The Father and His Sons

Moral: United we stand, divided we fall.

Well, dear old dad needs some peace and quiet, and being the wise father thought maybe if he could just get his kids working together they would argue less and be quieter. In doing so he then relates a simple example that illustrates more to it than just the value of working together. There is a lot to say here about family ties as well, the strength of the family when it is working together.  You may even make the allusion of that the ties that bind the sticks are the ties that bind families. These are strong bindings, emotions and family honor, and are what ultimately make up a happy family.

The basic concept is also the complement to “divide and conquer” or “divide and rule”.  Or the sticks can be an example of “strength in numbers” and so there are many of topics to talk about. Concepts like teamwork and cooperation can easily be interpreted from this simple fable.

What about the individual sticks? Is there something to be said for them? Sure. We could expand the sticks into different types of sticks. Willow sticks are flexible and giving. Sticks from and oak are strong on their own, but stronger together. Some sticks are fragrant and sweet, some are just your average stick and happy to be part of the bundle. You can even say that twigs are powerful when banded together, illustrating that even the meek may be a force to reckon with if sufficient numbers band together.

I have to admit this is one of my favorite fables because it can take on so many different aspects. I tell it to my daughter and friends, her softball team and such. There are just so many ways to spin this one that you could talk about it all day.

Original:
A FATHER had a family of sons who were perpetually quarreling among themselves. When he failed to heal their disputes by his exhortations, he determined to give them a practical illustration of the evils of disunion; and for this purpose he one day told them to bring him a bundle of sticks. When they had done so, he placed the faggot into the hands of each of them in succession, and ordered them to break it in pieces. They tried with all their strength, and were not able to do it. He next opened the faggot, took the sticks separately, one by one, and again put them into his sons’ hands, upon which they broke them easily. He then addressed them in these words: “My sons, if you are of one mind, and unite to assist each other, you will be as this faggot, uninjured by all the attempts of your enemies; but if you are divided among yourselves, you will be broken as easily as these sticks.

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.

The Bat and the Weasel

A BAT who fell upon the ground and was caught by a Weasel pleaded to be spared his life. The Weasel refused, saying that he was by nature the enemy of all birds. The Bat assured him that he was not a bird, but a mouse, and thus was set free. Shortly afterwards the Bat again fell to the ground and was caught by another Weasel, whom he likewise entreated not to eat him. The Weasel said that he had a special hostility to mice. The Bat assured him that he was not a mouse, but a bat, and thus a second time escaped.

It is wise to turn circumstances to good account.

Once again into the fray of “truths” brought to us by our old friend Aesop. This time we explore the constructive lie and ask whether we really needed to lie at all.

The Bat here is the one we have to watch closely. Why did he lie to the first weasel? We know he is not a bird, and indeed just a bat. He is not a mouse, but what really is the purpose of naming himself thus? Why lie?

In the first case it is interesting that we see the white lie at work; a lie but none the less a harmless lie of misstating its species. The second time around the harmless lie is no longer really good and the bat tells the truth and is thus spared a second time. Could the bat have told the truth both times and been freed? Surely so, but then we would not have the illustration that a small lie can do good.

We all think that lies, even small lies are bad things. But we all lie every day to help us get along in the world. Most of the time the lies are so small that they are hardly recognized. The lies can even be unstated by not saying anything when speaking up is really called for. These little lies are the grease of society and allow us to live, and in the case of the bat, literally live.

The literal moral provided with the graph is truly a simple statement. Use what you can and have around you to your advantage. This is so obvious that maybe it is too obvious, hence I see the “little lie” as the turn of the circumstance. I see a more useful and deep moral in the example that the obvious and I am not certain the moral is in line with the example.

Maybe I would have written the fable like this to fit the moral better:

THE BAT fell from the grape vine as was caught by a weasel. The Bat pleaded for his life and offered the weasel a beautiful ripe grape that happened to have fallen nearby. The weasel let the bat go to happily munch on the grape. The next day the bat fell again and was caught by another weasel. Again the weasel offered a beautiful grape to the weasel but the weasel did not like grapes so the bat caught a small cricket and offered this to the weasel and escaped again.

It is wise to turn circumstance to good account.

The second version of the fable reads more as the moral would have you believe and maybe more to what Aesop was thinking. Aesop being a slave would have had to be quick-witted to survive better. This being the case he would have used his circumstance and surroundings to his advantage (good account). This version does get around the sticky “lie” of the original, but maybe that is exactly the reason it is there.

Maybe Aesop wanted us to consider the “little lie” and thus made the moral a bit more austere than it needed to be. These paragraphs are more subtle that one might imagine and as you study them you need to look for a deeper truth. So maybe my version is not what Aesop had in mind after all.

