Misadventures in the Land of Fables #22

‘The Rule of the Lion’ or ‘The Monkey and the Lion’s Breath’ is little-known fable attributed to Aesop. A critique of power and the folly of our attempts to pander to it. It goes something like this:

The lion makes himself king of the beasts but seeks to be known as fair and just. So he gives up eating meat and adopts the more modest, vegetarian diet of his subjects. He can’t keep it up, however. Ashamed, he invents a stratagem to justify the violence required to kill his victims. He takes them aside and asks them if his breath smells, whatever they answer, he kills and eats them (if he’s hungry). A monkey gives particularly beautiful reply which makes him feel guilty about what he’s about to do. He gets over this by pretending to be sick and when the physicians advise him to stick to a light diet, he claims monkey meat is suitable, being nice and lean, and has it killed immediately.

Two things struck me about this.

Answering the Lion’s question is a matter of etiquette. You’d expect people to use the utmost discretion with the king. You imagine they will change that calculation once it becomes known that politeness can be fatal. But then candour has the same results. This is almost amusing. Ministers or courtiers boxed in. Silver-tongued flattery seems to offer a way out, but proves only a reprieve from the same consequences.

What is the message? ’Power is unanswerable.’ ‘Don’t get too close to a tyrant.’ Something like that, though its applications will be relatively limited these days. The recourse against abusive bosses is more robust. And who really cares about those who cosy up to actual tyrants?

Then, the Lion’s scruples are surprising. If any quality is characteristic of the tyrant it is a lack of shame. And ancient origins of the fable are betrayed by the suggestion death could be considered an proportionate consequence for an answer to such a trivial question. (I mean, it can be read metaphorically, but the guy’s entourage is going to empty out pretty fast.)

So why did it hook me?

Well, I started to think about why the Lion might have felt constrained to give up his meat eating. Where did that come from? Or when did it arise? The decision, it seemed to me, precedes his ascent to the throne. It wasn’t a signal to himself but to others, the rest of the animals, his subjects, or his electorate, as my version has it. He earns the right to his position by appearing fair and just. Only later would the mask be discarded.

Then, in the writing, having started with the campaign, I found I could not reach the period in which the fable takes place, the regime. It began to feel anti-climactic. I was more interested in the deception used to achieve power, the subversion of the democratic process. The more I thought more about the Lion, the more I heard him assert his entitlement, as rightful bearer of the Crown, as  presumed king of beasts. His disdain for democracy came through. Would he even take part?

Thus the fable became a confrontation between raw monarchism and nascent democracy.

You can read it here: ‘The Lion’s Breath‘