Aesop's Fables Are the Alphabet of Humanity- G. K Chesterton Vs. WSJ

Sam Sacks reviewed 'Aesop's Fables: A New Translation ' for WSJ in Oct 2024.

It said: "...“Aesop is not a good book for reformers,” a critic once observed, and it’s true that the fables present our natures and social standings as essentially fixed. Foxes are foxy, wolves predatory, mice timid. Trying to be what you are not, like “The Donkey in a Lion’s Skin,” brings about a fall. The lion is the king of the beasts and many fables are about the foolishness of hoping to challenge its authority. There is no democratic, much less revolutionary, spirit here. With rare exceptions, self-sacrifice is merely another example of naiveté. 

What the fables offer instead is a wintry, fatalistic kind of knowledge. Mr. Waterfield writes that they were intended for popular audiences, meaning powerless people who could expect no change in their fortunes and might take consolation in seeing the world without illusions and laughing at its inanities. In dark times, I’m glad to have them, but I’ll keep my copy on the top shelf of the bookcase, out of reach of little hands."

The reviewer clearly wants to see the world reformed with every other book!\

G. K Chesterton (1874-1936) too wrote about the fables:

"...But by using animals in this austere and arbitrary style as they are used on the shields of heraldry or the hieroglyphics of the ancients, men have really succeeded in handing down those tremendous truths that are called truisms. If the chivalric lion be red and rampant, it is rigidly red and rampant; if the sacred ibis stands anywhere on one leg, it stands on one leg for ever. In this language, like a large animal alphabet, are written some of the first philosophic certainties of men. As the child learns A for Ass or B for Bull or C for Cow, so man has learnt here to connect the simpler and stronger creatures with the simpler and stronger truths. That a flowing stream cannot befoul its own fountain, and that any one who says it does is a tyrant and a liar; that a mouse is too weak to fight a lion, but too strong for the cords that can hold a lion; that a fox who gets most out of a flat dish may easily get least out of a deep dish; that the crow whom the gods forbid to sing, the gods nevertheless provide with cheese; that when the goat insults from a mountain-top it is not the goat that insults, but the mountain; all these are deep truths deeply graven on the rocks wherever men have passed. It matters nothing how old they are, or how new; they are the alphabet of humanity, which like so many forms of primitive picture-writing employs any living symbol in preference to man. These ancient and universal tales are all of animals; as the latest discoveries in the oldest prehistoric caverns are all of animals. Man, in his simpler stories, always felt that he himself was something too mysterious to be drawn. But the legend he carved under these cruder symbols was everywhere the same; and whether fables began with Aesop or began with Adam, whether they were German and medieval as Reynard the Fox, or as French and Renaissance as La Fontaine, the upshot is everywhere essentially the same; that pride goes before a fall; and that there is such a thing as being too clever by half. You will not find any other legend but this written upon the rocks by any hand of man. There is every type and time of fable; but there is only one moral to the fable; because there is only one moral to everything."

 A detail of a Greek ceramic vase showing a fox teaching fables to the writer Aesop, ca. 400 B.C

ती धनुर्धारीण मंगोल असेल किंवा नसेल.... Mongol Women Archers

Frank McLynn :

“...Mongols did not groom their horses but let the mane and tail grow so long that it almost trailed on the ground. They claimed that this kept the horses warm in winter and warded off flies in summer; moreover, if a bridle or stirrup broke, there was always a ready supply of horse-hair with which to do the mending. Training then started with the horse at a standstill to get the animal used to noise, particularly the simulated din of battle. Next they set the steed in motion while shooting arrows from the saddle, so that it could get used to the different movements as the rider drew arrows from his quiver, moved the drawn bow from one flank to the other and shot from different angles. The horse had to learn to keep straight while receiving leg signals only, as the reins were not held but knotted. The rider had to keep the legs rigid so as not to confuse the horse; turning in the saddle was done with waist and hips. Other techniques involved getting the charger used to ropes and lassos being thrown, lances hurled and swords wielded, sometimes very close to the animal’s head. Strangely, the Mongols found that accurate shooting was easier at the gallop than at a canter; this was because when galloping on a free rein the horse lowered its whole topline, stretching and lowering its head and neck, giving the archer a free field of fire. To ensure that their horses could veer and turn rapidly the Mongols first turned them in a large circle, then gradually narrowed the range in ever diminishing circles until rapid turns became second nature. Marco Polo in the late twelfth century noted that Mongol horses were so well trained that they could turn as quickly as a dog...

