Looking at all the fables we’ve read so far, there seems to be some back and forth over the idea of going against nature. In different versions of The Cock and the Jasp, the cock is praised both for recognizing the value of the jasp, which doesn’t fit his nature as a bird (obviously) and for recognizing that it is not what he, as a bird, needs or should be looking for, which does fit his nature. The fact that this is the first fable in more than one collection and that this question is central to the fable’s moral, whichever way it comes down, definitely indicates that this was an important question to writers at the time. In that light, I found it really interesting that in the version of The Fox and the Wolf that we’re reading for Monday, the wolf describes himself as evil for biting thousands of sheep. Isn’t that what wolves do? How is that evil?
It seems like, in some fables, the animals are judged based on how well they live up to the expectations of that particular animal –i.e. the cock in some versions of the story, the wedder that gets killed for pretending to be a dog, and so on. In others, they are judged as people and given almost ridiculously human characteristics – I couldn’t get over the mouse in The Mouse and the Paddock having no horse to ride across the river (what a crazy image!) and asking for a priest while drowning in the river. This may be a discussion that took place in class on one of the days I was late – I know I missed some discussion of the difference between beast epic and Aesopian fables – but I wonder if this is a difference between the two types of fables (in beast epics, animals are judged as humans and Christians, and in Aesop’s fables, they are judged as animals) or if it is a little more complicated. I don’t know if I would call The Fox and the Wolf a beast epic, at least not completely, because the animals do display some animal-like characteristics and the wolf interacts with humans.
It may not be a significant difference – maybe just two different styles of fable-telling – but I couldn’t help noticing it in this case in particular. Poor wolf.
1 comment:
I also wonder why Henryson chose to write about both Aesopian and Beast fables. It might be that he was setting them against each other so that the logic of his moralitates for one type of fable does not usually carry over to another. The contradiction is what I find most interesting about this set of fables.
In this way, the contradicting expectations of beasts in different fables seem to be a way to pose questions, rather than dictate answers. Henryson's fables are Christian, but they are not purely doctrinal, which is why I find them interesting.
Post a Comment