Despite the debate around whether Aesop really existed, the collection of fables attributed to him are both classic and extensive. I decided the best place to start my deep-dive research was in the collection that essentially created the theme.
To examine them in a deeper, practical way, I'm going to analyse three different fables to look at the commonalities that appear which define the topic.
The versions of these stories that I will be using are presented by the Library of Congress.
The Hare and the Tortoise
In this story, the Hare mocks the Tortoise for being such a slow creature, so the Tortoise challenges him to a race. Though the Hare thinks this is a ridiculous proposal, he agrees for the fun of it. When the race begins the Hare shoots ahead, and is so confident he'll win he takes a nap under a tree. The Tortoise continues slowly, eventually passing the Hare, but he wakes up too late, and the Tortoise crosses the line first, winning the race.
Moral: The race is not always to the swift, i.e, simply doing things quickly does not guarantee you will win. There are also themes of defeated hubris here - the Hare is so confident in his abilities that he underestimates the Tortoise's ability to win. His cockiness turns to complacency, and loses him the race.
The Lion and the Mouse
A lion slept in the woods, and a mouse came upon him. As she tried to run away, she ran across his nose and woke him, and he trapped her under his paw. She begged him to be let go, saying she'd repay him the kindness one day. The lion thought this was funny, but let her go.
Later, the lion got caught in a hunter's net, and roared for help. The mouse recognised his roar and ran to him, gnawing through the ropes with her teeth until the lion was free. The mouse remarks that even a mouse can help a lion.
Moral: A kindness is never wasted. Even though the lion believed the mouse could provide him no help, his kindness towards her ended up saving his own life. Again, there is a theme of being proved wrong - the lion doesn't believe he needs help, but had he not spared the mouse, he would have been caught by hunters.
The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse
The Town Mouse went to visit the Country Mouse. For lunch she served roots, wheat stalks, acorns and water. The Town Mouse ate very little and made it clear that she was only eating to be polite. After lunch the Town Mouse bragged about her life and the luxuries she lived in, and so the Country Mouse asked to visit. When they got to the mansion the Town Mouse lived in, there was the remnants of a feast, with meats, jellies, pastries and cheeses. But before they could eat, they heard a cat approaching, and ran to hide in terror. When they emerged, the servants arrived home, along with the family dog. The Country Mouse leaves in a hurry, only stopping long enough to remark that whilst her friend has many luxuries, at least the Country Mouse has her safety.
Moral: Poverty with security is better than plenty in the midst of fear and uncertainty. Having more does not necessarily equate to happiness.
Commonalities:
Characters - All of these fables pit two animals against each other so that the moral is demonstrated through their interactions with each other. The Hare and the Tortoise and The Lion and the Mouse focus on the fundamental differences between species as a way to deliver their morals - both the Hare and the Lion consider themselves above reproach, and their pride is contrasted by the natures of the Tortoise and the Mouse respectively. With The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse, however, the central conflict comes from the class difference between the characters. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the change undertaken by the protagonist seems to occur due to the differences between them and the secondary protagonist.
Moral: Whilst the morals differ based on the scenario of each tale, I noticed a running thread between them involving the defeating of pride/hubris. The core of fables involves learning - the main character discovers something that changes their view on the world and provides the moral of what is deemed "good" behaviour. What's interesting to me, however, is how this learning is done through the protagonist being proved wrong. They have and express a view about something, and then the events within the story show their way of thinking was incorrect, and they undertake an irreversible change. The moral distills this change and delivers it to the reader - what is to be learned from the protagonist's mistakes?
Setting: Something I realised whilst reading these fables was that the setting often plays a key role in the story, and often provides the crisis which the characters then have to solve/escape from. The Lion and the Mouse and The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse feature settings that actively endanger them - the Lion gets caught in the hunter's trap, the two mice's stories revolve around where they live, and the Town Mouse's home puts them in danger that elicits the moral. There is potentially another point to be drawn from The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse - life in nature provides more stability and safety than life in human civilisation.
Whilst these are more critical literary thoughts on the stories, the audience is important to keep in mind. These stories resonate with both children and adults, but are written for children. I wonder, had the writers not accounted for children in their audience, would the outcome of story still hold a universal truth that can be understood across cultures and ages, or would the narrative get bogged down with specifics that make it less simplistically comprehensive?
Themes
In my initial research I noted that fables often include dark or adult themes and concepts. I've recognised through the fables I've looked at running themes about defeated hubris and learning from your mistakes, but in some other fables I've noticed that these can be delivered in ways that tackle some complex topics, like death.
The Two Pots anthropomorphises a brass pot and an earthen pot, with the earthen pot worrying about his fragility and the brass pot promising to protect him. However, in the brass pot's attempts to do this, he ends up being the one who breaks the pot, and shatters him to pieces.
The fable ends in an obscure moral of "Equals make the best friends" - but there is no resolution to the earthen pot's tale, he's simply destroyed. Is this easier to swallow because the characters are objects rather than animals, and although anthropomorphised, hold less emotional connection with the reader than their animal counterparts? The story delivers the moral without a huge emotional punch, despite the fact that one of the main characters died.
The Scorpion and The Frog isn't attributed to Aesop, but is of Russian origin, and depicts a scorpion who needs passage across a river and asks a frog for help. The frog is reticent, pointing out the scorpions sting and his ability to kill the frog, but the scorpion asserts that if he killed the frog, he would die too, so the frog has no reason to fear. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog and poisons him. As the frog begins to sink, he asks why the scorpion has done this. The scorpion apologises, saying it's his nature. They both die.
The generally acknowledged moral is that people will always be who they are, even if it's not in their best interest. Does the story have resonance because it uses death as the most effective vehicle of teaching - the ultimate downfall of a character is their demise, and so the fable carries a lot of impact.
The Sick Stag depicts the titular character having just enough strength to gather some food so he can rest and eat until he gets better. Other animals hear about his illness and come to ask after him, but help themselves to his food and leave. The stag, with no food to eat, dies.
The moral here is "Good will is worth nothing unless it is accompanied by good acts", but is a sad way to tell the story. It's also the shortest of all of the fables I've looked at so far, comprised of four sentences. In my opinion, this fable doesn't even have to explain itself, because the circumstances of the fable are so extreme. In contrast to The Two Pots, I think this fable carries more weight because it involves a dying animal. There is no need to give the stag any characteristics that make us relate to him, his unfair death is enough to carry the required emotional impact.