Talk:Aesop

Date of sources

"Aristotle is our earliest source, followed by Herodotus"... y'what? Aristotle lived a century AFTER Herodotus, so he can't be an earlier source!

tired of seeing Nuremberg Chronicle pics

If I have to see one more Classical Greek with blonde hair, someone is going to die. Stop posting Nuremberg Chronicle pics. Wikipedia is not for neo-nazis. Datus (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that even Aesop's existence is under dispute I think a little leeway can be taken in showing likenesses of him. The image you removed at the very least showed one of the earliest images of him in print which I think overbalances the fact that he might not have been blond if he actually existed.Poshzombie (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that he is mostly believed to be of African descent it is a little strange to show only Europeanized pseudo-depictions.

I agree. And if you find a free image of him with an African likeness please feel free to add it to the article. My point was that the picture in question should not be removed since it's one of the earliest depictions of him in print. That he is depicted from an aryan-centric perspective is unfortunate but the picture has historical value nonetheless.--Poshzombie (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply add a phrase to the caption explaining that? For instance: "shown here in a highly unlikely depiction as a blond Caucasian."--Skintigh (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"mostly believed"? Please. The earliest sources make him either Thracian or Anatolian.

I'm sure that if the ancient African civilizations had been literate or known how to paint they would have portrayed him as black. The important thing is this German picture being a very early one. If you find an earlier one feel free to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.173.25.9 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can logically assume that there is little significance in the colour of his hair, particularly one such picture dating to a century for which we cannot yet make any conclusions on matters of such nature. I see no viable reason to delete a classical illustration depicting Aesop. Also, I fail to grasp how the Nazi argument is of any relevance here.--Agon (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Info

Does anyone else have better information on Aesop? More specifics??

Admins

Stuff is all gone, page told me to tell you.

Aesop is legendary, not real; the real author of Aesop's fables is Phaedrus. I'll get around to fixing this in the actual article sometime soon, but I thought I'd go ahead and give the heads up beforehand here. Eric Herboso 09:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

That picture is a misrepresentation of Aesop. Enough people ALREADY think he was white.

Aesop's Fables

i think it's a good idea to move most the info under the Aesop's Fables section to the article Aesop's Fables itself. So i'm going to do it. :) --Plastictv 2 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Suggested merge Aesop and Aesop's Fables

A hash of the material has been made by a well-meaning editor attempting to separate an (apocryphal?) Aesop from Aesop's Fables, There is no Aesop aside from the Fables and there is no single canonic collection of Aesop's Fables, to the surprise of many. I am putting 'merge' suggestions on both articles, so that we can build one strong inclusive introduction to Aesop's Fables as a unified phenomenon. --Wetman 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

See Talk:Aesop's Fables. --Plastictv 3 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

A cursory glance at this article and its references shows that it is in fact a discussion, not of an "Aesop", but of Aesop's Fables. --Wetman 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic texts added by unknown user

The following, posted by an unregistered user, is unencyclopedic, opinionated and not very relevant but appears to be original. i feel that it belongs more to the talk page. :) --Plastictv 13:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Aesop [rightly considered one of the greatest writers of all time. The first great writer of great short fiction who ever lived, and first among all the literary greats of all time. Widely and variously translated and illustrated. Sadly, so popular for so long that you have to try to find him among many later imitators. (Aesop’s are the pithy ones well founded in reality, with a razor sharp point. A good rule in trying to separate his from the pack is “If it shows the slightest sign of sentimentality, esp about animals, Aesop didn’t write that one.“) Many of his stories have entered the language as popular phrases that reference the point of the story quickly (sour grapes, dog in the manger, etc) and have long been, and are used, daily, by many who have no idea who wrote it. Now that’s real immortality for you if you like. Very few, if any writers reach the level of brevity, wisdom and genius attained by Aesop (probably something to do with his not being paid by the word). Deeply illuminating about humanity, and often clever beyond belief. Knows what a story is and exactly how long, or rather short, it should be. Understands people all too well. It is said the oracle at Delphi put Aesop to death out of jealousy. I‘m not surprised. If most writers had been half as good as Aesop, there‘d have been a lot more martyrs for literature over the years. Yes, you really should read Aesop, it‘s not many writers get thrown over cliffs by the rich and famous for being too good at story-telling. And here we have the earliest and still the greatest fiction writer of them all being taught to fly the hard way by a powerful vested interest. The lesson is clear I think. Certainly it must be clear to writers, for they have nearly all tried never to equal his genius, with great success.]

Aesop Rock is a hip-hop artist who uses Aesop's name to allude to his creative, verbose, imagery soaked lyrics.

Was he black?

Well, was aesop black? YOYOKER 11:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would like to know, especially since there is no proof to make such a claim. Basically there are NO actual images or discriptions of him, other then he was "ugly", from his time period, although the ones portrayed by classical Greeks and Romans are not that of a person who was of African origin. So where is the proof that Aesop was of "African" descent? Can anyone provide legit sources? And please do not tell me Maximus Planudes 'cause that's like me, a 20th century person, giving a description of Caesar, who lived centuries before me and having it pass as first hand accounts thousands of centuries down the line; given the fact that Planudes lived centuries after Aesop and he spoke a dialect of Greek different from the dialects which were around during the time of Aesop, I totally would not call him a "creditable" source. From what I know traditionally Aesop was a Greek slave. Oh, and the little doozey below is packed with errors I don't know were to beginning:

His given name, Aesop, is the Ancient Greek word for "Ethiop", the archaic word for a dark-skinned person of African origin.