.... Mongol women were a particular source of fascination to foreign observers. The accounts given of them ranged from arm’s-length distaste – they were fat, they were ugly, they were indistinguishable from men – to grudging admiration – they endured great hardship uncomplainingly, they could ride horses as well as the men, they were expert drivers of carts, talented archers, and so on. Particular dislike was evinced for the garish colours in which they painted themselves, and particular admiration for the way they could give birth standing up and then carry on with their work as if nothing had happened. It was noted also that the Mongols respected women, as they were connected with the moon, and the moon was of great importance in Mongol religion...”

(‘Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy’, 2015)

Artist: Frederick Sands Brunner 1886-1954,   The Archer Star weekly,  1948

 

M K Dhavalikar Says Archeology is Supreme. Is it? Mary Beard Has An Answer

 I never liked the late M K Dhavalikar's assertion captured in the enclosed para from his Marathi book 'Maharashtrachi Kulkatha', 2011.

As I understand it, if something that happened in last two thousand years is not proven by archeology, it probably did not happen. He also concludes, it probably did not happen because of frequent droughts in India.

I wonder how much we have excavated to claim that a lot of our history is based on falsehood.

Mary Bard says in TLS in October 2024:

'Archaeology has had its fair share of hype over the decades. Occasionally that has been entirely justified (it is hard to imagine not hyping the tomb of Tutankhamun, for example). But the pressure from headline writers, from university PR departments and (I suspect) from underfunded excavators looking for sponsorship is to turn any discovery, however interesting but ordinary it might be, into “the first”, “the best”, “the most valuable”, or whatever superlative you choose.'

शिवास्ते सन्तु पन्थानो मा च ते परिपन्थिनः...Karna, Kunti and Gaganendranath Tagore

 

"...महाभारतातले सर्वात सुंदर गाणे कुंती नवजात कर्णाला करंड्यात घालून अश्वनदीत सोडते त्या वेळच्या तिच्या उद्गारांचे आहे. 

 

शोक, कंप, कोमलता, ताटातूट सारे काही त्या गाण्यात नादमय शब्दांच्या आधारे व्यासाने साकारले आहे. 

 

त्यातल्या काही ओळी अशा:

 

"शिवास्ते सन्तु पन्थानो मा च ते परिपन्थिनः।

आगताश्च तथा पुत्र भवन्त्यद्रोहचेतसः ।।

पातु त्वां वरुणो राजा सलिले सलिलेश्वरः।

अन्तरिक्षेऽन्तरिक्षस्थः पवनः सर्वगस्तथा ।।

पिता त्वां पातु सर्वत्र तपनस्तपतांवरः।

येन दत्तोसि मे पुत्र दिव्येन विधिना किल ।।

आदित्या वसवो रुद्राः साध्या विश्वे च देवताः।

मरुतश्च सहेन्द्रेण दिशश्च सदिदीश्वराः ।।

रक्षन्तु त्वां सुराः सर्वे समेषु विषमेषु च।

वेत्स्यामि त्वांविदेशेपि कवचेनाभिसूचितम् ।।

धन्यस्ते पुत्र जनरको देवो भानुर्विभावसुः।

स्त्वां द्रक्ष्यति दिव्येन चक्षुषा वाहिनीगतम् ।।

धन्या सा प्रमदा या त्वां पुत्रत्वे कल्पयिष्यति।

यस्यास्त्वं तृषितः पुत्र स्तनं पास्यसि देवज ।।

कोनु स्वप्नस्तया दृष्टो या त्वामादित्यवर्चसम्।

दिव्यवर्मसमायुक्तं दिव्यकृण्डलभूषितम् ।।

पद्मायतविशालाक्षं पद्मताम्रदलोज्ज्वलम्।

सुललाटं सुकेशान्तं पुत्रत्वे कल्पयिष्यति ।।

धन्या द्रक्ष्यन्ति पुत्र त्वां भूमौ संसर्पमाणकम्।

अव्यक्तकलवाक्यानि वदन्तं रेणुगुण्ठितम् ।।..." 

