Two Foxes, Three Farmers, One Moral, and (maybe) No Context

Henryson's fables have brought to mind two popular texts that draw on the fabular tradition. First, there is Roald Dahl's excellent book (you could easily do it in an afternoon over the holidays) Fantastic Mr. Fox. In this tale an iteration of Renard must defend his family and a host of other burrowing creatures from three vengeful farmers. With the help of rabbits, beavers, and other digging creatures, Mr. Fox manages to burrow from one farm to the next, stealing choice morsels on his way.

It is highly entertaining, and philologically interesting. For instance, the names of the farmers are laden with significance. Boggis, a chicken farmer, is the biggest and fattest of the farmers; coincidentally, his name is simply "boggish" minus the "h", which means "baggy". Bean is a tall, thin apple farmer, constantly swigging from a jug of cider (he basically lives on fermented juice). MED definition two for "bean" reads "the weight of a bean; something of little value." Bean, being barely there, weighs about what his namesake indicates. Bunce is a short, hot-tempered farmer, not unlike Yosemite Sam. What's interesting about Bunce is that his name means "bonus" (get it: small "bonus"? As in, "small surplus"?), but it can also mean "buns", as in "bread", like the food that Mr. Fox and company are stealing from him. So Roald Dahl has his hand on the pulse of the fabular tradition.

Nickel Creek recorded a song, "The Fox", on their first album, Nickel Creek, which became for them a staple for every show because of its popularity. The storyline basically goes that a fox goes out on the town, steals the grey goose from the farmer's pen, and carries it home to his family who feast on it gleefully. The end. It's a delightful little song with a catchy tune, which explains its popularity.

The down-side to these texts is simply their lack of complexity. Henryson's fables, especially his assignment of animal essences, are much more subtle than their modern counterparts. The moral of both of these texts is very simple: "Farmers are not foxes, and should not try to outfox foxes." I wonder if this lack of profundity indicates a general lack of context for fables in our current milieu, with a concomitant inability to decipher the symbolism. It seems reasonable that in a postmodern age, especially in an urban context, we are detached from the behaviors of the animal kingdom (squirrels and rats might be the exceptions). Did modernity signal the demise of the fable?