The Aesopic Animal Fables on Why Not to Kill

16 Pages·2017·0.22 MB·English

by  Tua Korhonen

humanities
Article
A Question of Life and Death: The Aesopic Animal
Fables on Why Not to Kill
TuaKorhonen
DepartmentofWorldCultures,AncientLanguagesandCultures,UniversityofHelsinki,Unioninkatu40A,
00014Helsinginyliopisto,Finland;tua.korhonen@helsinki.fi;Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditor:JoelaJacobs
Received:12March2017;Accepted:3May2017;Published:13May2017
Abstract: This article deals with Greek animal fables, traditionally attributed to a former slave,
Aesop,wholivedduringthesixthcenturyBCE.Asagenre,theAesopicfables,ortheAesopica,has
hadasignificantimpactontheWesternfabletraditionandmodernWesternchildren’sliterature.
TheAesopicaowesmuchtotheMesopotamianfablesandhasparallelsinotherNearEasterncultures.
Modernresearchhasconcentratedontracingtheorientalrootsofthefabletraditionandthedatingof
thedifferentpartsoftheAesopica,aswellasdefiningthefableasagenre. Thetraditionalreadingof
fableshas,however,excludedanimalsquaanimals,supposingthatfablesaremainlyallegoriesofthe
humancondition. Themoralofthestory(includedintheepimythiaorpromythia)certainlyguides
onetoreadthestoriesanthropocentrically,buttheoriginalfablesdidnotnecessarilyincludethis
positioningelement. Manyfablesaddressthesituationwhenapreyanimal,likealamb,negotiates
withapredatoranimal,likeawolf,bygivingreasonswhysheshouldnotbekilled. Inthisarticle,
Iwillconcentrateonthesefablesandanalysethemfromthepointofviewoftheirstructureand
content. Comparing these fables with some animal similes in Homer’s Iliad, I suggest that these
fablesdealnotonlywiththeethicalproblemof‘mightmakesright’asahumancondition,butalso
thebroaderphilosophicalquestionofkillingotherlivingcreaturesandtheproblemofcruelty.
Keywords: fable;Aesopicfables;Greekfable;antagonisticfables
Theso-calledanimalturnhasencouragedclassiciststoreadGraeco-Romanliteraturefromthe
point of view of Human-Animal Studies, that is, to focus on human-animal interactions and the
agencyofanimals.1 However,althoughanimalshavemanyeminentfunctionsinancientliterature—as
symbols and as metaphors and similes—animals figured very seldom as protagonists or proper
characters. Therearenostoriesinwhichanon-humananimalisdepictedasvoicingits(imagined)
experience, perceptions, and life—like animals do in modern animal ‘biographies’, such as Anna
Sewell’sBlackBeauty(1877). Yet,thereseemstobeonewell-knownexception: inApuleius’TheGolden
Ass,whichhadashorterGreekequivalentmistakenlyattributedtothesatiristLucian(bothversions
arebasedonaGreekstory),theprotagonistisadonkey,whichexperiencesvariousadventuresand
abusebydifferentowners.2 However,thedonkeyis,infact,ahumannamedLucius,whohasbeen
transformedintoadonkeybytheagencyofaThessalianwitch. Theaimofthestoryisnottomakethe
audiencefeelsympathyfortheill-treateddonkey,buttoidentifywiththehuman,Lucius,whosebody
hasbeenmetamorphosedintothatofadonkey. Thereaderisconstantlyremindedthatthedonkeyis,
infact,ahumanbeing.
1 OnHuman-AnimalStudies,see,forexample,(MarvinandMcHugh2014).
2 Stefan Tilg argues that the original Greek story of this metamorphosis into a donkey is from the first century CE
(Tilg2014,pp.2–3).However,thestoryitselfcouldbeearlier.
Humanities2017,6,29;doi:10.3390/h6020029 www.mdpi.com/journal/humanities
Humanities2017,6,29 2of16
Besidestheminorgenreoftheparodicanimalepic,3onlyanimalfablesusedanimalsasprominent
charactersinantiquity. However,animalsinanimalfablesaredepictedashumanised,thatis,they
talk,reason,andactlikehumans—althoughtheyareseldomsohumanisedasinthefablewherea
dogwishestosueasheepforstealingaloafofbread(Phaedrus1.17). Themainfunctionofdifferent
speciesofanimalsinfablesseemstobetomirrorfixedhumancharactertypes—foxesarecunningand
sheeprepresenttimidity. Animalfablesarereadasreflectinghumanexperience,presentingitinan
allegoricalwaybyprojectinghumanrelationsontoanartificiallycreatedanimalworld,oftenwithfake
interspeciesrelationships. Inotherwords,fablespicturesocialrelationshipsandinteractionsbetween
diversespeciesinanunnaturalrealm—theanimalkingdom—whichmirrorsthehumanworld,aswell
asitssocialstructuresandhierarchies. Likenowadays,theAesopicfablesweresometimesinterpreted
toespeciallyrepresentthevoiceoftheoppressed(human)classes,likeslaves,inantiquity. Boththe
legendaryAesopandtheRomanfablewriterPhaedruswereformerslaves.4
Animalcharactersinanimalfablesarethusthoughttobeeasilysubstitutedbyhumansandtheir
situationcanbesmoothlytransferredtothehumanworld. Thiskindofallegorisedreadingoffables
wasalreadydominantinantiquity.5 Consequently, itisnowonderthatmodernanimalsensitive6
scholarshavelatelycriticisedtheAesopicanimalfablesbecauseancientfables(intheirview)seemto
guidethereadertointerpretthestoryonlyasanallegory. Fablesarenotsupposedtoconveyanimal
life,withtheresultthattheanimalsthemselves—asanimals—areerased.7 Therefore,althoughanimal
fablesarenearlytheonlyliterarygenreinantiquitywhereanimalsaretheprotagonists,actual‘real’
animalsseemtobeabsent.