That explanation above makes as much sense as Mr. Portokalos quote: "Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ha! Of course! Kimono is come from the Greek word himona, is mean winter. So, what do you wear in the wintertime to stay warm? A robe. You see: robe, himona=kimono. There you go!" 2+2=5.

The word Aesop did not exist in an "archaic" form the way its described here because there never WAS such an "Archaic" word to mean what it suggested in this article. Archaic refers to the period in Greece which followed the dark ages, 800 BCE to about 500 BCE. There were numerious Greek dialects which were spoken at that time. Each dialectic then branches out to its individual dialects, each dialect can in turn be divided into countless local idioms, with their own numerous idiomatic variations. New historical finds and discoveries have given modern scholars a better understand of the ancient Greek dialects which existed back then, more so then what a 13th century monk would have understood. Ancient Greek "archaic" dialects are known to scholars. So which dialect is "Aesop" suppose to be derived from to mean "Ethiop", hmmm? Is the Attic, Ionic, Arcadocypriot, Aeolic, Achaean, North-Western, Doric, Homeric Greek? I'd like to hear this fable. [rolleyes] So what is Aesop's ethymology and from which of the many Greek dialects is it derived from? Cause it sure isn't what is suggested in this article...the ancient Greek words Αισωπος and Αιθίοψ are not even close. If you break down the word Αιθίοψ(the actual ancient Greek word for Ethiop) its derived from two Greek words: the Greek αιθ "of burnt aether=Greek word for burn/shine", and the Greek οψ "the face or visage." Put the two together and you get Αιθίοψ=of burn face. The Greek name Αισωπος(Aisopos aka Aesop), unlike what is falsely claimed in this article, does not have such a meaning. This article really needs to be reworked and facted based on certain things. ~Mallaccaos, 2 May 2006

"Aesop" has no authentic historic existence apart from "Aesop's Fables", a collection that has always varied in its content according to which manuscripts you follow, so that there is no corpus: see the article Aesop's Fables. Any "personal" information about an "Aesop" is fantasy. The urgent concerns over the tint of a person's skin are modern. So the question "was Aesop black?" is based on so many misconceptions that it is unanswerable. --Wetman 08:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to point out above. The word which this article was trying to claim his name meant Ethiopian in archaic Greek was false. There is no personal info which describes him, so the assumption that he was of "African" descent or whatever is wrong. I think saying: "The place of Aesop's birth is uncertain – Thrace, Phrygia, Aethiopia, Samos, Athens and Sardis all claim the honour." is more appropriate and leaves the door open to him being from Aethiopia or Athenian or Phrygian or whatever, which is s more accurate claim then just claiming him of African descent when we do not know. ~Mallaccaos, 8 May 2006

Given that any information about this man seem to be anecdotal at best, wouldn't a modern work of an academic analysing the works be just a good as source as what we've got. The things in the fables and the way they are put seem pretty un hellenic to me in their subjects and style. The way he makes Zeus as a character would indicate that he was from pretty far away. Certainally these tales were 'Exotic' enough to the ears of Planudes for him to picture a 'dark sknned thick lipped' Aesop, and would have also sounded as such to a Greek audience. Clearly, I don't have the eloquotion, knowledge of literature or geography to produce this theoretical article, but things like this are important to African historians and one may well be produced soon, and then we will have enough to comment on to at least acknowledge some people feel this way without it being all weasel words. Courtesy of Gavla 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a legitmate scholarly source making the argument that he was a Black African, and have added a reference to it. - SimonP 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How could a "legitimate" source discuss the Blackness or not of a phantom figure for whom there is no accepted single corpus of work? Aesopica is simply a genre of Greco-Roman animal fables. Reading the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library, or any other good edition of Aesopica will help return one to reality.--Wetman 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If his existance is really this obviously mythical, and I do trust yr expertise on this one, I propose that the solution is simply to make this case stronger at the beginning of the article, and make it clear to the readers that all further discussions of the man are almost certainally further discussions of the myth. An article on the mythological 'Aesop' still belongs at the title 'Aesop' and if Lobban is discussing the history of the myth and image, that's still legitimate. Courtesy of Gavla 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

People seem to forgot that Maximus Planudes was a Byzantine monk who lived centuries after the first tales of Aesop were told in the Greek world. So what might have been "exotic" to the ear of a Byzantine monk who lived in 14th century AD might not have been exotic nor 'dark skinned thick lipped' viewed to ancient Greeks who lived in the 6th millennium BC. As for these animals being "exotic" ancient Greeks were no strangers to exotic animals given depictions of exotic animals have been found in ancient art and painting since Minoan times. We don't have to look any further then the exotic animals painted on the walls of Thera for evidence of this. Cheers and take care. ;-) Mala 01 August 2007

