The Irony of the Shepherd (Revisited)

In Aesop’s fable “The Shepherd and Wolf Cubs,” there is a misinterpretation between the moral message and the actual content of the fable. In the fable, the shepherd found some wolf cubs and attempted to domesticate them so they would guard his sheep and steal other people’s sheep. However, as soon as the wolves reach maturity, they kill his flock of sheep. At the very end of the fable, the shepherd complains by saying, “For why did I rescue the young of animals which one has to destroy when they are grown up?” (231). In fact, the moral message conveys the the wolves as the “bad people” and states that by giving the wolves power, they go against the human. 

The italicized moral message completely complicates the content of the fable. The moral message reads, “In saving bad people we unwittingly give them the power to turn against us first of all,” (231).

As mentioned, the moral message claims that the wolves are the “bad people” because they tore the sheep to pieces. However, it is evident that wolves have natural survival instincts. Wolves play the game of survival of the fittest, only the fit survive. If the wolves do not have anything to eat, they will die, so they kill the sheep. Although the shepherd attempts to train and domesticate the wolves, it obviously does not work because of the wolves’ key instincts. The human cannot blame wolves for doing what they are instinctively born to do.

First off, the moral message claims that the human “saved” the wolves. Nowhere in the fable does it mention that the wolves were in danger. It states that “A shepherd found some wolf cubs…” (231). If the human is considered a “good person” then why would he steal the wolf cubs? The human found the cubs, but the fable also never mentions a Mother Wolf. If the human stole the cubs away from their mother, how can the shepherd expect the wolves to, all of a sudden, ignore their instincts and behave how he wants them to behave. 

In addition, the moral message refuses to acknowledge that the human is indeed a bad person. The irony is that the reason for the shepherd trying to domesticate the wolves is to steal another person’s flock. Calling the wolves the “bad people” is ironic due to the fact that the whole reason the shepherd’s flock was killed was because of the man’s own sin. Finally, the end of the moral message mentions that the shepherd gave the power to turn against him to the wolves. This complicates the morality of the wolf because the original idea of giving the power to the wolves was to steal sheep from others!

By Brieanna Anderson

The Ploughman and the Wolf: Replowed

The wolf walked away from the forest, his home, wounded and injured. The pain of seeing his loved ones taken away from him was far too great, and it further aroused his hunger. Despite his irreparable loss, there was one thing he could take pride in: that he had managed to escape the wrath of the humans.

For years, the wolf and his pack saw their trees torn down, their forests burned, and their lands destroyed. The only thing the pack could wonder was when they would be next. There was no wish to fight against the humans, for the pack was content with the way they had lived before. However, with the humans culling their prey to farms, this was an impossible task.

It only seemed fair to the wolves to take from the farm what was rightfully theirs. Cooperation was out of the question; they would only be driven out if they were to ask the foolish farmers who were too busy worrying about themselves. Mankind had no interest in the survival of any species that wasn’t their own, so it was justified to the wolf and his pack that they must steal the farmers’ animals. The decision was a difficult one to make: they were already too familiar with the wrath of man, but at the same time, the wolf population was making a steady decline. Thus, they decided this was the only way to keep their kind alive. However, their fears would come to fruition once the farmers started noticing that their animals were disappearing one by one.

The wolf woke as he saw multiple lights moving towards him and his pack in the distance. His expression swiftly changed from tired to terrified once he realized what the lights truly were: The torches of man’s wrath had come upon them. The wolf forced his pack to wake as the torches came closer and closer; he knew that this could be the end of his life. The pack was formidable, but they were no match for man’s tools; the axes that had cut down their trees were now swung towards their heads. In mere minutes, the pack’s number had dwindled, and the wolf himself was severely wounded. All of his companions, his comrades, were unapologetically cut down; this was a massacre done solely out of hatred. Using what little remained of his strength, the wolf escaped, aimlessly wandering outside the reach of his former home.