 

 (पृष्ठ १८, प्रस्तावना, 'व्यासपर्व', दुर्गा भागवत, १९६२/ १९९२)

 

(महाभारतम्, तृतीयपर्व, आरण्यकपर्व-309)

 

मी गाणे Wikisource मधून घेतले आहे, पुस्तकातून नाही, त्यामुळे काही फरक आढळतील...

 

त्याचा इंग्लिश अनुवाद असा काहीसा :

 

"May all thy paths be auspicious! May no one obstruct thy way! And, O son, may all that come across thee have their hearts divested of hostility towards thee: And may that lord of waters, Varuna. protect thee in water! And may the deity that rangeth the skies completely protect thee in the sky. And may, O son, that best of those that impart heat, viz., Surya, thy father, and from whom I have obtained thee as ordained by Destiny, protect thee everywhere! And may the Adityas and the Vasus, the Rudras and the Sadhyas, the Viswadevas and the Maruts, and the cardinal points with the great Indra and the regents presiding over them, and, indeed, all the celestials, protect thee in every place! Even in foreign lands I shall be able to recognise thee by this mail of thine! Surely, thy sire, O son, the divine Surya possessed of the wealth of splendour, is blessed, for he will with his celestial sight behold thee going down the current! Blessed also is that lady who will, O thou that are begotten by a god, take thee for her son, and who will give thee suck when thou art thirsty! And what a lucky dream hath been dreamt by her that will adopt thee for her son, thee that is endued with solar splendour, and furnished with celestial mail, and adorned with celestial ear-rings, thee that hast expansive eyes resembling lotuses, a complexion bright as burnished copper or lotus leaves, a fair forehead, and hair ending in beautiful curls! O son, she that will behold thee crawl on the ground, begrimed with dust, and sweetly uttering inarticulate words, is surely blessed!"

 

 Karna-Kunti by Gaganendranath Tagore (1867-1938) (he was a painter and a cartoonist)

 

 

पिपात मेला एकच (पण सुंदर) उंदीर...But where, oh where is the compassion?

 Two books on rats were published and reviewed in 2024. I read only reviews and found them very intriguing.

Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker:

"...Two new books take up the subject of Calhoun and his rats. The authors of the first, “Rat City: Overcrowding and Urban Derangement in the Rodent Universes of John B. Calhoun” (Melville House), are a pair of British researchers, Edmund Ramsden and Jon Adams, who for a time both taught at the London School of Economics. The second, “Dr. Calhoun’s Mousery: The Strange Tale of a Celebrated Scientist, a Rodent Dystopia, and the Future of Humanity” (University of Chicago), is by Lee Alan Dugatkin, a historian of science at the University of Louisville. Both books cast Calhoun as a visionary. Both also portray him as eccentric to the point of crankdom...."

Simon Ings write in The Spectator, UK: 

"...Among rodents, a rising population induces stress, and stress reduces the birth rate. But push the overcrowding too far (further than would be likely to happen in nature) and stress starts to trigger all manner of weird and frightening effects. The rodents start to pack together, abandoning all sense of personal space. Violence and homosexuality skyrocket; females cease to nurture and suckle their young; abandoned, these offspring become food for any passing male. The only way out of this hell is complete voluntary isolation. A generation of ‘beautiful ones’ arises, that knows only to groom itself and avoid social contact. Without sex, the population collapses. The few Methuselahs who remain have no social skills to speak of. They’re not aggressive. They’re not anything. They barely exist...

...But whether we behave exactly like rats in conditions of overcrowding and/or social isolation is not the point. The point is that, given the sheer commonality between mammal species, something might happen to humans in like conditions; and it behoves us to find out what that something might be before we foist any more hopeful urban planning on the proletariat. Calhoun, who got us to think seriously about how we design our cities, is Rat City’s visionary hero, to the point where I started to hear him. Observing some gormless waifs staring into their smartphones at the bottom of the escalator, I recalled his prediction that ‘we might one day see the human equivalent’ of his mice, pathologically crammed together in ‘a sort of withdrawal – in which they would behave as if they were not aware of each other’..."

 

Artist: Tomi Um, The New Yorker