Misadventures in the Land of Fables, #9
The fable of ‘The Two Dogs’ has a simple premise: a man has two dogs, one he takes hunting, while the other remains at home on guard duty; he feeds them equal portions. This seems fair enough, but the hunting dog is not satisfied. It feels it deserves a greater share, especially when it comes to divvying up the meat from the hunt: it did the work, it argues, it should get the benefit.
A Political Fable?
So, this is a political fable examining the issues of labour and remuneration?
No. Apparently not, neither for Aesop, nor his translators. Another element is introduced into the scenario: training. The man trained the hunting dog for its task, but left the guard dog unskilled. Thus the fable sides with the hunting dog’s complaint and blames the man for the alleged inequality.
“This fable shows that the same is true of children: it is not their fault if they don’t know how to do anything, since this is how their parents have raised them.”
[aesopica]
This seems … tangential.
The obvious analogy here is not pedagogy, but economics, the division of labour.
Who Gets What and Why?
There are two roles to be performed: the property must be guarded and the hunter must be assisted. Dogs are trained and indeed bred for these roles. There is good reason for them to receive equal remuneration, and that is the arrangement we find, as decided by the master, the executive.
The hunting dog wants more. You can understand its point of view. It will have been instrumental in obtaining the meat from the hunt; it likely had direct contact with it. It worked for it, while the guard dog did not. It deserves more.
However, as one of the early versions suggests, the role of hunting dog is more coveted than that of guard. The guard dog did not choose to stay at home. It would have preferred to stretch its legs by its master’s side. It would have relished the activity and the exercise. Despite its vital role, the guard dog must feel under-appreciated, even neglected. An equal portion at dinner makes up for it.
The Amplification of Privilege
Seems to me there may be more than a little self-regard in the hunting dog’s complaint, more than just the demand of a keen appetite. It knows it is privileged. It has been given more skills than its rival, it has been trained and improved. It therefore believes that superiority ought be reflected come dinnertime. And prompted by its sense of entitlement, the hunting dog takes action.
This is how I develop the action in my version of ‘The Two Dogs’.
Where the original fable sees the hunting dog’s complaint as a conclusion, a proof of an unstable, unsatisfactory situation, I use it as an inciting incident, a provocation, leading to a new resolution, one which may or may not be satisfactory. [clue, it isn’t]