After he snapped out of his grief-ridden trance, the wolf saw an empty plough in front of him. His stomach felt like it was being gnawed from the inside, and all the wolf could do was lick the inner surface of the yoke, without noticing, until it was too late, that his neck went into the yoke and got stuck. Once again, the wolf was grief-stricken, and he could do nothing but drag the plough across the furrow. The ploughman, who had returned from taking his oxen to a water trough, saw the wolf and said: “Ah! You scoundrel-head, you! If only you would give up pillage and robbery and put yourself to work on the land!”

The wicked are not credible characters, and they really ought to do something useful once in a while.

REVIEW:
I felt that the tale of the wolf and the ploughman we had gone over in class was a good focus for this project. It was one of the first fables where I learned to read between the lines and see that the wolf wasn’t necessarily an evil character, despite what the fable and its morals suggest. I chose to expand on the wolf himself, something that wasn’t done in the original story, as a means of understanding why he made the decision that got him caught in the plough in the first place. I felt that I couldn’t adhere too closely to Aesop’s style of writing, as it would be harder to communicate the message I was trying to convey. So, I instead wrote in a style somewhat in spite of it, which can be seen in the moral of the original fable being carried over to this version. The destruction of the wolf pack by humans was hugely relevant, as events like this have occurred multiple times in history. A more recent example is the killing of Yellowstone gray wolves by government predator control programs that led to their extinction by 1926. This served to increase the elk population of Yellowstone uncontrollably. While wolves may have been reintroduced to Yellowstone in recent times, the initial damage was already done, showing the scope and danger of human intervention in animal lives. The focus on human wrath was largely inspired by The Jungle Book, related to the law of the jungle and the fear of humanity’s strength in tools, such as the red flower. To summarize what this story is, it is an exploration of the original story of The Ploughman and the Wolf and its wolf character through a lens of human colonization.

Kanishka Verose

The Rules of the Game

Rudyard Kipling’s “The Law of the Jungle” establishes the importance of following the rules/law. He explains that “Now this if the Law of the Jungle…the wolf that shall keep it may prosper but the wolf that shall break it must die. (159)” The law serves as the most fundamental power, having the ability to cause beings to prosper or die. It establishes that violence is ok when beings do not follow the law and that there is a right time to use violence. The laws also state that “for the strength of the pack is a wolf and the strength of the wolf if the pack” (159). The video game promotion uses this phrase when it shows three soldiers about to fight a Leviathan, emphasizing that you will succeed with strength in numbers. The strength of the pack will form a system of strength and following this system will help you succeed. The Leviathan is the structure of the rules. It is the system that tells when violence is suitable and when stability must be formed in order to succeed. If this system is not followed, violence will be brought upon whomever does not follow the laws. 

After reading the passage “Mowgli’s Brothers,” The Laws of the Jungle are mentioned when referring to the change of residence without fair warning. More specifically, this is referring to Shere Khan, the tiger, moving his living quarters without warning others. Because of this action, “He will frighten every head of game within ten miles;and I – I have to kill for two, these days.” (7). The Laws of the Jungle govern every being in this jungle, including the powerful Shere Khan, who thinks he is above the law or the Leviathan. Although these laws have been established, Shere Khan is acting like “more superior” species, perhaps like a human. He does not take into consideration anything other than himself, if he wants to move his residence, he can. However rules have consequences if not followed. Because of Shere Khan’s actions, there will be unnecessary consequences for him and the rest of the animals. The structure of law was established in order to keep stability and in order to constitute for violence only when necessary.

By Brieanna Anderson

Follow and Prosper, Break and Die

The poem The Law of the Jungle, written by Rudyard Kipling and referenced in an advertisement for the video game Destiny, starts off with the implications and importance of following this law, by explaining that “…the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die” (Kipling). The law of the jungle is absolute, like an omnipotent force that changes the destinies of beings through its will alone. It is conveyed that the law is something to fear, as not following it will result in death. The idea of an omnipotent being who rules over his people through his will is also showcased with the Leviathan.

