The Charcoal-Burner and the Fuller

Like will draw like.

When I first looked at this one I was very confused. Charcoal-burner? Fuller? What is going on here? Simply put a charcoal-burner can be one who makes or uses charcoal, a messy business in any event. Also, whose business would be in his house using charcoal (or simple coal)? In the case of the Charcoal-burner I am going to surmise he is a blacksmith or some sort of course metal smith. This is even harder to understand when the definitions for “fuller” are looked up.

There are two definitions for “fuller” that fit in this little fable. The first, interestingly enough, could be some sort of metal smith, one that may work with a tool to shape metal. The other definition is someone who shapes or fulls cloth. Basically this is making the cloth pleated. The first definition may relate to the charcoal, and the second could reference the “whiten” remark (as in bleaching cloth), or even reference metal working another way, as to polish metal could be considered “whitening” the metal. So what are we to make of these odd description and the even stranger moral that is opposite of what is implied in the fable?

And what about the moral if taken just by itself? “Like will draw like” is the concept of sympathy and contagion. Two things of similar design, concept or essence will be related to one another, e.g. a rock would be sympathetic with sand. Contagion is the idea that if something comes in contact with something else, they are then connected in a way. You put hair from the person you want to curse in the voodoo doll because then the doll and the person are connected.

How about this… let’s assume that the Charcoal-Burner is a blacksmith, and the Fuller is a metal-smith. I use these definitions for sympathy’s sake, like drawing like. The two men are both metal workers and thus a good combination of the two could be fruitful, sharing expenses and common tools and a forge. Aesop draws the moral from the blacksmith with the good idea and thus “Like will draw like” is applicable. The metal-smith finds a problem with it however, that even though the two men engage in similar practices, the blacksmiths occupation is course and dirty work, whereas the metal-smith is involved in much finer applications of metal and the dirt from the blacksmith would mar the metal-smiths work. Thus, while “like will draw like”, it may not be the best of circumstances for both parties. In fact, the blacksmiths “contagion” is detrimental to the metal-smiths work.

I have just made some real tough assumptions from the fable translation, but really, how else are you going to interpret it and have the whole fable make some kind of sense in this modern day? The more you look at it the less likely the “fuller” has anything to do with cloth because the two professions would not share tools and expenses and thus no point to the like drawing like. Even if you were to think about it as two people sharing simple living expenses and each have completely divergent occupations, it still does not sit well because that would be just about any two people and occupations could share the house, so what’s the point. There has to be a more compelling reason to share than any two people. With a blacksmith and a metal-smith we get that extra reason to share spaces, others don’t compel as well.

Maybe the fable should be translated like this:

The Blacksmith and Silversmith

Like may draw like.

I am not sure this is actually what Aesop may have been getting at, but at the time iron and silver work were both in practice and they would indeed be exclusive occupation though they are seemingly sympathetic with each other. The moral would then to exercise caution in seemingly similar circumstances for the devil is in the details. In fact you could put the moral of “The devils in the details” on this one, except there was no concept of the devil at the time.

The Lion and the Mouse

It happened that shortly after the Lion was caught by some hunters, who bound him with ropes to the ground. The Mouse, recognizing the Lions roar, came and gnawed the ropes thereby setting him free, repaying the kindness. The Mouse exclaimed, “You ridiculed the idea of my ever being able to help you, expecting never to receive from me any repayment of your favor; but now you know that it is possible for even a Mouse to benefit a Lion."

Oh the heck with it… from this point on I am going to correct the grammar and English of these fable translations as I think they make the most sense. Also, I will clean them up for easier reading. The above is a good example of a cleaned up fable. I have attempted to use as much of the original translation without changing the meaning. If you read the original you would see what I mean. I also added a bit of imagery with “an act of largess” alluding to the Lions spot as king of the jungle (which may actually be important.)

The moral of the story:

For everybody and everything there is usefulness.