I Think He Was An African Slave With A Greek Master. Just Wondering Though, Why Are Africans Always Used As Slaves? SapientiaSativa 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please capitalize properly; writing so thoroughly improperly makes people take you less seriously. Secondly, in the ancient world everyone was used as slaves by everyone else. On the rare occasion a Greek city fought, say, some black Carthaginians, yes, the Greeks might have taken black slaves. By the same token, there would then be Greek slaves in Africa. Just because it was mostly one-way when Europeans started the big slave trade in the Age of Exploration doesn't mean it always was. In fact, most of the slaves in any given Greek city were either Greeks from other cities or non-Greeks from areas bordering on Greece; in other words, the places from which the city was most likely to have prisoners of war. Finally, there is evidence that Aesop was from somewhere in Africa... However, there is also evidence that he was from various other places, and none of the evidence of his origins is sufficient to be considered truth, nor is any evidence of his existence scientifically falsifiable. Essentially, much like Homer, he may have existed, and he may not, but unless we find something as concrete as words written and signed by his own hand that can be carbon dated to the proper era, we are unlikely ever to know. I suggest leaving all the information in the Aesop article, but make certain to label it as scholarly speculation. (I do mostly agree with the argument against Αιθίοψ becoming Αίσωπος, but please remember that not all derived words clearly resemble their antecedents. For an extreme example, note that the French "loup garou" is, in fact, derived from the Latin-Germanic portmanteau "vir wulf," even as is the less-changed English "werewolf." It's not impossible, merely unlikely.) —Preceding

unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.100 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The FACTS: a) He was a slave, hence very possibly could be a black African; b) His given name to some extent does suggest Nubian orgini; c) A the killer fact: His FABLES are in ESSENCE AFRICAN FABLES WITH AFRICAN ANIMALS (lions, giraffes and such...)!!! They have the same structure and construct. Unless you believe Africans in Southern or Western Africa learnt how to tell stories from the Greek... which of course is absurd... d) A lot of his stories are carbon copies of West African stories (i.e. The Hare and the Tortoise is an Ashante fable). e) It is also documented that African slaves often served as storytellers for children in Roman and Greek society.

Only in EUROPOCENTRIC person could ever state that Aesop was most likely white. Most likely he was black. He was a black slave. One thing is definite: His fables were based on the structure of African fables. Maruti 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"He continues by pointing out that the stories are populated by animals present in Africa, many of the animals being quite foreign to Greece and Europe. [1]"

I know the above comment is sourced but I would like to see some mention of those foreign animals. Though I recognize I've not read all of Aesop's fables, I only remember the lion as the only non-European beast mentioned. Yet it should be noted that in Aesop's time and as late as the 1st century BCE, lions did inhabit Thrace and weren't more exotic to Ancient Greeks than, say, brown bears.--150.244.23.2 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

....

The structure of fables is pretty universal; most cultures have produced something very similar without needing to "learn" it from each other. Do you think the Indian fables predating Aesop came from African sources as well? Some of the individual fables may well be of African origin (must be if they involve giraffes - lions, on the other hand, had once lived in Greece and there were plenty of stories about them and depictions of them). That doesn't make Aesop, if he existed, African. He could have heard them from African fellow-slaves, or they could have been added to the corpus centuries later - we don't have his original collection and it's a matter of educated guesswork which fables were in it. The earliest sources say he was either Thracian or Anatolian; as for using his slave-status as evidence - rubbish. Slaves in the ancient world could be of ANY ethnicity, and in the Archaic period were most likely to be from somewhere nearby, so a Thracian or Anatolian slave is more likely in the Greek areas traditionally associated with Aesop than an African one. (I have to say, I've never understood "Afrocentrism" - it seems to me to be, ironically, curiously Eurocentric. It accepts the Eurocentric idea that it is only the traditional European canon that has cultural value: it just tries to appropriate that value by attributing that canon to Africans. There are plenty of actual African cultural achievements - why not celebrate those instead?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.47.51 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does anyone care what colour he was? Where he came from (if that's a meaningful question) would be of interest, but the colour of his skin is incidental, unless you judge people by their skin colour. I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The page as it stands on 11 Nov. 2010 is clear about the origin (or earliest evidence) of the tradition that casts Aesop as a black Ethiopian, crediting Planudes in the 13th century, and specifically the Philipott English translation of Planudes from the 1600s, which has Aesop declare, "I am a Negro," and which makes the erroneous etymological link of "Aesop" with Aethiop." But is this actually what appears in the original Greek text of Planudes? Someone proficient in Greek should take a look at the original to see if Philpott made an accurate translation, or embellished on his own (as happens all too often in translations), or simply erred because he was translating at one remove, from a Latin translation of Planudes' Greek. Perhaps it was Philipott in 1687 who actually started the tradition of portraying Aesop as a black Ethiopian, not Planudes a few centuries earlier.Stevensaylor (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

....

Much mischief regarding this question has been perpetrated by an article titled "Was Aesop a Nubian Kummaji (Folkteller)?" by Richard A. Lobban, Jr., of Rhode Island College (Northeast African Studies 9:1, 2002).

Lobban appears not to understand that there is no text of Aesop; rather, the stories now called "Aesop's fables" come from many sources, gathered in different collections by authors who lived long after the time of a certainly legendary, possibly historical Aesop. Nothing written by Aesop survives (if indeed such works ever existed, and if indeed Aesop himself actually lived); yet Lobban states he will make a "content analysis" of Aesop's "literary legacy," using 1) the 1998 edition of Aesop's Fables by Robert and Olivia Temple and 2) the 1993 Keller and Keating translation of a Spanish collection from the 1400s. (Lobban does not even go back to ancient sources like Babrius or Phaedrus; perhaps he has no Latin or Greek.) By simply counting up mentions of African animals and "artifacts" in a couple of collections of Aesopic fables, he thinks he can demonstrate that Aesop must have come from Africa. He does not consider that it was some of the fables, not Aesop, that originated in Africa, and that these elements entered the body of fables centuries after Aesop lived.