The story Mowgli’s Brothers shows the applications of the implications of the law of the jungle to the wolf society. When a Mowgli, a human baby, is taken in by the wolf pack leader couple, Father Wolf wonders how the pack will respond to the fact that a human is a part of them. Mother Wolf answers, using the law of the jungle to state that those within the wolves must have their children scrutinized by a Pack Council, regardless of their current allegiance, upon which “…the cubs are free to run where they please, and until they have killed their first buck no excuse is accepted if a grown wolf of the Pack kills one of them. The punishment is death where the murderer can be found…” (Kipling). Mother and Father Wolf use the rule that those determined to be wolves in the council cannot be killed by grown wolves until they have killed another creature themselves. This is used to ensure that Mowgli is not unfairly killed by the Wolf pack should he be determined to be a wolf. The criteria for determining if the cubs are part of the wolves is left somewhat ambiguous, leading one to wonder what exactly allows the council to identify the cubs. The statement that wolves have to bring their children to the pack even if they leave seems out of place, but this could be related to staying true to one’s roots. There is a clear punishment stated here, which is clearly used to make anyone who would violate this rule scared of doing so. How exactly this protects Mowgli is missing from the text, especially since the verification of him in the pack is up to a council and not Mother and Father Wolf. In this case, the law of the jungle is used to protect someone’s life by scaring their potential pursuers away. Much like a Leviathan, there is a larger force at play that will do anything to maintain the order it desires, and it will kill those that oppose it, so it is best to follow its rules.

Kanishka Verose

The Law of The Jungle and Interpretations.

Both within Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Books” and the 2013 Destiny game trailer come across as, is the political matter within “The Law of The Jungle”. The laws of the jungle must be followed in order to survive, drawing on that age old quote of survival of the fittest. The fittest of species will prosper, “[…] but the Wolf that shall break it must die”. (Kipling 159). These clips and snipits of the stories illustrates the need and status for hunting, how not all violence is technically morally incorrect, and a good amount of fear is what keeps everyone in check and abiding by the jungle ways. The way that Kipling and the trailer for Destiny illustrates this message of survival of the fittest also coincides with the ideology of the political man, a Leviathan.

The parallels between the jungle books and the laws of the jungle to the leviathan are  a pyramid structure, a food chain, whether legitimately one (ie consumers, producers, etc), or one that isn’t so obvious, being the structure of societies and political ideologies such as capitalism, socialism, and dictatorships. The pyramid of poor at the bottom, and rich at the top illustrates a common theme of money and status is power, and those on the bottom don’t survive as easily.  

-Zack Johnson

Man’s Best Friend and Nature’s Lone Soldier

From fairy tale stories ranging from Little Red Riding Hood to The Boy Who Cried Wolf, humans have been taught that wolves are inherently deceptive beings, to be never trusted. Whereas, for thousands of years, dogs have held the reputation for being useful, protective, naturally loyal beings, but most important of them all, a man’s best friend. In fact, the domestication of dogs has been a part of human society for longer than any other species. But from the wild and untamed nature of the wolf to the true loyal companionship in the dog, dogs and wolves, although sharing a common ancestor, are two distinct yet interconnected species that have been in existence for thousands of years. While dogs and wolves are physically similar, their domestication journeys have often led to differences in way of life and morality. In Aesop’s fables on dogs and wolves, the concept of domestication is explored, showing the alteration of moral codes of these different species in some fables to other fables exemplifying the true distinction of domestication versus the true nature of wild animals. 

By Brieanna Anderson

The Effects of Domestication

Since their evolution more than 30,000 years ago, dogs have been the reigning title-holders of “man’s best friend”. From helping hunt down prey in the agricultural revolution, to being lap dogs and lifelong companions to everyday humans, dogs have always been around, helping humans with whatever task is needed to be completed, and receiving benefits in return. As such, there is no animal more domesticated and human-friendly in history than the dog. However, their friendly character wasn’t always this way. With their DNA being 98.8% similar to wolves, it is no surprise that dogs are descended from these majestic creatures. They have the same facial structures, physical appearances, and some dogs, such as the husky, even closely resemble wolves. Despite all their physical similarities, they could not be more different in terms of nature. Wolves “are all of the same race, all of the same color” (215). They are fierce apex predators who are free to travel in packs in order to secure food and find safe shelter. In comparison, dogs “have very varied habits’’ (215) and, more reliant on humans rather than their own kind, give up their freedom in exchange for a stable source of food and shelter. They put themselves in a position to be domesticated while reaping the benefits that come with. However, one must question whether or not the topic of domestication is a good thing when one looks at the dog and the wolf. Dating back to the sixth century B.C., in Aesop’s Fables, Aesop’s depiction of the dog and the wolf connects with such effects of domesticity, and how, through domestication, the morals of dogs and wolves are completely different despite the two animals being so similar otherwise.