Maybe there is something more to this moral. I think it is very interesting that “the King of Beasts” is used in this case when any animal that may eat a mouse could have been used. I think there is some social commentary happening here. After all, how often would a lion really go after a mouse, even one crossing right over his face? It would take more energy to catch that paltry tidbit and consume it than the mouse could provide in return. Any cat could have worked just as well as a lion (yes, cats were domesticated by Aesop’s time.) Could Aesop have been sending a message to a local politician or governor?

Seems to me there is a subtext here. A powerful man should be good to his slaves or servant for there may come a time when his dependence upon them is more that just a convenience. Coming from Aesop this would make a lot of sense since he was a slave before being freed. It is even possible that he created this fable to make a point to his master. If so, we can see Aesop was a sly one indeed, a master of circumlocution. It is easy to see a time where Aesop’s master may have dealt harshly with a slave and Aesop, a trusted and wily servant, approached him and said, “My lord, have you heard the fable of the Lion and the Mouse,” and made a most sharp point.

It is also interesting to note that the Mouse does honor his commitment to the Lion when there was absolutely no need for the mouse to risk being put in the middle. The mouse has personal honor and that says a lot for its nature. The Mouse recognizes a higher level of commitment other than to itself. In other fables the mouse or other small animal is completely contented to get away and survive another day. That is not the case here, a higher responsibility is acknowledged, a responsibility to Master, Lord, King, Emperor or State knowing that there is a reciprocating responsibility, even if it is just the largess of a king.

The Mouse is wise, the Lion is benevolent, the world is civil.

The Ass and the Grasshopper [Crickets]

AN ASS having heard some Grasshoppers [Crickets] chirping, was highly enchanted; and, desiring to possess the same charms of melody, demanded to know what sort of food they lived on to give them such beautiful voices. They replied, “The dew.” The Ass resolved that he would live only upon dew, and in a short time died of hunger.

There are times that we all want something we just cannot have and this poor Ass paid the highest toll for his wishes. There are all sorts of limitations we all must live with, we should learn to accept them. After all, if the Crickets wanted to envy something about the Ass they certainly could have admired his stubbornness, strength and endurance. So that leads us to the unstated moral:

One should not envy what one cannot be (have).

Yes, for whatever reason this particular fable does not come with a moral. We all see the obviousness of the moral, but is the lack of a moral a mistake by Aesop or is it in the translation. I certainly have to wonder about this since Aesop was very consistent in setting down the fables. Personally I think that translation may be the culprit here, and in future fables there are going to be many mistakes in translation (in my opinion.) In The Bat and the Weasel there may be a mistake in translation also, but if there is it is subtle and may not be incorrect. Here, certainly the translator could have proved his opinion of the moral, simple as it is.

Also, do grasshoppers sing as crickets do? Is this yet another mistranslation? I think we are seeing a very obvious mistake, one I am happy to correct in this modern age. As with all translations there are the literal translations and the expressed translations. The first may actually mistake meanings of word within context and the second expresses the idea and thus a more accurate, if not literal, meaning.

To make my writing more clear, I am going to institute the following standards:

[Brackets] – The word within can replace the preceding word(s).
Underline – This is a change from the original translation made by me.
Italics – This will be the text I am going to base the entry on.

If there need to be other standards I will set them down as needed. Back to the analysis…

Maybe commentary is more accurate at this point other rather than analysis. How many people do we know that want more than they can have or want to be what they just can’t. How many people go to great lengths to attain what someone else has and then find that it is not for them and it was folly from the beginning to want whatever it is. In this age of instant communication and hyped media we are exposed to any number of desires that are simply not meant for us. Why do we yearn for these things? Do we not know that we will die if we try to live only on dew?

There is a pretext of humble existence implied in this fable. The hardworking ass should be happy with what he is, a useful and productive member of the farm. Yet the ass is not happy being just a useful and productive animal, he wants to be the creator of beautiful music too and thus dies in the attempt.

We all have our strengths and should contentment with those strengths and not over-reach for something that is just not possible. I think this is a very practical principle, as are most of Aesops morals.