Lobban could have undertaken the painstaking (and monumental) task of determining which of the fables are attested by the earliest Greek sources (and thus might conceivably be linked to Aesop as a source), but that would not have served his purpose, since those earliest fables do not contain the African elements he seeks; nor does his methodology indicate that he would know how to carry out such research. Instead he relies on a modern collection for general readers, as if this book constitutes a text from Aesop's own hand. Lobban displays no understanding of the complexities involved in this sort of research. Nor does he consult or cite the work of those who do. (The first volume of Adrado's History of the Graeco-Latin Fable was published three years before Lobban's article, but Lobban clearly did not consult it.)

Because Lobban makes no attempt to link the person Aesop directly to the fables Lobban purports to "analyze," all the tables he produces with enumerations of African animals amount to nothing more than a lot of irrelevant busy-work.

Lobban does not even seem to know the difference between a primary and a secondary source; he cites the children's writer Roger Lancelyn Green as if he were an actual biographer of Aesop, and he identifies Robert Temple as Aesop's "editor." Lobban does cite Frank Snowden's monumental Blacks in Antiquity, but does not seem to have read it, especially the parts about Aesop, including Snowden's judgment that Planudes' medieval identification of Aesop as Ethiopian is "worthless." Far from saying that it was "not uncommon" for Greeks to have Ethiopian slaves at the time of Aesop, Snowden says quite the opposite (on the very pages Lobban cites!), writing that "Allusions to Ethiopians in Greek literature pointing to actual residence of Ethiopians in Greece proper are few," and that the invasion of Xerxes (centuries after Aesop) may have been the first time that large numbers of Ethiopians were seen by the Greeks.

Lobban begins his article with the admission that "While precise confirmation that Aesop was a Nubian is lacking [a gross understatement], a convincing case for this can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence about his life and a content analysis of his literary legacy." Circumstantial evidence here seems to mean wishful thinking, as insubstantial as the "literary legacy" of a legendary figure from whom we have no writing. The case Lobban makes is the opposite of convincing. Yet the title of his article alone continues to popularize an idea which the article itself does nothing to justify.Stevensaylor (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

was aesop black?

we do not know for sure

Why Are Africans Always Used As Slaves?

absolutely false,for example many roman emperors were africans...if the account is true it is only a coincidence.

says he "i am negro"?

Not,false.For two reasons.First,in latin world in greek world the word niger(lt) melas (gr) has always a descriptive meaning.It cannot be translated as negro,because negro has also a negative meaning.It should be translated as black,but never as negro.Second, When asked his origin by a prospective new master, Aesop replies, ONLY, "Niger" (lt)"Melas"(gr).He never uses "i am".

Two rows about planudes account. The planudes version uses the word "Melas" (gr), there is not possibility to interpretate it in a different way,it must be translated as black.But another hypothesis is possible.We dont know what sources planudes used,but it is,enough,possible that planudes used latin sources to write his account.So, what happens to account?

master:"where are you from?" esop: "Niger" (a little note,all accounts that i ve seen uses the capital letter for the "N") master: "that is not what i asked,where were you born?" esop:"of my mother " etc etc

Niger in latin it is also a geographic area,(growly niger river area),an area extremely remote for a Byzantine monk who lived in 14th century AD,but also for old greeks and romans.So planudes translated it as a color instead of a geographic area.Even the master ,in the account , doesn't know this area.This is why all latin version uses a capital letter for the "N".The account acquires a logic ,if you interpret that "Niger" as a geographic area.Interpreting it as a color the account becomes illogic.

master:"where are you from?" esop: "white" master: "that is not what i asked,where were you born?" esop:"of my mother " etc etc

do you see?

Aesop it is forced to give him another answer beacause the master doesn t know his origin place....the account is illogic, interpreting it as a color. Obviously,it is only another possible hypothesis,not necessarily true.

Afrocentricity interferes with nearly all discussion of ancient European History on Wikipedia, almost every single person in European history who did something noteworthy is claimed without the slightest evidence to have been black, Socrates; black, Euclid;black, I've even heard people say Caesar was black, it turns out everyone was black in European 2000 years ago. This is clearly a reaction to recent colonialism and slavery, and the surge of cultural insecurity that came with it, we need to stop having these arguments, and validating their ridiculous assumptions. Aesop if he was even an actual person, was, with a very high degree of probability, an ethnic greek, if he wasn't a greek it is more likely that he was from the middle east than sub-saharan africa.

Also, just as a comment about the issue of slavery in this thread which has been brought up, greek slaves were rarely if ever black, greek slaves would have been manly other greeks and some middle easterners, and barbarians from the north. There is this idea that Blacks are the only people who have been slaves, which is just ridiculously untrue. More than a million Europeans were taken by Islamic raiders in the dark ages, manly women used for sex slavery, they called them the "pearls of the east". Also, people of all cultures and ethnicity at one time or another have experienced slavery, African Slavery is the most recent and large scale, and in fact Arab slave trade abducted more people from africa (over 18.5 million, compared to the European 16 million), but arabs castrated all the men (eunuchs), which is why there is no diaspora in the middle-east today, their are first hand sources on this written by arabs themselves.

