In his paper Aesop, Aristotle, and Animals: The Role of Fables in Human Life, Edward Clayton
goes about building a very strong argument proving that the purpose of Aesop’s fables
is more than that which is understood at first glance. He is very lucid in explaining
that fables were not just written as factual cautionary tales. What Clayton
ultimately gets to in his article is that we as human beings are capable of
being as wild, untamed, and unreasonable as animals and due to this similarity in
our nature Aesop’s fables can be enlightening at times. According Clayton, fables are to teach humans
that unlike any of the other animals we are capable of reason and understanding
and have a sense of justice. Furthermore, given that humans have such capabilities
we shouldn't behave like the fable animals when in similar circumstances.
I find Clayton’s argument to be very persuasive for the way it is written, with countless examples and a clear flow of ideas. However, I feel that his interpretation of the role that fables play in human life is not one that is so popular. The reason being that, what he supposedly says the fables are intended for just isn't the immediate reaction that people have to reading a fable. I feel that most people that are presented a fable react by saying “so true!” According to Clayton the part of a fable that is most important is that animals are the main characters, but I think most people almost immediately associate the characters (animals) in the fable with themselves or other people in their lives. I think that people are already aware that they can be just as nature driven as the other animals; this awareness is so fundamental that I don’t think it’s paid much attention to and definitely isn't at the forefront of one’s mind when reading a fable. I think that the majority of people reading a fable just look at it as yet another portrayal of how nature operates.
I find Clayton’s argument to be very persuasive for the way it is written, with countless examples and a clear flow of ideas. However, I feel that his interpretation of the role that fables play in human life is not one that is so popular. The reason being that, what he supposedly says the fables are intended for just isn't the immediate reaction that people have to reading a fable. I feel that most people that are presented a fable react by saying “so true!” According to Clayton the part of a fable that is most important is that animals are the main characters, but I think most people almost immediately associate the characters (animals) in the fable with themselves or other people in their lives. I think that people are already aware that they can be just as nature driven as the other animals; this awareness is so fundamental that I don’t think it’s paid much attention to and definitely isn't at the forefront of one’s mind when reading a fable. I think that the majority of people reading a fable just look at it as yet another portrayal of how nature operates.
I agree that Clayton's argument does have a clear flow of ideas. I also agree that most people reading the fables relate it to everyday life and associates themselves with the animals. I think its difficult to immediately see the fables the way Clayton believes they are meant to be seen.
ReplyDeleteNice response, Aviva. I think you hit upon a very interesting point when you write, "The reason being that, what he supposedly says the fables are intended for just isn't the immediate reaction that people have to reading a fable." When analyzed by scholars of our era, it can (too easily and too suddenly) become "apparent" what the fables were "intended" to do. But, as you have mentioned, it is important to remember that a large amount of people will immediately take the fables for face value.
ReplyDeleteThat is, they will tend to disregard the multilayered nature of the fables and understand them as seemingly cruel tales which enforce ideas that power and cruelness prevails over honesty, integrity, and justice.