However, some classicists, like Jeremy B. Lefkowitz (2014), have recently at least posed the
questionofthepossible‘animality’(animalsquaanimals,notsubstitutesforhumans)oftheAesopic
animal fables. By seeing affinities with stories in ancient natural histories, Lefkowitz argues that
fables sometimes depict animals not merely symbolically, but also reveal a zoological interest in
animalbehaviour.8
ThefirstfableinGreekliteratureisfromtheeighth-centuryBCE,namely‘TheHawkandthe
Nightingale’,whichHesiodincludedinhisWorksandDays(Hesiod2007,pp. 202–12). Thefableistold
toaspecificaddressee,Hesiod’sbrotherPerses,asamorallesson. Ahawkhascaughtanightingale
andanswersitscriesofdistress:
AndnowIwilltellafable(ainos)tokingswhothemselvestoohaveunderstanding. Thisis
howthehawkaddressedthecolourful-neckednightingale,carryingherhighupamong
theclouds,graspingherwithitsclaws,whilesheweptpiteously,piercedbythecurved
claws;hesaidtoherforcefully,‘Sillybird,whyareyoucryingout? Onefarsuperiortoyou
isholdingyou. YouaregoingwhereverIshallcarryyou,evenifyouareasinger;Ishall
makeyoumydinnerifIwish,orIshallletyougo. Stupidhewhowouldwishtocontend
againstthosestrongerthanheis: forheisdeprivedofthevictory, andsufferspainsin
additiontohishumiliations.’ Sospoketheswift-flyinghawk,thelong-wingedbird. Asfor
you,Perses[... ](Trans. GlennW.Most)
Usually, thisfablehas beeninterpreted simplytoexposethe ideologyof‘mightmakes right’.
In Lefkowitz’s view, the fable also functions to show that animals ‘behave in a way which is not
3 TheonlyextantanimalepicfromantiquityisTheBattleofFrogsandMice(Batrachomyomachia).Onanimalandbirdepics,see
(West2003,pp.229–37).
4 (Lefkowitz2014,pp.18–20).
5 Onancienttheoriesoffableanditsfunctions,see(Dijk1997,pp.38–78).Dijkmentionspersuasive,didactic,comical,and
aetiologicalfunctionsoffables(Dijk1997,pp.38–78).
6 Bythenotionof‘animalsensitive’,Imeannotonlyanawarenessofethicalissuesconcerninganimals,butsimplythe
awarenessofanimals,inadditiontotheirfunctionandroleinhumancultures.
7 (Simons2002,p.119;Teittinen2015,pp.152–53).
8 NaamaHareldiscussestheAesopicfablesinheressayastranslationsandalsodealswithsuchclassicmodernfablesas
GeorgeOrwell’sAnimalFarm(Harel2009).
Humanities2017,6,29 3of16
appropriatetohumans’. Lefkowitzcombinesthisfablewiththefamouspassageinthesamework,
WorksandDays,inwhichZeusissaidtohaveonlygivenjustice(dike¯)tohumansandnottobirds,fish
andlandanimals,andthisisshownbythefactthatanimalseateachother(WorksandDays274–80).9
Themoralofthestoryisthusthatdecenthumanbeingsarenotallowedtobehavelikethehawkinthis
fable. However,therearemanyunsolvedproblemswiththeinterpretationofthisfable. Onewayof
explainingisthatthenightingaleasasingerpossiblyrepresentstheepicpoetHesiodhimself,sothat
thefableisanaffirmationofthepowerofsongthattriumphsdespiteall. Bethisasitmay,‘TheHawk
andtheNightingale’waswellknowninantiquityandfunctionedasamodelforlaterfabulistswith
differentemphases.10
Whatisnotableaboutthisfableisthatthepredatorwouldseemtobejustifyinghisbehaviourto
hishelplessprey. Whywouldthisbenecessaryif‘mightisright’? Therearesimilarfablesinwhichthe
victimbegsformercy,evengivingreasonswhy(s)heshouldnotbekilled. Animalfablesoftendepict
conflictorantagonisticsituationsbetweenspecies, amotif–aswellasadialogicform–thatgoes
backtoMesopotamianfables,towhichtheGraeco-Romantraditionowedagreatdeal.11 Additionally,
Homeric,especiallyIliadic,animalsimilesdepictconflictsituations.12 Therefore,itmightbefruitful
to compare antagonistic (or agonistic) animal fables with antagonistic Homeric similes – without,
however,makinganysuggestionsaboutthemutualinfluencebetweenthesetwogenres. Inthispaper,
bycomparingtheAesopicantagonisticfableswithsomeanimalsimilesinHomer’sIliad,Isuggestthat
agonisticfablesdealnotonlywithethicalproblemsconcerningthehumancondition(‘mightmakes
right’),butalsothebroaderphilosophicalquestionofkillingotherlivingcreatures,aswellastheidea
of the ‘war’ between different species. I will argue that although the ‘animality’ of the animals in
fablesisreducedinmanyways,thephilosophicalproblemofkillingcanbeseenasan‘animal’topic
infables. Iwillstart,however,withtheproblemsoftheinterpretationofancientfables,aswellas
theirnarrativity.
1. AnimalFablesasStories
David Herman defines zoonarratology as ‘an approach to narrative study that explores how
storytelling practices (and strategies for narrative interpretation) relate to broader assumptions
concerning the nature, experiences, and status of animals’.13 Animal fables are narratives—even
theGreektermsforfable(ainos,mythos,logos)semanticallyrefertostories14—inwhichanimalsarethe
charactersofstories,butwhichseem,asmentionedbefore,totelllittleabouttheanimalsthemselves.
Ancientcriticsnotedthatfableswere‘false’(pseudos),thatis,fictive,nothistoricalornaturalhistorical
stories.15 Readingancientanimalfablesastextualsourcesforadiscussionon‘broaderassumptions
concerning the nature, experiences and status of animals’ (Herman’s wording) in antiquity poses
somebasicdifficulties,likethedatingoffablesandtheirelements. Thedevelopmentofthisgenreis
difficulttofigureoutingeneral. Theproblemsfordiscussinghowanimalfablesrelatetoassumptions
9 (Lefkowitz2014,p.2).Others,likeEdwardClaytonandC.MichaelSampsonhaveintroducedthesamekindofinterpretation.