I think it is a negative stereotype that is hurting African americans today that they self-identify as having been a slave, thinking that slave and black are synonymous, when in fact people of all colors have been slaves, and slavery is not unique to their cultural identity. Point is, the question of whether or not Aesop was black is not being questioned by scholars, but insecure people who feel like they need to denigrate western culture by claiming our hero's as their own, this is a very destructive Afrocentric logic that sees all things European as evil. I once heard someone say Isaac Newton had a Nigerian student who taught _him_ calculus, ridiculous, soon they'll say Einstein was black but was forced to paint his face white and was just make-up! There are many people who hate western culture and seek to destroy cultural narratives. The question of Aesop's ethnicity is not in question, why people are trying to change the skin color of historical figures is a threat to accurateness of wikipedia. TheBookishOne (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

--Edit9999 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dates?

The section on his life does not mention dates (although the intro mentions something). I realize that this info is highly debated but the section on his life should at least mention the conjecture about when he lived (even it is redundant with the intro). --Mcorazao 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How could one apply dates to a phantom figure for whom there is no accepted single corpus of work? Aesopica is simply a genre of Greco-Roman animal fables. Reading the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library, or any other good edition of Aesopica will help return one to reality.--Wetman 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I have never read this book nor have I ever been overtly concerned about the possible race of a possibly fictional person but I must say that the existence of some unusual to ancient Greece animals doesn't say much does it? It's not as if the Greeks were isolationists when it came to incorporating new a)stories b) fables c) deities d)anything else they fancied into their culture really. That doesn't mean that, if he existed, he wasn't black. It just means that we need much more solid "proofs" to arrive to such a conclusion. However I don't really think the relative section of the article needs any editing. 87.203.207.221 ( rnylk, forgot my password, now I'll have to get a new one)

Roots in India, China!

'The roots of fables go back all the way to India, where they were associated with Kasyapa, a mystical sage, and they were subsequently adopted by the early Buddhists.'

But there was no communication between Greece and India or China in the 6th century; this must be false. Unless 'roots' means there were fables in India and China too. Unless this is referenced soon, I'll take it out. Dast 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was communication between Greece and India and the 6th Century, by way of Persia; there was certainly trade. But that doesn't validate the claim made about the roots of these fables. thx1138 06:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no sense

It starts out:

"Most of what are known as Aesopic fables is a compilation of tales from various sources, many of which originated with authors who lived long before Aesop. Aesop himself is said to have composed many fables, which were passed down by oral tradition. Socrates was thought to have spent his time turning Aesop’s fables into verse while he was in prison. Demetrius Phalereus, another Greek philosopher, made the first collection of these fables around 300 BC. This was later translated into Latin by Phaedrus, a slave himself, around 25 BC. The fables from these two collections..."

WHAT two collections? That paragraph was describing multiple translations of ONE collection. What is the second one? Where did it come from? Was the translation so bad that all the fables changed? If so that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have credible sites for this material(taken from wiki)

"The 31st Sura of the Qu'ran refers to a man named Lokman. Often confused with Aesop, and having lived several centuries earlier, Aesop's fables may be derived from the works of Lokman."

I'm not familiar with this Lokman, but having serious doubts of these claims and seeing the bogus cites have moved me to remove it and place it here.66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Caption to the second illustration

"why did you remove my explanation of the caption from Aesop? DS (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)"

2nd sentence of the caption read(s): "Note the alternate spelling "Esopus", with a long s, and the truncated 'p'."

I removed it because the information is irrelevant, being merely standard typographic form of the period and also because "Esopus" can hardly be considered an "alternate" (i.e. alternative) spelling for use today, merely a medieval form. (Gpeterw (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Clarifying the distinction between Aesop and Aesop's Fables

I want to reopen this discussion - the topics and material in these two articles are hopelessly intermixed. I don't think they should be merged - both are already overlong - but all the material on the fables (which make up most of the article on Aesop) should be moved to Aesop's Fables.

The article on "Aesop" should:

Point at the beginning to the article on the Fables;

Discuss the possibility that there was a historical Aesop;

Explain that most of the stories we have of his life are almost certainly mythical, and go through the sources chronologically and systematically.

The article on "Aesop's Fables" should:

Point at the beginning to the article on Aesop;

Explain at the beginning at they come from very heterogeneous sources and that there is much debate about the various lines of transmission;

Go through the sources we have for the fables chronologically and systematically.

Since there's so much information, much of it should be spun off to separate articles (some of which already exist) on Phaedrus, Babrius, the prose Romulus, etc. Probably the various surviving anonymous Greek collections shouldn't be a separate article but should be discussed fully in "Aesop's Fables."

