After reading Professor Edward Clayton's thesis paper arguing a largely unpopular view of fables and their interpretations, I am inclined to admit that my eyes have definitely been opened to the subject. Clayton downplays the common, widespread stance that Fables exist to promote strength over all other qualities, and that those who don't possess it must obey and spare themselves the shame or else suffer immensely. Instead, Clayton contends that fables actually exist to promote democracy and equality amongst both people and cities, as opposed to the highly cynical aforementioned stance.
This theory surprised me at first, considering that on the surface view these fables follow a recurring theme of the strong always prevailing over the weak, but as I digested the thought more and used Clayton's various points to fill in the spaces, I couldn't help feeling like I should have known this all along, that just past the outer edge of these seemingly basic animal tales rested the huge underlying theme of social equality amongst the peoples. I relate it to now, the very fact that we still read and study these same fables that were written over 2,000 years ago, I see for myself that these fables must have emanated equality or they would cease to exist.
I also enjoyed the utilization of Greek philosopher Aristotle's numerous ideas and beliefs regarding animals in relation to human beings, and I felt like he was a great choice for supporting details in the sense that Aristotle was a key leader to his people at the time, the very ones who initially created the fables. Just as Clayton states in his essay, Aristotle then becomes a near accurate representation of ancient Greece, and therefore sufficient proof to support the thesis.
All in all, this was an enlightening, well-written piece that certainly changed my views on Fables.
Nice job Brandon. It also hit me euphorically when I read this article. As I read it and dissected Clayton's article, it just started to make a lot of sense. There are some loopholes however. I feel like Clayton is assuming that the people in that era were more educated than they actually were, and that they possessed the drive to adopt such beliefs. During this time, people were killed for holding different beliefs and posing a threat to the higher ups, who, despite proposing a "democracy, ultimately governed in a tyrannical way. So it could have been dangerous for the low class to entertain the notion that the fables could provide justice and fairness, in a world in which "revolutionary" thinking of this kind could have been easily put down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that fables have more to them then just the common theme of strength. You state that these fables that we read almost always have a underlying theme of equality among people. i also believe the reason we are still reading these fables 2000 years later is because we can relate to this underlying theme, and most likely always will. I also strongly agree with your view on the use of Aristotle. I Believe he was used for credibility and to bolster the idea that fables were not just nonsense stories about animals.
ReplyDelete