See(Clayton2008,pp.180,196;Sampson2012,pp.473–74).
10 DeborahSteinerinterprets‘TheHawkandTheNightingale’asanexpressionofrivalrybetweendifferentkindsofpoetics,see
(Steiner2010,p.107).Thehawkhasalsobeeninterpretedtorepresentadivineinstrument.Onthedifferentinterpretations
ofthisfablesee(Dijk1997,pp.127–34).TheantagonismbetweenhawkandnightingaleisthetopicintwootherAesopic
fables,Perry4and567.
11 OntheMesopotamianfableanditsinfluenceonGreekfable,see(Adrados1999,pp.287–306);ontheagonisticethosinthe
Aesopicfables,see(Zafiropoulos2001).
12 OnfablesandHomericsimiles,see(Dijk1997,p.125).AccordingtoRodriguezAdrados,whohascomparedthefablewith
manyothergenresofarchaicGreekliterature,thetypicalsituationofagonisticconfrontationintheIliadicsimiles,likealion
attackingaherdofcattleorafoldofsheep,‘providethebasisforfablesfromtheClassicalAgeandcollections’.Adrados
doesnot,however,clarifywhathemeansby‘thebasis’(Adrados1999,p.198).
13 (Herman2012,p.95).
14 OntheterminologyoftheGreekfable,see(Adrados1999,pp.3–16;Dijk1997,pp.79–89).
15 ThegrammarianTheonofAlexandria,wholivedinthefirstcenturyCE,definedafableas‘afictitiousstorypicturingor
remindingoneof(eikonizein)reality’(Dijk1997,pp.47–48,408;Adrados1999,p.23).
Humanities2017,6,29 4of16
concerning the status and experiences of animals are problems of interpreting a genre which had
a wide audience in antiquity, but no original authors. Fables were the product of oral literature,
andliteraryfableswereusuallytheauthor’sreimaginationoforalfables,althoughlater,therewere
certainly some genuine literary (invented) fables. Besides the numerous references and retellings
offablesbyGreekandRomanauthors,whatwehave—whattheancientfableshavepreservedfor
us—aremostlyprosefablecollections.Themostimportantcollectionistheso-calledAugustana,which
consistsofseveralanonymouscollectionsfirstassembledaroundthethirdcenturyCE(numbers1–231
inthePerryindex).16 Roughlycontemporary,orevenalittlelater,isthelyricfablecollectionproduced
bytheRoman-SyrianBabrius,whowroteinGreek. AnotherRoman,Phaedrus,versifiedfablesinto
iambicmetreinLatinafewcenturiesearlier,inthefirstcenturyCE.Allthesefablesfallunderthe
generaltermof‘theAesopicfables’.17 Thesimplestyleoffableswasnotedbyancientcriticsandto
versifyafableoramplifyitsprosewasarhetoricalexerciseforschoolboys,atleastsincePhaedrus’
timeorearlier.18
Asnarratives,fablesrecountsomeevent,andtheyhaveatemporaldimension—oneeventfollows
another;eventsarestructuredinsomeorderandtheyaretoldfromaspecificpointofvieworbya
certainvoice.19 Fromtheformalpointofview,fablesarevaried,butasGert-JanvanDijknotices,fables
oftenhave‘atripartitenarrativestructure(introductorysketchofthesituation—action—concluding
actionorcomment)’.20 Thisisevident,forinstance,inafablefromtheabove-mentionedAugustana
collection,‘TheDonkey,TheRaven,andThePassingWolf’(Perry190):
Adonkeywhohadasoreonhisbackwasgrazinginameadow. Aravenalightedonhis
backandbegantopeckatthewound,whilethedonkeybrayedandreareduponhishind
legsinpain(algein). Thedonkey’sdriver,meanwhile,stoodoffatadistanceandlaughed.
Awolfwhowaspassingbysawthewholethingandsaidtohimself,‘Howunfairlywe
wolvesaretreated! Whenpeoplesomuchascatchaglimpseofus,theydriveusaway,but
whensomeonelikethatravenmakeshismove,everyonejustlooksathimandlaughs.’
The fable shows that even before they act, dangerous people can be recognized at a distance.
(Trans.LauraGibbs)
Thefablestartswithanintroductorysketchofthesituation,whichhastwoactors: adonkeyis
grazinginameadowandaravenpecksatitswoundonhisback. The‘action’simplyconsistsofthe
ownerofthedonkeylaughingatwhathesees. Theconcludingactionbringsforththefourthactor,the
wolf,whoispassingbyandobservesthesituation. Althoughdialoguesarecommoninfables,itis
typical,too,thatthereisonlyonespeaker,suchasinthisfablethewolf,whocommentsonthesituation
intheend.21 Fromthiswolf’spointofview,wolvessufferunjusttreatmentfromhumans. Thus,the
wolfcriticiseshumans. Asthewolfseesit,thedriver’slaughteristheoppositereactiontotheusual
ornormalonebyhumansconcerningpredators,namelyangerandfear. Thedriverdoesnotdrive
theravenawaybutletshimcontinuepeckingatthedonkey’swound. Ifthewolfhadapproached
the donkey, the enraged (and perhaps frightened) driver would have immediately driven it away.
16 IamusingtheindexsystemofBenPerry’s(Perry1952).Onfablecollections,see(Adrados1999,pp.48–136).
17 OneofthefirstcollectionswascomposedduringthethirdcenturyBCEinAlexandriabyDemetriusofPhalerum,the
one-timestudentofAristotle’sphilosophicalschool. Demetrius’(nowlost)collectioncouldhavebeeninuseuntillate
antiquity.OnDemetrius’collection,see(Dijk1997,pp.410–97,540;Adrados1999,p.23).