I do not claim to be a great philosopher now do I even represent myself as having studied philosophy at all, this is just what I see in the fable and how I interpret it. I may be far off in term of what other wiser men may think, but for me this is the truth of the story. I am suspicious and see the little lie and ask if that is where Aesop is going. It was after all not needed, so why bother. This must be where Aesop wanted to take me, nudged by the none too relevant moral, so I have to look closer.

Read Aesop as a skeptic and you may find more there and you bargained for.

Note: While writing this entry I tried to look up online examples, explanations and analysis of this fable but was unable to find anything. This being the case I think I may have found an interesting subject to blog on in an extended manner. I will use my own powers of observation to dissect these fables and opposed to just relating them I will try to explain them. Again, I am not an expert, so it should come as an interesting exercise as this moves along.

The Wolf and the Lamb

THE WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf’s right to eat him. He thus addressed him: “Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.” “Indeed,” bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, “I was not then born.” Then said the Wolf, “You feed in my pasture.” “No, good sir,” replied the Lamb, “I have not yet tasted grass.” Again said the Wolf, “You drink of my well.” “No,” exclaimed the Lamb, “I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.” Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, “Well! I won’t remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.”

The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

The nice thing about the above paragraph is that it is 2600 years old and I do not need to worry about a copyright. And to the authors’ credit, “The Phrygian has spoken better than all” and still his words echo through this modern world as guides everyone should be exposed to.

So, who is the author and the creator of these guides? Well, he was born a slave if you can believe it or not. After two masters, the second set him free for nothing other the wit and wisdom. Not bad for simple slave training. Eventually, the quick-witted man sat with the sages of the time, men like Phaedo, Menippus, Epictetus, Solon, Thales, and Croecus. Still can’t place this great sage? Well, he was big in the court of the King of Lydia and finally settled to live the remainder of his life in Sardis where he was employed as a politician. After that he toured the countries and can be accounted in Corinth and Delphi where he had a strong influence. The extraordinary wit is none other that Aesop who’s fables we feed our children.

There are hundreds of Aesop Fables, yet I would bet few of us could only recount maybe one or two of these. The Tortoise and the Hare is by far the best known. Sour Grapes, Flies and the Honey Pot, The Wolf in Sheep’s’ Clothing, The Sheppard’s boy and the Wolf, and The Cat and the Mice are still some told to children but we are not spending the time to educate or kids to these fables. With 300 of these fables it would take the better part of a year to recount them as one a night. Since they are generally very short, you can teach these to your children and then discuss the moral of the story. Wow, can you imagine the children learning these morals at such a young age? What would our world be like?

How about the adults learning the Aesop Fables too? It does not take very much effort as to why I chose the above paragraph as pertaining to the current world situation. If all the world leaders were to read this graph of ancient wisdom we would all know we see right through most of your dealings. We learn to be suspicious of our leaders and let them prove by example how they treat the world around them and not create pretext. One simple paragraph and Aesop could save the world. And this is only the first of his Fables.

Now, does that mean I am putting our current President Bush in the part of the Wolf? Well in some respects, “If the shoe fits…”, yeah I guess you could say so. But do I put him their as the exclusive cause to the worlds problems, the Alpha Wolf? Certainly not. He is only one wolf looking to eat the tender lamb of the peoples searching adoration. And even though he is not “popular” any more, it was not the case six years ago or even three years ago when we had the chance to replace him and did not.

Personally I find all the political second guessing distasteful. If there is one thing I can give credit for to Hilary Clinton is that she has not pulled the old “I was against it before I was for it and then against it again” routine. She has stuck to her original opinion and while she has changes her current view as to what needs to be done now, she sticks by her decisions of the past. Thank you Hilary for not creating pretext.

And for all that is said about our Commander and Chief, he is laying in the bed he made and standing by his convictions. There is something to be said for that kind of stubbornness. I don’t agree with it, but there is something to be said for it. But whether wittingly or unwittingly our President has led us into a pretext and has landed us in our current world situation. Who knew what or who is to blame is beyond the point at this juncture, we need to simply untangle the pretext and move on. If apologies are to be made then I want to hear them. And even if they are to be made and the world tension gets relieved without an apology, I can handle that too.

But don’t think for a second that GW is the only one that needs to do the untangling. Many nations have contributed to the state of unrest we find ourselves. We are in a world where the Doomsday Clock is getting closer and closer to midnight and the superpowers are no longer the cause for it. Everybody has a hand in it and nobody is reading Aesop anymore.

I know, I have an idea… I will send copies of Aesop’s Fables to all the world leaders. I will send translations in English, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and dozens of other languages in a hope that these world leaders will read them and understand the truths they espouse. The morals of Aesop are not culturally biased. They were before the Bible, before the Koran, before almost all other learning. These morals are simply human observations of the truth and need neither proof nor explanation as to why they are relevant.

Let’s teach these morals to our children and maybe we’ll as parents learn something.