I made a start by moving a short section about the nature of fables from this article to "Aesop's Fables." 207.68.240.26 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to make sense at the moment to divide the material in some way like this. In the light of this, my opinion is that the "List of some fables by Aesop" section of this article should be removed; there is a good section listing fables in the Aesop's Fables article and the idea of wikilinking to the individual animals here doesn't seem that useful.--Annielogue (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was one of those who took part in the discussion of making a clear distinction between an article on Aesop and another dealing with the fables over on the Aesop's Fables discussion page and until now have left the one here alone. However, since the issues flagged up at the start of the article since September had not been dealt with, and since there was an unhelpful overlap between 'biography' and depiction of the fables in the final section, I've now attempted to unclutter the article. I apologise if I seem to have stepped on anyone's toes. I certainly agree with Annielogue that a list of fables was entirely unnecessary here and have deleted that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

B/CE dates

Those of us chiefly involved in editing Aesop's Fables decided last year that it is more appropriate to use Common Era dates for articles connected with the subject and no one has disagreed on the Talk page of that article since we did so. In that the 'person' of Aesop has been acculturated to a number of continents now, not to mention the fact that those interested in the subject are from a variety of non-Christian cultures, Common Era has been applied to this article too since April 2011, when guidelines were first suggested. Those who have altered these since were not regular editors and they left no reason for the changes. The matter ought to be discussed here in future. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, the rule requires you to complete a discussion before making such a change. This is not a discussion; there is only one post in this section and it's an announcement that includes poisoning the well, ad hominem arguments and a hint at ownership of the article. This article originally used the default dating convention of BC/AD and if you want to change that, you have to have a proper discussion first. Editing the article back and forth to bully other editors like User:Nikopolis1912 ever since you first tried to establish your preferred version of the article constitutes neither a discussion nor consensus. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

Nikopolis is almost a one-trick pony makes changes from BCE to AD and never the other way, even changing article titles. He has changed articles that were always BCE to CE with no discussion. He doesn't use edit summaries and ignores warnings. Whether he is right a few times by accident is irrelevant, so please don't use him as an example of a good editor. And we have no guideline that says the way an article started is a priority, that was changed. If the article has been stable for a year, a change needs a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The rule actually does say that the way an article started is a priority. Furthermore, I was saying that Mzilikazi1939 needs to start a discussion if he wants to change the article from BC to BCE; this is not a discussion of Nikopolis' reversion of the unjustified change. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

Here's the text of the guideline:

AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are common in some academic and religious writing. No preference is given to either style.

I disagree. There has absolutely been a preference for the use of AD (After Death) and BC (Before Christ), as far back as Christ and Christendom has advanced civilization. In fact, the very first time I'd ever seen BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) was in Israel, about 15 years ago. It's bad enough that anti-Christian sentiment and revisionist history has taken hold in certain academic arenas but this underhanded effort to totally REWRITE history is unconscionable and should be condemned at every turn!K. Q. Duane (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it (e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066" not 1066 CE nor AD 1066). On the other hand, "Plotinus was a philosopher living at the end of the 3rd century AD" will avoid unnecessary confusion. Also, in "He did not become king until 55 CE" the era marker makes it clear that "55" does not refer to his age. Alternatively, "He did not become king until the year 55."

BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space (5 BC, not 5BC).

Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but be consistent within the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason.

Have I left something out from WP:ERAabout the original way an article started? I don't think so. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph says nobody is supposed to arbitrarily change it. Another way of saying that is that the original form has priority. That's what I referred to. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

But you said "The rule actually does say that the way an article started is a priority." It doesn't actually say that, that's your interpretation. I'm saying that when an article has been stable for over a year, an arbitrary change is a WP:ERA violation. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In support of Dougweller, I should point out that no one has disagreed on the talk page of Aesop's Fables or here since the discussion on editing parameters first started in April last year. The argument advanced is that 'articles [on fables] involve a wide range of dates, and many countries and cultures for which Christian dating is inappropriate'. It is not a question of those who interest themselves in this area 'bullying' others into compliance but of resisting monocultural bullying in return. If postings on two talk pages without response falls short of some WP guideline, then please explain how 'completing a discussion' is to be managed. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Breaking the rules and waiting for someone to complain about it on the talk page is not the proper process. What are these two talk pages anyway? Talk:Aesop's Fables has no topic related to this issue, so the only one is here and I already explained why this one isn't valid. Besides, there may not have been anyone complaining about your rule breach on the talk pages but multiple people have reverted your change, only to be harrassed by you, acting like you own the articles. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Ok, let's poll then

See above. Some might also wish to take part in the discussion of this kind of issue here

Support BC

K. Q. Duane K. Q. Duane (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Q. Duane (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Support BCE

• Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Haploidavey (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Complaints about the poll process

See WP:NOPOLLS. Besides, this part of the talk page is not a discussion of which format to use; we were talking about Mzilikazi's breach of the rules. If you want to change the format, you should start a discussion about it rather than hijacking this one. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

I just did. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have become confused, WP Editor 2011; this section of the talk page is indeed about which format to use, and was started by Mzilikazi as an attempt to address that very question. If you wish to address that editor's supposed breaking of supposed rules and feel that intermingling the sections would be inappropriate, then you are free to start that other section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP Editor should note that polls can be and are used to organise and facilitate discussion; see WP:NOPOLLS. There's been a more than smidge of edit-warring, mutual umbrage and insult over the business in hand, but no era "rules" - or even guidelines, for which see WP:ERA - have been breached. Era systems in articles are, always have been and probably always will be decided by editorial consensus. And consensus can, in theory, change at any time. On the other hand, insistent attempts to change an existing consensus on the grounds of a personal preference can be construed as disruptive and tendentious. I really don't care which system this article uses, as long as it does so consistently, with the minimum of fuss and fallout for readers and editors, and without appeal to non-existent rules. The current era-guidelines are even less useful for article stability than the old but that really is beyond the scope of this talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Second thoughts; as the change to BCE happened was proposed on this talk-page a year ago, and no valid arguments against have been offered, either then or since, I'll support its retention for stability's sake. Haploidavey (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been too many personal attacks here. Dougweller has pointed out in some of his messages on WP Editor's talk page that a guideline is not a rule, that his interpretation of the guideline in question is POV and that his continued reversions are arbitrary. In my opinion WP Editor's behaviour comes close to edit-warring. I give him due warning here (as I have on his talk page) before asking administrators for their opinion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a sham poll and deleting the edits by two editors is absolutely unacceptable and was disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mzilikazi, stop lying and stop misrepresenting what Dougweller said. It's not as if he would need you to repeat him anyway. Pretty much everything you've said in relation to this issue is a lie. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