18 Onwritingfablesaspartoftherhetoricalexercises(Progymnasmata),see(Kennedy2003).
19 These four features of narratives—time, structure, voice, and point of view—are listed by Peter Lamarque. See
(Lamarque1990,p.131).
20 (Dijk1997,p. 114);Ondifferentkindsofnarrator–charactercombinationsinfables,see(Dijk1997,pp. 373–74)andon
differentformalschemes,see(Adrados1999,pp.35–36).
21 ThiskindofcharacteriscalledsurvenantbythefablescholarM.Nøjgaard(1964–7).See(Dijk1997,pp.9,373).
Humanities2017,6,29 5of16
Theepimythium,22 themoralofthestory(italicisedintheexcerptabove),explainsthatthepointof
thestoryhereistotellusthatdangerouspeople(‘wolves’)canberecognised. Oneravencanusually
causenoseriousharmtoadonkey,whereasonewolfmay. So,thedriverlaughsbecauseheisnot
scaredbytheraven.
Amodern,animal-sympatheticreadermaystillaskwhythedonkey’sdriverlaughed.Thedonkey
isdescribedasrearinguponhishindlegs,apparentlyinordertogetridof—atleastmomentarily—the
pecking raven. Was it the two-footed stance which appeared so funny to the driver? The raven
is,however,physicallyharmingthedonkeyandthusaffectingitsabilitytobeagooddraftanimal.
Thattheravenwascausingpaintothedonkeyisclearlystatedbytheverbalgein,‘tobeinpain’.Modern
criticsoftenpointtothedifferentattitudestolaughterinantiquity(includingopenexpressionsof
Schadenfreudeandtheacknowledgedcomicalityofslavesandotherunderdogs). 23 Yet,onemightask
inthisparticularcasewhetherthereisasomewhatsympatheticattitudetothedonkeyinpainanda
critiqueofthelaughingdriver—thatlaughingatsomeoneclearlyinpainisanexampleofuncivilised
behaviour. Or,toputitanotherway,ifthedonkeyisthoughtofassimplyacommodity,thenitis
stupid not to prevent the raven pecking at the wound. The implied critique, if there were any, is
then directed towards the human in the fable, not towards predators harming or possibly killing
domesticanimals.24
Onemay,ofcourse,askwhetherthisisananachronisticwayofreadingaGreekfable.Thesekinds
ofdoubtsarenaturalwhenreadingsuccinctAesopicfablesbecausetheyareoftenenigmaticandthe
moralofthestoryfrequentlyseemstopointinpuzzling,albeitnotaltogetherincomprehensible(forthe
modern reader), directions—often simply because epimythia and promythia were late additions.25
Writtenfableswerestoriestoldinaspecificcontextwhichguidedtheinterpretation. Whenfables
wereassembledtogetherincollections,thecontextswerelost. However,intheiroralform,fableswere
originallyquiteflexiblestories,sotheyfittedmanysituationsandcouldbeadjustedbystorytellers.
Whenancientrhetoriciansorotherprosewriterscitedafable,theyuseditfortheirownpurposes,
oftenasclarifications.26
Ancientfablesthushavecommonfeatureswithriddlesandproverbs: theyareenigmatic,and
in this respect, they are part of the gnomic tradition. However, a fable can be differentiated from
othergnomicformsinthesensethatitisanarrativegenre. Likefairytales,fablesarestorieswhich
are usually vague about the time and place. Moreover, the actors in fables are not described in
detail. Althoughgodsarespecifiedbyname(Hermes,Zeus),andtherearesomemythicalpersons
(Teiresias)andfictionalisedhistoricalpersons(SocratesandAesophimself),humansareusuallyonly
characterisedbytheiroccupationorclass(ashepherd,adonkey-driver,asacrificer,aslave). Fortheir
part,animalsrepresenttheirspecies,whichaccountsfortheirstereotypeddescriptions. However,the
eventsaredepictedasuniqueandspecific: theyhappentothatdonkey, tothatdriver, andtothat
ravenandwolf.27
22 Thetermepimythium(plural:epimythia)denotesthatthemoralofthestoryisgivenattheend.Themoralcanalsobegiven
atthebeginning,whenitiscalledpromythium. Thelattercasewasprobablytheearlierpractice,originatinginthedays
whenfableswerecollectedandwhenthemoralfunctionedasakindoftitleforthefable(Perry1965).
23 (Halliwell(2008,pp.38–50,69–76,301).
24 AsimilarbutmuchlaterfableinLatinis‘TheWolf,TheCrowandtheSheep’(Perry670). Seealso‘TheWell-meaning
Wolves’(Perry676).BotharefromthecodexBruxellenses536fromthe14thcentury,includingfablesfromlateantiquity.
25 (Adrados1999,p.29).
26 AristotlewasthefirsttodiscussfablestheoreticallyinhisRhetoric(2.20.1393b8–94a9).InAristotle’sview,thefable(mythos)
isagoodinstrumentofpersuasionandhetellstwoanimalfables(‘TheStag,theHorseandtheMan’and‘TheFoxandthe
Lice’)toprovetheirusabilityinpoliticalspeeches,especiallyinthosedirectedtowardsthecommonpeople.
27 Sometimesfablesremindoneofmirabilia,storiesofthestrangewaysofanimals,agenrewhichAristotlemadegooduseof
inhiszoologicalworks,andlaterwriterslikePlinius,Plutarch,Aelian,andAthenaeusdevelopedthemasaningredientin
theirworksonanimals.Miraculousstoriesofanimalswerepartofnaturalhistoriesdepictingthewondersofnature,but
theyalsoincludedstoriesofuniqueincidencesandindividualanimals.TheAristoteleancorpusincludedfalselyattributed
workbelongingtothemirabiliagenre: OnMarvellousThingsHeard. Onthisgenreandtheparadoxographers,see,e.g.,
(French1994,pp.299–303).
