Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from The Fables of Aesop, by Aesop
With the invention of printing the European book of Æsop was compiled
about 1480 by Heinrich Stainhöwel, who put together the Romulus with
selections from Avian, some of the Greek prose versions of Babrius from
Ranuzio’s translation, and a few from Alfred’s Æsop. To these he added
the legendary life of Æsop and a selection of somewhat loose tales from
Petrus Alphonsi and Poggio Bracciolini, corresponding to the Milesian
and Sybaritic tales which were associated with the Fable in antiquity.
Stainhöwel translated all this into German, and within twenty years his
collection had been turned into French, English (by Caxton, in 1484),
Italian, Dutch, and Spanish. Additions were made to it by Brandt and
Waldis in Germany, by L’Estrange in England, and by La Fontaine in
France; these were chiefly from the larger Greek collections published
after Stainhöwel’s day, and, in the case of La Fontaine, from Bidpai
and other Oriental sources. But these additions have rarely taken hold,
and the Æsop of modern Europe is in large measure Stainhöwel’s, even to
the present day. The first three quarters of the present collection are
Stainhöwel mainly in Stainhöwel’s order. Selections from it passed into
spelling and reading books, and made the Fables part of modern European
folk-lore.[5]
[5] An episode in the history of the modern Æsop deserves record, if
only to illustrate the law that Æsop always begins his career as a
political weapon in a new home. When a selection of the Fables were
translated into Chinese in 1840 they became favourite reading with the
officials, till a high dignitary said, “This is clearly directed
against us,” and ordered Æsop to be included in the Chinese Index
Expurgatorius (R. Morris, Cont. Rev. xxxix. p. 731).
We may conclude this history of Æsop with a similar account of the
progress of Æsopic investigation. First came collection; the Greek Æsop
was brought together by Neveletus in 1610, the Latin by Nilant in 1709.
The main truth about the former was laid down by the master-hand of
Bentley during a skirmish in the Battle of the Books; the equally great
critic Lessing began to unravel the many knotty points connected with
the medieval Latin Æsop. His investigations have been carried on and
completed by three Frenchmen in the present century, Robert, Du Méril,
and Hervieux; while three Germans, Crusius, Benfey, and Mall, have
thrown much needed light on Babrius, on the Oriental Æsop, and on Marie
de France. Lastly, I have myself brought together these various lines
of inquiry, and by adding a few threads of my own, have been able to
weave them all for the first time into a consistent pattern.[6]
Explanation
This excerpt is from the preface or introductory material to a collection of Aesop’s Fables, likely written by a 19th-century scholar (possibly Rev. George Fyler Townsend, whose 1867 translation and commentary on Aesop was influential, or another editor in the same tradition). The passage provides a historical and textual overview of how Aesop’s Fables were compiled, translated, and disseminated across Europe and beyond. Below is a detailed breakdown of the text, focusing on its content, themes, literary context, and significance.
1. Context of the Source
Aesop’s Fables are a collection of short allegorical stories, traditionally attributed to Aesop, a semi-legendary Greek storyteller believed to have lived around the 6th century BCE. However, the fables were oral traditions long before they were written down, and their textual history is complex. The excerpt discusses:
- The compilation of the European Aesop by Heinrich Steinhöwel (1480), who merged multiple sources (Romulus, Avian, Babrius, etc.).
- The rapid translation and dissemination of Steinhöwel’s collection across Europe (German → French, English, Italian, etc.).
- Later expansions by writers like La Fontaine (France) and Roger L’Estrange (England), who incorporated additional fables from Greek, Oriental (e.g., Bidpai), and other sources.
- The political and cultural impact of Aesop’s Fables, including their censorship in China (1840) due to perceived subversive content.
- The scholarly investigation of Aesop’s texts, from early collectors (Neveletus, Nilant) to modern critics (Bentley, Lessing, Robert, etc.).
2. Key Themes in the Excerpt
A. The Evolution of a Textual Tradition
The passage traces how Aesop’s Fables evolved from oral tales to printed books, highlighting:
- Syncretism: Steinhöwel’s compilation was a patchwork of earlier collections (Romulus, Avian, Babrius, Alfred’s Aesop, etc.), showing how texts are reworked and repurposed over time.
- Translation as Cultural Transmission: The rapid spread of Steinhöwel’s work into multiple languages (within 20 years!) illustrates how printing press technology (invented ~1440) accelerated the standardization of folklore.
- Canonization: Despite later additions (e.g., La Fontaine’s Oriental fables), Steinhöwel’s version became the dominant "European Aesop", showing how certain editions achieve cultural authority.
B. Political and Subversive Power of Fables
The anecdote about Aesop’s Fables being banned in China (1840) is crucial:
- Fables were seen as allegorical critiques of authority ("This is clearly directed against us").
- This reflects a broader pattern: Aesop’s Fables often function as political tools, using animal characters to satirize human power structures (e.g., "The Wolf and the Lamb" critiques unjust rulers).
