Alas, a Ribbit is not a Roar

Alejandro Joseph Serrano

There are definitely some instances of when the moral of the story in Aesop’s fables, some of which had just been shoehorned in to give the story some semblance of meaning. In one infamous fable that makes no sense, as well as the moral provided by the translator, is the fable “The Camel Who Shat in the River,” which has such a confusing message in both the original text and the included moral, that it had taken a good portion of the class to find several different layers with no real conclusion; instead, it was decided that it should be left up to interpretation. However, the fable I will discuss today will not deal with the shitting camel, but rather the fierce Lion and the little Frog, affectionately called, “The Lion and The Frog.”

 

In the story of The Lion and The Frog, the Lion hears a frog croak, and he believes it comes from a large creature. He waits so he can see the loud beast, but when he sees that it is but a small frog, he crushes it under his paw and exclaims, “So much noise from one so small!” The moral underneath then goes on to state that, “This fable applies to people who are all noise and have no substance to them.”  Now, I feel as if there are several confusing articles to this fable. First of all, it doesn’t seem like the Lion’s style to just kill another animal without the intention of eating it. As is seen in other fables, he would either kill other animals so that he may consume them or he would converse with them in a regal fashion. In the fables assigned, he has not killed a single animal without reason, except in this one.

 

Second, the moral feels as if it were a tad confusing. When the moral says it, “applies to people who are all noise and have no substance to them,” it makes it sound as if the main character of the story is the frog. However, it makes very little sense since he is only presented to the Lion for such a short time before meeting an untimely end. With such a grim demise for one croak, despite how loud it was to the lion, it has very little bearing on the story. If the Frog had more dialogue or even had more to do in the story, then maybe the fable would at least make the moral have some sense in the end.

 

In the end, although the moral of the fable did not feel as if it were a strong enough moral, it now feels also feels mildly ironic that the story is all noise with a moral to match, and yet neither has the substance to support each other.

Animals are More Devout Monotheists

The animals seem to understand the religious teachings of monotheism, especially the concepts of equality and justice, much better than humans do, which I believe makes them better monotheists because they seem to have the same beliefs as humans but do not misinterpret the religious teachings. The very actions of the animals are more moral than those of the humans; earlier in the book, the animals were concerned with choosing their best representative in order to facilitate a fair petition to the king, while the humans were more concerned with deceiving the king in order to get their way. The animals truly understand the teachings of the monotheistic religions because they not only have a stronger moral conscience, but they understand that everything is a gift from God, and praising God is the most essential part to the monotheistic religions. (After all, it’s the first commandment of Christianity.) The frog claims humans “don’t consider what a blessing it was to them that God kept these creatures far from their habitations, lest humans be harmed by them,” and that the humans were “misled” by thinking “animals are their prisoners” (229). The frog understands that God does everything for a reason, whereas humans misinterpret a blessing from God as a reason for exploitation of the seemingly weaker species. I definitely think the animals and the humans share the same religion and not differing philosophical views, it may just be more difficult for the humans to be as devout because they are more able to provide for themselves whereas animals seem to be more dependent on nature and at the whim of God. Both humans and animals are subject to God’s rule, but humans seem to have an easier time getting around it. While animals see every good thing as a gift directly from God, humans can confuse a gift from God as something of their own doing or something they are entitled to as the “superior” species. Throughout the bee’s speech, he refers to the gracious acts of God numerous times: “God placed” on them wings and their ability to make honey, and “God has so lavished his gifts and blessings” that the bee cannot “adequately thank Him” (234-5). The Byzantine rulers also praise God, but include in their praises the fact that God “set animals and plants in [humans’] service” (242), which may be true but does not justify exploitation. Overall, the animals praise God more frequently and do not try to twist God’s blessings into a reason to harm others, which makes them better monotheists.

The lion Hushes the Inferior

After the Aesop fable “The Lion and the Frog” the italicized message states that “people who are all noise have no substance to them” which can be seen as a misinterpretation of the underlying moral meaning of the fable.  Instead of being people who just talk with no substance, in this fable the frog can be seen as a representation of the general public who has large opinions and can actually have a lot of substance behind their croak. When the frog first croaks or the people speak, the lion responds with his roar thinking the frog is a larger animal and a threat. Only when the lion finds out the frog is small and insignificant in comparison to him does he squish it seeing that it can’t do much to fight back. This situation can be compared to a corrupt political system in human terms. The lion in this fable would represent people in power such as political leaders and how they can easily quiet the protests of the general public if it’s not in their favor. The people may have as strong of opinions as these political leaders but are considered inferior and can be easily quieted due to their lack of power. The lion mocks the frog by admiring its loud noise yet shows how insignificant its opinions are because the lion has the final say. Just as most political leaders have the final say in decisions regardless of what the public may say. When the animal world is changed into human terms it makes it harder to be accepting of the lion squishing the frog. In the case of animal world it just seems like a way of nature, but when it becomes humans quieting other humans ideas solely based on superiority, that becomes a greater injustice.