Humanities2017,6,29 6of16
Inshort,ancientanimalfablesarestylisticallysimple,fictitiousnarratives,whichhaveanimal
characters. However,despitetheirsimplicity,theyarenotnon-reflective. Animals’reflectionscanbe
funnyorsatirical,oftenpointingtooverlynarrow,ortooself-centredpointsofview. Thewolf’sspeech
intheabove-citedfableisareflectivespeechorself-reflectivethought. Thewolfisnotcommunicating
withotheractorsinthefable,butreflectingonthesituationbyhimself(andinhisowndistortingway).
Inall,thewolfisafocalisedcharacter. Beforeconsideringfocalisation,itisworthwhiletodiscussone
commontopicinallkindsofanimalstories,includingtheHomericanimalsimiles,namelyantagonism,
aconflictsituationbetweendifferentspecies.
2. AnimalAntagonismandFocalisationintheHomericSimiles
Theepicgenredevelopedtheeffectiveliterarydeviceofanepic(alsoknownasHomeric)simile.
AnimalsimilesinHomericepicscomparethehumansituationwiththatofanimals. As,forinstance,
HelmutRahnhaspointedout,attheverycoreoftheideaofanimalsimiles,thereisthesupposition
ofthepossiblecontinuationbetweenthequalitiesofhumanandnon-humananimals,whichiswhat
makesitpossibletocomparetheminthefirstplace. Thecomparisonisnotonlywiththeanimal’s
movement(body),butalsoitsemotionsandmoods,representingitscurrentsituationinlife.28 The
Iliadicwarriorsarecomparednotonlywithpredators(likelions,wolves,boars,hounds),butalso
withadonkey(Ajax)andwithajust-motheredcow(Menelaus): thedonkey’ssteadfastnesssuggests
thesamequalityinAjax, andtheanxietyofthecowforhercalfdescribeshowMenelausprotects
Patroclus’body(Iliad11.558–562and17.4–6).
Althoughthehumansituationismostcentral,similescanprovideaglimpseintosomeaspects
oftheactivelifeofananimal. Animalsinsimilescan,asStevenLonsdalehasputit,oftenbeviewed
as‘actorsintheirownright’.29 Thevividdescriptionsofalion’scorporealityandmovementsinthe
lengthiestofthelionsimiles(Iliad20.164–75),forinstance,almostturnsthesimileintoananimalpoem,
onethatpraisesthesolemnexistenceofthispredator. Here,Peleus’sonAchillesrunstoengagewith
Aeneas,theTrojanwarrior,whowas,likeAchilles,ofdivinedescent:
OntheothersidePeleus’sonrantomeethim,likealion/bentonslaughterthatawhole
village’sresolutemenhave/gatheredtogethertokill;atfirstitpaysthemnoattention
and/continuesonitsway,butwhensomewar-swiftyoungman/hitsitwithhisspearit
crouches,jawsgaping,andfoam/gathersarounditsteeth,andthebravespiritinitsheart
/groans,andwithitstailitlashesitsribsandflankson/bothsides,anddrivesitselfonto
fight;staring-eyed,/itsfurycarriesitstraightatthemen,hopingeithertokill/oneof
themortodieitselfintheforefrontoftheconflict. /Injustthiswayhisfuryandnoble
spiritdroveAchilleson/tocomefacetofacewithgreat-heartedAeneas. (Iliad20.164–75)
(Trans. AnthonyVerity)
Fables do not have these kinds of forceful descriptions, which are like eulogies to animals as
embodied beings with specific bodies.30 Although humans are compared with some animals in
similes—likeAchilleswiththelioninthissimile—animalsdonotactassubstitutesforhumansin
similes. Instead,thereisanimaginativeassimilationofAchilleswithalion,despitetheirdissimilar
bodies(thehero,ofcourse,hasnotailwithwhichtolashhisflanks). IntheAesopicfables,although
therearesomereferencestothebodiesofanimals,thehumanwordsutteredbytheanimalcharacters
areusuallymoreimportantthantheirnon-humanbodies. Althoughtheirspeechesmay,however,be
28 (Rahn1953,p.288;Rahn1954,pp.452,466–67).AccordingtoRahn,humanbeingsarenotseenas‘reinmenschlich’.
29 (Lonsdale1990,p.1).
30 Thefamousstallionsimile,whichoccurstwiceintheIliad(6.506–14and15.263–268),depictsthestallion’sexultantgallop.
AlltranslationsofHomer’sIliadinthispaperarebyAnthonyVerity.See(Verity2011).
Humanities2017,6,29 7of16
utteredfromthe(imagined)pointofviewoftheanimal,animals’bodiesarenotutilisedtoanygreat
extentasanarrativeelementinanimalfables.31
Thus, the emphasis on animals qua animals in fables is slight, if not altogether missing when
compared with such expressive animal similes as the lion simile above. Furthermore, fables may
mentiontheemotionsofanimals,butusuallyonlybynaminganemotionalstate. Instead,theIliadic
animalsimilesdepictemotions,likeangerandfear,quitelengthily,inordertosimulatetheemotional
state of the warriors in the battlefield. One of the best examples of the depiction of fear or panic
is the simile where a mother hind loses her fawns. The object of comparison in this simile is that
AgamemnonkillstwoyoungTrojanprinces,whichcausesfearintheTrojantroops(Iliad,11.113–21):
Asalioneasilycrushesthebonesofaswifthind’s/youngfawns, whenitcameupon
theirlairandseized/theminitsmightyteeth,andripsouttheirtenderhearts;andthe
mother,evenifshechancestobenearby,cannot/helpthem,becausefearfultrembling
overcomesherlimbs,/andatonceshedartsawaythroughdensethicketsandwoodland,
/inasweatingfervourtoescapethepowerfulbeast’sattack;/sonooneoftheTrojans
couldkeepdeathfromthesetwo,/butwerethemselvesdriveninpanicbeforeArgives.
(Trans. AnthonyVerity)32
Thissimilecontainselementsofastorybytellingwhat‘happens’tothemotherhind. Lonsdale
observes that the scene is seen ‘both from the point of view of the aggressor and the victim’.33
Irene De Jong has compared the Iliadic narrator to a war reporter: the narrator is an external
narrator-focaliser.34 In this simile, it is as if the narrator is accompanying the mother hind and
hersweatingdartthroughwoodland.