Others are invited to check what was said here Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Haploidavey, you're actually mistaken about the stability issue. The article was using BC stably since its youth until the arbitrary change to BCE and Mzilikazi started a year-long edit war against the multiple editors who tried correcting it. In fact, I only discovered what had happened by looking into his reversion of Nikopolis' correction. It is only now that the year-long edit war has been exposed to people who actually know the rules and are prepared to challenge him on the issue. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

Guidelines, not rules, you've been told that before. You're new, but there is a difference. We have some things that are close to rules, eg on copyright and 3RR, but this is a guideline and I don't think you yet understand it. I hope you now acknowledge that the poll is valid - the discussion that the guidelines call for. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. And no, I don't think I'm mistaking the issue here, because the stability or instability of past usage is irrelevant. We're here to seek consensus on the era-system most appropriate for the article as it stands, and we're only doing that in the first place because you (WP Editor) challenged the usage established by Mzilikazi. He gave content-related reasons for retaining his changes; you've given no content-related reasons for reverting them. Changes based on reasoned discussion and consensus are more likely to survive than changes made according to personal whim, preference or fad; thus, the era-system and article become more stable. I hope my meaning's clear. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since WP Editor chooses to bring in the Nikopolis red herring, let me draw attention to Dougweller's estimate of that editor's past behaviour near the start of this discussion, and to the talk page here that started WP Editor on his crusade. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the word crusade, but WP Editor has been reverting articles to AD/BC well before the Nikpolois event. But a discussion of editors' behavior elsewhere isn't going to help this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I used the word 'crusade' advisedly since what we are dealing with here is basically fundamentalist behaviour - a description that extends to far more than religious ideology. In this editor's case his declared intent makes him a WP fundamentalist. All of us have previously encountered to our cost the breed of self-appointed policemen attempting to enforce 'rules' and resisting advice from the administrators who often assisted in drawing them up in the first place that this was not the purpose of the guidelines. There are discussions on other forums about how dedicated editors are flooding away because of the abuse and intransigence they meet from such individuals.

On the question of the destabilisation I am supposed to have caused, it is easy to check that by far the majority of those who reverted CE dates on the Aesop and Aesop's Fables pages had no user names, left no reason for their changes and failed to discuss the matter on the talk page. That 'rules' were being broken by this behaviour does not seem to matter to WP Editor. His claim that original usage has absolute priority is laughable. All of us have come across entries that were stubs or close to that status and have subsequently researched and developed the article. It would make no sense to be bound by a convention that may not fit the subject simply because it was used by an earlier editor who may not have thought out the implications. Those of us who are genuinely interested in our subjects and do not have a hidden agenda are well aware of this. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Image profusion

The guideline suggests that images "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." The liberal sprinkling of imaginative representations from the two millennia after his death fail to achieve this; would it be a good idea to remove some of them?--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of much solid information about Aesop, the article has necessarily to centre upon the impact of the Aesop persona on people down the ages. The images are necessary evidence of this and are therefore perfectly in accord with WP policy. The important thing is that they should be varied in terms of time, geography and portrayal, which the choice here appears to be. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing that demonstrating the subject's historical significance is relevant. In what way does the current selection of images assist with this, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned geographical paramaters are important too, which in part justifies the otherwise poor Japanese woodcut. But that also illustrates a point made in the text, as do the coin in that section and the paintings that follow it. The Classical statue at the head of the article is all we have referring to antiquity, which leaves two mediaeval book illustrations and one from the Renaissance, two of which illustrate Aesop as a hunchback. All that could be claimed as redundant is one of the latter, although the one from Spain also demonstrates the genre of frontispieces illustrating events in his stories which, if not mentioned in this text, is certainly mentioned elsewhere in articles dealing with Aesop. That really leaves only the illustration by Hartmann which, I'd be inclined to agree, isn't particularly functional in terms of the guidelines. But let's see if anyone else joins the discussion before taking any action. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It was the prominent position given to Hartmann Schedel that set me to review the included images. The claim that the coin is a near-contemporary representation, even if not a strong one, saves it from consideration for deletion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree about the Hartmann image. It doesn't seem to fill any chronological or interpretational gap. It's one of those standardised woodcut "portraits" - could be Homer in a different hat (I'm only half-joking here) - and it's near-contemporaneous with the much more informative, anonymous Spanish print below. Haploidavey (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the Schedel picture, since it's obviously redundant. There was discussion about its appropriateness back in 2008, although not wholly relevant. It was argued in its favour then that it was one of the earliest printed depictions of Aesop, but we now have an earlier. The discussion about a blonde Aesop was beside the point, since there wasn't colour printing in 1493, so the picture doesn't even have the merit of authenticity. It had been hand-coloured later. Thanks for raising the point, Old Moonraker. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy with that: it was the worst one!--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment but haven't had time, and see that it's all sorted now. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was story teller removed?

