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.