ItisoftennotedthattheHomericequalityofvisionisrareinwarliteratureingeneral. IntheIliad,
ataleofwar,therapidfocalisationfromonesidetotheother(fromtheAchaeanstotheTrojansor
betweenthedifferentfactionsinsideeachcamp)isatokenofthegeneralHomericnarrativetechnique,
which is then reflected in the similes. The agonistic animal simile thus depicts the situation with
differentfocalisation—sometimesgivingonlythepredator’spointofview,sometimesthevictim’s
pointofview,andsometimesboththepredator’sandvictim’sviewpoints. Onlyveryrarelydoesthe
animalvictimintheHomericsimilesmanagetowin,thatis,toescape. Oneexampleisthatwherethe
goddessArtemis’feariscomparedtothatofapigeon:
ThegoddessArtemisfledcoweringandweeping,likeapigeon/thatfliesfromahawk’s
pursuit into the hollow of a rock, a / deep cleft, because it was not its destiny to be
caught; just so / Artemis fled weeping, leaving her bow and arrow where they were.
(Iliad21.493–496)(Trans. AnthonyVerity)
InHesiod’sfable,thehawkhasalreadycapturedthenightingale.Here,thepigeonmanagestoflee
fromthepursuinghawkandtheemotionalfocusisonthepreyanimal. However,inanotherHomeric
simile concerning the hawk and the pigeon, which characterises Achilles’ pursuit of Hector, the
emotionalfocusisonthefrustrationofthehawk,whichdoesnotmanagetocatchthepigeon(22.138–44).
ThefocusoftheHomericanimalsimilecanthusvaryfrompredatortopreyanimal. Alongwith
focalisation, the Homeric narrative in similes is ‘objective’; it observes the situation as a detached
31 Fablescanplaywiththedifferencesinanimalbodies,likeinthefable‘TheFoxandtheStork’,whereoneanimalcannotenjoy
thefoodservedbytheother—thestorkcannotlickthebrothfromthelowbowlorthefoxeatfromthenarrow-mouthedjug
(Phaedrus1.26).
32 Theframeofthesimileisthefollowing:AchillesformerlycapturedtwosonsofKingPriam,Isos,andAntiphon,when
theywereherdingtheking’scattleonMountIda,butthenhegavethemupasaransom.Inthisscene,Agamemnonkills
thesewarriorprinceslikethelionkillsthefawns.Hectorisnottheretorescuehisyoungbrothers.TheabsenceofHectoris
comparedwiththeabsenceofthemotherhind,butthefearofthemotherhindsimulatesthefearoftheTrojans.
33 (Lonsdale1990,pp.58–60).
34 (DeJong2014,p.69,61).
Humanities2017,6,29 8of16
onlooker, in the sense that it does not condemn the predator’s behaviour as cruel. The reason for
thisisthattheIliadicheroesarecomparedwithpredatorsonaccountoftheircourageandskillas
warriors.35 Fortheirpart,theAesopicfablesmayexpresstheimaginedanimalpointofviewofboth
preyandpredatoranimalsinthespeechesbytheirhumanisedanimalcharacters. Often,itisexpressed
withcomicalandsatiricaltwists,butnevertheless,animalsarepicturedasgenuinenarratorsoftheir
ownstories.
3. BeggingforMercy
In the Homeric similes, the emotional and narrative focus on the victim may sometimes be
elaborated, as in the above-mentioned mother hind simile. In the Aesopic fables, however, the
victim also has the opportunity to clearly voice its (imagined) situation. This is along the general
linesthatfablestelltheothersideofthestory,theviewofcommonpeople,theunderprivileged,or
theunderclass.
Eventhepredatorhimselfmaybepicturedasconsideringthesituationfromthepointofviewof
hisvictim. InBabrius’fable‘TheHareandtheHound’,ahoundstartsaharefromherlair. Thehare
runsaway,andafteralongchase,thedoggivesup. Agoatherdobservesthesituationandmockingly
addressesthedog: ‘Thelittleoneprovedtobefasterthanyou.’ Thedogrepliesthatthegoatherd
doesnotseethedifferentpurposesoftheirrunning: thedogrunsforhisdinner,thehareforherlife
(Babrius69). Thus,fortheoutsidehumanobserver(whoisnotahunter,theownerofthehound,buta
goatherd),thechaseislikearunningcontest. Thedogforhispart—asthoughgivinganexcuseforhis
frustratedfailuretocatchthehare—knowsthedifferencebetweenrunningforone’slifeandrunning
inordertofulfilone’stransitoryneeds. Thehare’sspeedallowshertosurvive.
In‘TheWolfandtheLamb’,alambnegotiatesforherlife. ThisfableisincludedintheAugustana
collection(Perry155),butalsotheRomanfablewriters,Phaedrus(1.1)andBabrius(89),bothretold
thisfableinverse. InPhaedrus’Latinversion,thewolfandthelambhavecometodrinkfromthesame
brook.Thewolfishungry(‘promptedbyhiswickedgullet’,improbalatroincitatus)andthereforebegins
a‘quarrel’(iurgium)withthelamb. Heaccusesthelambofspoilingthewater. Thelamb,however,
isabletodenythisaccusationbecauseitstandsmuchlowerdowntheriverthanthewolf. Thewolf
thenstatesthatthelambhascursedhimsixmonthsago. Thelambisabletorejectthistoobecause
shewasnotevenbornthen. Eventually,thewolfaccusesthelamb’sfatherofcursinghim. Usingthis
asareasonforkillingthelamb,thewolfpouncesuponherandtearshertopieces(theverblacerare).
Phaedrusendsthefablewiththestatementthatthelambdiedbecauseofunjustkilling(iniustanex).