I can't see why story teller was removed, not every reader will understand fabulist. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the reversion of my various if quick changes to the lead, which had obvious problems. We seem to have some WP:OWNy issues here, & futher changes should be discussed here first. Not only did he revert to a version with no link to fable, but his last version removed completely what was previously an Easter Egg link to Aesop's Fables! Not good enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership are invariably made when poor editorship is reverted. In point of fact, I came to the article as a late editor concerned with the rather weak standard of some parts of it. I'd accept 'story-teller' in place of 'fabulist' if it makes the meaning clearer. However, the needless repetition of 'a fabulist or story teller credited with a number of fables now collectively known as Aesop's Fables' is sheer sloppy writing. That's why I reverted, coupled with his moving mention of the alternative names by which Aesop went into a context where it does not fit so well. And Johnbod seems not to have noticed that there is a link to the Fables article immediately following the title of this article. He admits that his changes were hasty. I hope he will now give the matter further consideration. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have & it is still better as it is. Nobody who is sure they have arrived at the right article reads the hat-note cruft, and the repetition - only twice - of fables is fine. Certainly better than removing both links for heaven's sake! Not to mention the various other bits of tidying-up you reverted. But let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Statue "bearing an intellectual appearance"

Is this the reason "some archaeologists" have identified Aesop as the subject of the contemporary sculpture? No wonder other authorities disagree, or perhaps it's just an personal interpretation by the contributor here. Tagged {{or}}, but maybe there's something in Zanker (1995) that covers it; were there artistic conventions of the time to indicate that the subject was "intellectual"? Bring the reference and prove my misgivings misplaced! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend editing this article, but the so-called "Aesop" sculpture's the subject of lengthy, in-depth and well-sourced discussion in Lisa Trentin's "What’s In A Hump? Re-examining the Hunchback in the Villa Albani-Torlonia," Cambridge Classical Journal, 55, 2009, pp. 130-156. I've done no more than glance at it but thought it might be useful. For anyone interested, here's an Academia.edu link. Haploidavey (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source does say more-or-less that! With grateful thanks to User:Haploidavey, I will remove the tag. I too don't intend to make any major edits here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for this article?

I think this article could be improved by having an infobox. What type is most suitable? It could be infobox writter, infobox philosopher, infobox person... (talk) user:Al83tito 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

After looking more into it, it looks like infobox writer could be the most suitable, as Aesop is frequently labeled as a fabulist or storyteller. I have looked through the article to see who has he influenced, and added those names to that "Influenced" parameter in the infobox. However, the list is incomplete, and anyone else more knowledgeable on the subject should make additions and corrections to that list. user:Al83tito 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unauthorised change

On 26 January 2014 (i.e. just in the last few weeks), User:Mzilikazi1939 changed this article from the standard form of writing dates in the English language to CE/BCE. As he well knows, this violates WP:MOS, specifically WP:ERA, which requires that any change to an article's date style first be discussed on the talk page and justified with article-specific reasons before consensus is established and the article is then ready to be changed. As is clearly evident to everyone, none of these steps have taken place in this case.

Instead, in the to and fro of the last few weeks as Aesop has gone back and forth between the Queen's English and CE/BCE, Mzilikazi and his friends have claimed that the comments much further up this talk page and dated 21 months ago constitute the necessary discussion and consensus for the change of 26/01/14. Apart from the obvious fact that the article remained in the standard English state for 20 months continuously (May 2012 to January 2014), those comments were never enough to justify the change to CE/BCE even back then. This is of course because, as mentioned earlier, WP:ERA requires that article-specific reasons be given and consensus established. Neither occured then. What we see from 2012 can at best be called a disgrace; it was merely Dougweller and his friends making the laughably fallacious and tendentious claim that because there were more of them, they should automatically get their way without having to justify their case or convince anyone of it. The "discussion" went quiet in its unresolved state and the change from the Queen's English (which the article has used since its creation and the overwhelming majority of the time since then) to CE/BCE therefore didn't proceed, at least until 20 months later when Mzilikazi decided to try again, this time without any attempt to follow the proper procedure.

If Mzilikazi and his friends want to legitimately change Aesop from the established English language abbreviations to CE/BCE then by all means discuss it here and follow the proper process. Stop trying to ram through your illegal change with constant back and forth editing. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

Um, everyone else is wrong and you are right? That's what led to your one week block before. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see WPEditor is making a new charge of deviation from 'Queen's English'. Since the articles address themselves to academic issues, one should look to academic usage in England. It varies, of course, but at least one Classical encyclopedia from the impeccably English Oxford University Press uses B/CE dating throughout, including in its article on Aesop. In addition, 'article specific' reasons were offered for this style of dating as early as 2012 on the talk page here and these have never been acknowledged or addressed by WPEditor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Aesop's children?

Did Aesop have any sons or daughters of his own? His numerous affairs, despite it being stated that he was uglier than homemade soup, is well-chronicled here, so I was wondering.... --67.231.40.21 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)