Moral Philosophy

What is the moral philosophy preached by the ancient Greek creators of Aesopic fables? “The Man and the Lion” (no. 80) concludes that “There are two sides to every question,” a view that could serve not only as a moral for this one story, but also as a motto for almost the entire body of Aesopic fables. Given the prevailing view that these tales were actually composed and assembled by many different storytellers and editors, it should come as no surprise that the fables, in spite of their nearly unanimous interest in moral issues, do not form a self-consistent ethical system. In fact, quite the contrary is the case. Paradox, ambiguity, and irony permeate the collection.

Folklore wisdom often contradicts itself from one expression to another. “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” is a familiar and ostensibly time-proven proverb, but then so is its opposite, “Out of sight, out of mind.” Some proverbs promote caution (“Look before you leap”), while others preach aggressiveness (“Nothing ventured, nothing gained”). “He who is not with me is against me” and “He who is not against me is with me” are equally familiar proverbial formulations with a biblical background.

Similarly, numerous pairs of Aesopic fables can be found that seemingly contradict each other. Are the contradictions unintentional oversights? Or do they represent the cynical view that there are no universal rules for ethical behavior? Here each individual reader must reach his or her own conclusion, and once again, that is part of the universal appeal of these fables.

My first example deals with the problem of vengeance. In “The Horse and the Stag” (no. 264) a horse recklessly avenges himself against a stag, but in the process loses his freedom. However, vengeful or hasty behavior does not always lead to injury. In “The Lion, the Wolf, and the Fox” (no. 255) a quick-thinking fox successfully takes revenge against a spiteful wolf by telling a sick lion that he can be cured by wrapping himself in the skin of a freshly killed wolf. Thus the morality proposed by these two stories, taken as a pair, is neither always to forgive one’s enemies, nor to be consistently harsh in retribution, but rather, if the opportunity presents itself, to be cunningly clever in planning revenge.

The traditional virtue of loyalty presents another pair of examples. In “The Birds, the Beasts, and the Bat” (no. 168) a bat sides first with the birds, then with the beasts, and in the end is rejected by both groups as a double-faced traitor. On the other hand, in the fable “The Bat and the Weasels” (no. 7) a bat escapes from a weasel two times, first by claiming to be a mouse and later by claiming to be a bird.

The time-honored virtue of honesty provides yet another pair of contradictory fables. In “The Wolf and the Boy” (no. 171) a wolf captures a boy, but then spares his life as a reward for the boy having told the truth. “The Apes and the Two Travelers” (no. 44) reflects the opposite view. Here two strangers in the land of the apes are asked what they think of the king and his subjects. One of them lies, and is given a handsome reward; the other tells the truth (they are “fine apes”), and he is clawed to death for his honesty.

The view that “might makes right” is reflected in many animal fables, arguably offering license to the powerful to follow their own self-interests and urging the weak to remain submissive. Examples include “The Lion and the Wild Ass” (no. 107), “The Lion, the Fox, and the Ass” (no. 246), “The Wolf and the Lamb” (no. 11), and “The Cat and the Cock” (no. 116). But the opposite view is also represented. In one of the best-known of all Aesopic fables, “The Hare and the Tortoise” (no. 117), it is not the speedy hare who wins the race, but instead the contestant who, by racing standards, is seriously handicapped. Likewise, in the lesser-known fable “The Mouse and the Bull” (no. 139) a battle between very unevenly matched opponents does not go to the stronger of the two.