The reasons given by the wolf for killing the lamb are like playing with one’s prey: they are
pretexts. It is as if it is part of the predatory disposition to tease or bully one’s prey. However,
the fable also seems to record the common demonising stereotype that wolves are insatiable and
unnecessarilycruel.36 WolvesoccurinsomeHomericanimalsimiles,too,asparagonsofpredators,
andtheir‘predatory’waysofeatingaredepictedgraphically(cf. Iliad,16.156–163).37 Accordingtothe
modernzoologists,wolvessometimesattacktheirpreywithouteatingthematalloronlypartially
eatingthem.38 Thisso-called‘surpluskilling’wassurelyanobservedfactinantiquity,too(forancient
shepherdsatleast),althoughitisrarelymentionedinancienttexts. Inaprobablylatefable,preserved
onlyintheso-calledSyntipascollection,ahunter(notashepherd)encountersawolftearingtopieces
(diasparattein)asmanysheepashecan. Thehunterwithhishoundsdefeatsthewolfandsays: ‘Where
35 (Clarke1995,p.137).
36 OnwolvesinancientGreekiconographyandliterature,see(Calder2011,pp.67–69).Aelianstatesthatwolvesareextremely
fierceandtheymighteveneatoneanother(OntheCharacteristicsofAnimals7.20).
37 Inthissimile,Achilles’men,theMyrmidons,arecomparedtowolves,whicharedepictedas‘eatersofrawflesh,whose
heartsarefullofunbelievablestrength’.Theyhavekilledastagandtearitapart,theirmuzzlesaregory.Afterthat,theygo
inapacktotherivertodrinkandhaveeatensomuchthatthey‘belchforthclotsofblood’(Iliad,16.162).
38 Wolvesmaycachefoodfortimeswhenpreyarescarce,but‘surpluskilling’mayhappenwhenpreyisabundant.See,for
example,(PetersonandCiucci2003,p.144).
Humanities2017,6,29 9of16
now is the might that you formerly had? Against the dogs you can’t make any stand at all.’ The
hunter’squestionechoestheancientideasofhuntingasanoblesport, wheretwomightyand/or
cunningantagonistsconfronteachother.39 Thewolfwasonlysuccessfulinattackingtheweakerand
morehelplesscreatures. Thus,thehunterisrebukingthewolfforbad‘sportsmanship’.
IntheAugustanaversionof‘TheWolfandtheLamb’(Perry155),thewolfaccusesthelambof
drinkingfromhisspringandinsultinghisfather. Invain,thelambdeniestheseaccusations,followed
bythewolfkillingandeatingher. Theepimythiumstatesthatwhenrulerscommitcrimes,theydo
notlistentothereasoningoftheirsubordinates.40 InBabrius’versionof‘TheWolfandtheLamb’
(Babrius89),thelambhasgoneastrayandtheprotagonistsdonotmeetbesideariver:
Onceawolfsawalambthathadgoneastrayfromtheflock,butinsteadofrushingupon
himtoseizehimbyforce, hetriedtofindaplausiblecomplaintbywhichtojustifyhis
hostility(egkle¯maekhthre¯seuproso¯pon). ‘Lastyear,smallthoughyouwere,youslandered
me.’ ‘HowcouldIlastyear? It’snotyetayearsinceIwasborn.’ ‘Well,then,aren’tyou
cropping this field, which is mine?’ ‘No, for I’ve not eaten any grass nor have I begun
tograze.’ ‘Andhaven’tyoudrunkfromthefountainwhichisminetodrinkfrom?’ ‘No,
evenyetmymother’sbreastprovidesmynourishment.’ Thereuponthewolfseizedthe
lambandwhileeatinghimremarked: ‘You’renotgoingtorobthewolfofhisdinnereven
thoughyoudofinditeasytorefuteallmycharges.’ (Trans. BenPerry)
Babriusbeginsthefablebyassertingthatthewolfresolvednottokillandeatthelambimmediately,
for the wolf wants to find a plausible complaint by which to justify his hostility (egkle¯ma ekhthre¯s
euproso¯pon). Theabove-mentionedAugustanaversion(Perry155)—whichinitswrittenformcould
beearlierthanBabrius’version—hastheexpressionmet’eulogouaitiaskatathoine¯sasthai,tofeastwith
goodreasonorpretext. PreciselythesamephraseisusedinasimilarfableintheAugustanacollection,
‘TheCatandtheCock’(Perry16):
A cat had seized a rooster and wanted to find a reasonable pretext for devouring him
(met’eulogouaitiaskatathoine¯sasthai). Hebeganbyaccusingtheroosterofbotheringpeople
by crowing at night, making it impossible for them to sleep. The rooster said that this
wasactuallyanactofkindnessonhispart,sincepeopleneededtobewokenupinorder
to begin their day’s work. The cat then made a second accusation, ‘But you are also a
sinnerwhoviolatesnature’sownlawswhenyoumountyoursistersandyourmother.’
The rooster said that this also was something he did for his masters’ benefit, since this
resultedinalargesupplyofeggs.Thecatfoundhimselfatalossandsaid,‘Evenifyouhave
anendlesssupplyofarguments,doyouthinkthatIamnotgoingtoeatyou?’ (Trans.Laura
(Gibbs2002)slightlymodified)41
Thefablemayremindoneofthehuntingpracticeofcats,inwhichthey‘play’withtheirprey—not
killingitimmediately. 42 Inanycase,likethelamb,theroosterwinstheargument,butisstillgoingto
bekilled. However,thecataccusestheroosternotonlyofminormisdemeanours,butofunnatural
orcriminallytaboobehaviour. Thecat’ssecondaccusationdealsnamelywithinbreeding,whichas
such,caneasilybeobservedindomesticanimals(whereasinwildspecies,therearemanymeansto
39 Syntipas6(404),see(Perry1952,p.531).Ontheideologybehindhuntinginantiquity,see(Barringer2001).
40 OntheAugustanaversionofthisfable,see(Clayton2008,pp.179–80).Claytoninterpretsthisfabletopointtothedifference
betweenhumansandotheranimals: justicedoesnotmatterstoanimalsandthewolfenactshere‘aparodyofjustice’
(Clayton2008,p.195).