-Kristina Wong

Essay Title: Aesop’s partisanship toward human agency and morality

by Jonatan Gonzalez

Essay Introduction:

Former President of France Charles de Gaulle once said that “the better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs.” The legendary storyteller Aesop would likely reply, “Does that include wolves too?” Aesop’s fables abound with animals that have moral deficiencies, stories that inevitably garner interest into the moral status of beasts as well as their agency in comparison to humans. In Aesop’s fables, the fox and the wolf are portrayed as unscrupulous beings yet in stories with animal-human interactions they are characterized as innocent creatures, highlighting an ongoing, anthropocentric assumption that human moral agency is superior to that of animals.

Domestication Cannot Kill the Beast

Looking at the various wolf and dog fables from Aesop, there are various examples of dogs acting unjust and mischievous just as wolves are often portrayed in many fables. Many believe that human domestication and involvement has pushed dogs to being a more loyal and trustworthy animal, but the dog is still very capable of deceiving and betraying those who deem them close. For example, fables 177 and 183 both show animal characteristics that some would believe to be more closely aligned with a wolf rather than a dog. In fable 177 a man seeks a remedy for his wound which was given to him by a dog. In this particular fable “man’s best friend” is the cause of his misfortune. Also, once a solution is proposed to his problem, the man says, “But if I did that, every dog in the city would bite me” (Aesop 130). This further shows the savage nature of dogs and the lack of obedience. The other fable, 183, tells the story of a dog that stole from a butcher, despite being a domesticated animal. Theft, especially against one’s owner, is a trait shared amongst those who do not care for the well-being of others and put themselves first. Comparing this to the wolf, fable 217 displayed the wolf’s inequitable behavior by tricking a group of sheep. A group of dogs guarded the sheep the wolves wanted to feast on, but they circumvented this problem by convincing the sheep that the only thing standing between a sheep and wolf alliance were the dogs, and the moment the sheep gave up their dogs they were slaughtered. By examining these fables, it is shown that despite human domestication and contact, dogs still have an innate wild and survival of the fittest behavior that they resort to in some situations just as wolves do.

 

Neither of Them Have a Choice

As biological inferiors to wolves, dogs are more tractable, thus making them more preferable companions to humans. To begin, what does Aesop mean by dog? He does not often mention the dog’s size. These dogs could be rottweilers and huskies, or shih tzus and yorkies. Dogs come in almost innumerable sizes and capacities, while wolves tend to be larger with more threatening characteristics. Lap wolves are not things, but lap dogs are. When a dog is engaged in predatory behavior in a fable, he almost always describes it as a “hunting” hound; it is either wild, or trained to kill. This distinction is not made for wolves: all wolves are born to kill.

In most instances in the fables, specifically in “The Dog, the Cock, and the Fox,” a lone dog is a guard, while the lone wolf is a predator. It is worth noting that the term “lone wolf” exists while “lone dog” does not. Lone dogs do not kill in the fables, at most causing harm; wolves are always killing their prey when given the chance. This is how they live, fending for themselves in the wild, while dogs “live amid plenty and have more than enough to eat” because their owners provide for them (“The Hunting Hound and the Dogs”). A wolf, although still not a full match, is more capable of going up against the more intimidating “lions or bears” than any dog can (with the only exclusion being the dogs most closely related to wolves).

They took an opportunity when they had nothing to fear and began to ravage his flock.

In “The Shepherd and the Wolf Cubs,” the shepherd tamed the wolves but could not take away their feral power. The wolves that have now reached maturity turn to their natural instincts, use the skills nature afforded them, and then seize the opportunity they inherently cannot pass up. Yes, dogs are more just and equitable than wolves because of their domestication; their domestication came about only as a result of their lower menace and evolutionary disadvantages.