- The Index Expurgatorius reference (a list of prohibited books) ties Aesop to censorship and ideological control, a recurring theme in the history of fables.
C. Scholarly Investigation and Textual Criticism
The passage outlines the academic history of Aesop studies:
- Collection Phase: Early scholars (Neveletus, Nilant) gathered Greek and Latin versions.
- Critical Analysis: Figures like Richard Bentley (a renowned classical scholar) and Gotthold Lessing (a key Enlightenment thinker) debunked myths about Aesop’s authorship and traced the fables’ origins.
- Modern Synthesis: The author (likely Townsend or a similar editor) claims to have unified prior research into a "consistent pattern," suggesting a teleological view of scholarship (i.e., progress toward a definitive understanding).
3. Literary Devices and Rhetorical Strategies
A. Historical Narrative Structure
The excerpt is chronologically organized, moving from:
- Steinhöwel’s compilation (1480) →
- Translation and dissemination (late 15th century) →
- Later expansions (16th–18th centuries) →
- Political reception (19th-century China) →
- Scholarly developments (17th–19th centuries).
This linear progression gives the impression of inevitable cultural evolution, reinforcing the idea that Steinhöwel’s Aesop is the "definitive" version.
B. Authoritative Tone
- Passive Voice: "the European book of Æsop was compiled" (rather than "Steinhöwel compiled") depersonalizes the process, making it seem like a natural cultural development.
- Scholarly Jargon: Terms like "Milesian and Sybaritic tales" and "Bidpai and other Oriental sources" assume a learned audience, reinforcing the text’s academic credibility.
- First-Person Intervention: The final sentence ("I have myself brought together these various lines of inquiry") suddenly personalizes the narrative, positioning the author as the culmination of centuries of scholarship.
C. Irony and Understatement
- The Chinese censorship anecdote is presented dryly: "An episode... deserves record, if only to illustrate the law that Æsop always begins his career as a political weapon in a new home."
- The understated humor ("if only") contrasts with the serious implication that fables are inherently subversive.
- The phrase "political weapon" is metaphorical, framing Aesop’s Fables as active agents in cultural conflicts.
D. Metaphors of Weaving and Patterns
- The final sentence uses textile imagery: "weave them all... into a consistent pattern."
- This metaphor suggests that scholarship is a craft, blending disparate threads (sources) into a coherent whole.
- It also implies that the author’s work is definitive, tying up loose ends left by predecessors.
4. Significance of the Excerpt
A. Textual History as Cultural History
The passage demonstrates how literary works are shaped by technology (printing), politics (censorship), and scholarship. Aesop’s Fables are not just timeless stories but products of specific historical moments.
B. The Power of Allegory
The Chinese censorship example underscores why fables endure: their allegorical nature allows them to critique power indirectly. This is why they are both beloved and dangerous.
C. The Myth of Aesop
The text subtly challenges the idea of a single "Aesop":
- The fables are compiled from many sources, not written by one person.
- Scholars like Bentley and Lessing debunked the legendary biography of Aesop (e.g., the idea that he was a deformed slave), showing how myths accrete around texts.
D. The Role of Editors and Translators
Steinhöwel, Caxton, La Fontaine, and the unnamed author are not just preservers but creators of the Aesop tradition. This raises questions:
- How much of "Aesop" is original, and how much is later invention?
- What gets included or excluded in these collections, and why?
5. Connection to Broader Literary and Historical Trends
- Oral to Written Transition: Aesop’s Fables exemplify how folklore becomes literature through compilation and printing.
- Colonial and Cross-Cultural Exchange: The mention of Oriental sources (Bidpai) and the Chinese reception shows how fables travel and mutate across cultures.
- Enlightenment and Textual Criticism: The work of Bentley and Lessing reflects the 18th-century shift toward historical-critical methods in studying ancient texts.
- Folklore and National Identity: The fables’ inclusion in schoolbooks made them part of European cultural heritage, used to teach morals and language.
6. Critical Questions Raised by the Excerpt
- Authorship and Authority: If Aesop’s Fables are a collage of sources, why do we still attribute them to "Aesop"?
- Political Function: How do fables serve or challenge power in different contexts (e.g., Europe vs. China)?
- Cultural Appropriation: How were Oriental fables (like Bidpai) absorbed into the "European Aesop," and what does this say about colonial knowledge systems?
- Scholarly Bias: The author claims to have woven a "consistent pattern"—but is this objective history or a constructed narrative?
Conclusion
This excerpt is not just a dry historical account but a meta-commentary on how stories are made, shaped, and weaponized. It reveals that Aesop’s Fables are:
- A palimpsest (layered text) of multiple traditions.
- A political tool, capable of both reinforcing and undermining authority.
- A scholarly battleground, where editors and critics compete to define the "real" Aesop.
Ultimately, the passage invites readers to see Aesop’s Fables not as simple moral tales but as complex cultural artifacts, constantly reinterpreted across time and space.