41 Gibbstranslatesthelastlineas‘Well,evenifyouhaveanendlesssupplyofarguments,Iamstillgoingtoeatyouanyway!’
Theelaborateepimythiumofthisfablestates:‘Thefableshowsthatwhensomeonewithawickednaturehassethismindon
committingsomeoffence,hewillcarryouthisevilactsopenlyevenifhecannotcomeupwithareasonableexcuse.’See
alsoPerry122,inwhichacocktriestopersuadehumans(thieves)nottokillhim.
42 Onereasonforthisbehaviouristhatitensuresthatthepreyisweakenoughtobekilled(Fraser2012,pp.35–36,57–58).
Humanities2017,6,29 10of16
avoidbreedingamongcloserelatives,forinstance,bydispersal).43 Here,thecataccusestheroosterof
violating‘nature’sownlaws’(or,literally,thattheroosterisimpiousorunholytowardsnature,asebe¯s
eiste¯nphusin). Thus,ifthe‘reason’forthewolf’spredatorybehaviouris‘personal’,thatthislambhas
causedhimharmonce,thecatfindsmoregeneralchargesagainsttherooster.
Sometimes,thepreyanimalmanagestoconvincethepredatornottokillandeatit. However,the
resultoftheconvincingisnotalwaysclear. InBabrius’fable,afoxbegsawolftospareherlife(zo¯grein)
becausesheissoold.Thewolfpromisesnottokillherifshecanproducethreetruestatements.Thefox
pronouncesthreecleverplatitudesandthefableendsthere(Babrius53). Thefoxmayhavemanagedto
persuadethewolformaybeshedidn’t. InanotherfabletoldbyBabrius(107),alioncatchesamouse,
andthelatterremarksthatitissuitableforlionstohuntdownstagsandbullsand‘withtheirflesh
makefatyourbelly’, butalittlemouseisnotasufficientmealforabiglion. Thelionreleasesthe
mouse,whichlater,whenahunterhascapturedthelioninanet,releaseshimbygnawingthroughthe
ropes. Thefablemayalsobeginwithapredatorintrouble,whichcausesittoaskforhelpfromother
animals,includingitsprey. However,thedifficultiesordangersaresometimesfakeandtheweaker
oneseitherdeclinetherequestbecausetheyknowthatafterbeingrescuedthepredatorswillattack
them,orthepreyanimalassiststhedeceptivepredator,toitsownruin. Therepliesoftheweakerones
areoftensarcastic—theyknowtheulteriormotiveofthepredators.44
There are thus various fables where a powerful animal is defeated by a weaker one. In an
Augustanafable,abatbegsformercyfromsomeweasels(galai)(Perry172). Aweaselhasmanaged
tocatchabat,whichhasfallentotheground. Afterthebathasbeggedformercy,theweaselargues
thatweaselsareatwar(polemein)withallbirds. Thebatthenassurestheweaselthatsheisnotabird
butamouse,sotheweaselmustlethergo. Thefablethusplayswiththeuncommonnatureofbats,a
mammalwhichisabletofly. Thesecondpartofthefablerecountsthatthebatisindangerofbeing
killedbyanotherweasel. Thistime,theotherweaselstatesthatthereareconstanthostilities(theverb
diechthrainein)betweenweaselsandmice.45 Thebatassurestheweaselthatsheisnotamouseatall,
butabat. Itisnoteworthythatthefablecallstheprey-predatorrelationship‘awar’betweenspecies.
Thiswas,however,acommonidiom,andwasalsousedbyAristotle.
4. ‘AWaragainstEachOtherAmongAllAnimals’
IntheeighthBookofhisStudyofAnimals(8.609a4–610a36),Aristotlelistspairsofanimalspecies
whichareeachother’senemies(polemios),thatis,atwar(polemos)witheachother,liketheeaglewith
thesnake,thecrowwiththeowl,thegeckowiththespider,andthehorsewiththeheron. Thereason
for‘war’orenmitiesbetweendifferent(non-carnivorous)speciescanbetheharmwhichtheycause
– such as some species of birds stealing other species’ eggs. In Aristotle’s view, the most obvious
reasonfortheenmitiesisthescarcityoffoodforanimalswhichoccupythesameplaceandobtaintheir
sustenancefromthesamethings. However,Aristotlebeginsthispassagebyassuringthateventhe
‘wildest’or‘cruellest’(agriosmeansboth‘wild’and‘cruel’)animalscanlivewitheachotherifthereis
enoughfood(8.608b32–3). Yet,asAristotleputsit,someanimalsareatwarwithmanyanimals: for
example,thewolfwiththeass,thebull,andthefox. Thewolfislikelythemostdangerouspredatorin
someareas,butforAristotle,thesimplereasonforthisexpansiveenmityofwolvesisthatthewolfis
o¯mophagos(literally‘aneaterofrawmeat’),thatis,carnivorous(8.609b1–3). Besides,allanimalsare
atwar(theverbpolemein)withcarnivores,whichfeedonother‘animals’(apoto¯nzo¯o¯n).46 TheGreek
43 Ontheso-calledinbreedingavoidancehypothesis,see,forinstance,(PuseyandWolf1996,p.202).
44 (Adrados1999,pp.174–75;Zafiropoulos2001,pp.125–26).Examplesofthesekindsoffablesare’TheKidandtheWolf’,in
whichakidasksawolftoplaythefluteinorderthatshecandanceherdeathdancebeforethewolfkillsher.Thepiping
sendshoundstothespotandthekidisrescued(Perry97).
45 Thewarbetweenmiceandweaselswasthetopicofanimalepicsandfables.SeePerry165,Syntipas51(seePerry1952,
p.546)andPhaedrus4.6.
46 Aristotlediscussesflesh-eatersintheseventhBookoftheStudyofAnimalsusingtheusualwordsarkophaga(zo¯a)—notthe
wordzo¯ophaga.See,forinstance,7.594b18(lion).