways; indeed, they are not in practice always distinguishable. The word iyi, for example, is used both for a morally good person, and for a moderately well-to-do household. Theoretically a well-off man can be wicked and a good man poor. Yet there is always an implication in village thinking that to possess the physical means to live respectably confers moral respectability, and to be squalidly poor is morally disgraceful. Theologically, a link between the two meanings is provided by the theory that God rewards the virtuous and punishes the wicked in this life; or alternatively by a much less Islamic doctrine loudly pronounced by a successful sheep breeder from Elbashï, who preached that wealth was the result of virtuous hard work and foresight, and poverty of sloth and neglect. In the context of rural Turkey I found his version of the protestant ethic unconvincing. Wealth and morality affect each other in a more practical way. On the one hand, the possessor of a commanding position can get away with minor