La Fontaine and his literary works

Animal Imagery in Lafontaine

Lafontaine and the Use of Animals to Denounce Human Behavior

Jean de La Lafontaine was a prolific writer of the Rococo period. One of his most famous works was a re-work of the fables of Aesop. This work sparks controversy in the literary circles, as there are some that consider Lafontaine work a form of plagiarism. Regardless of the side of the debate own is on, Lafontaine work continues to maintain a place in the literary works of the period. Just as the original Aesop's fables provide the reader a glimpse into Greek politics and society, so do Lafontaine versions provide a glimpse into French Society. This research will support the thesis that Lafontaine personifications of the animals that he depicts serve to denounce certain human behaviors of the time.

Lafontaine version of Aesop's Fables marks a valuable literary contribution for several reasons. The first is that it helped to preserve a body of work that may have otherwise fallen into the cracks of history to be forgotten. The second is that he "modernized" the originals to reflect modern French society and thought at the time. The fables still teach important moral lessons, but they have a new perspective that makes them more applicable to late 17th century French society. Lafontaine was only one of many that re-wrote the original Aesop's fables for their time period.

Lafontaine uses personification as the primary tool for expressing his thoughts about certain elements of French society. He took the characteristics of those around him and crafted them into animals. In some cases, Lafontaine is particularly outspoken about certain elements of French society, such as the bourgeoisie class. However, those that were too outspoken could be persecuted for expressing their opinions. Using animals, instead of flinging direct insults was a safe way for Lafontaine to express his opinions, yet avoid persecution.

Lafontaine and French Social Class

The foibles of the wealthy of Lafontaine time are favorite subjects. He often demonstrates how their greed and self-indulgence at the expense of others leads to their demise. There are many examples of this type of behavior in Lafontaine fables. For instance, in the Hen with the Golden Eggs, a wealthy miser has a hen that lays one golden egg day. In his greed, he cuts open the hen, expecting to get rich quicker, but when he opens the hen, he finds that she is just like any other he. He now has no source of wealth and once, again becomes poor, all because of his greed (Shapiro, p. 120-121). In this fable, an animal was not used to represent an actual human, but rather a human characteristic. The hen represented man's greed.

One can find many examples of French class structure in Lafontaine fables. In the story of the Frog That Wished to Be as Big as the Ox (Shapiro, p. 6), Lafontaine seems to suggest that one can have too much wealth. This poem has many elements of political satire. Lafontaine gives us clues as to the identity of the "Frog," but not enough so that the person could be identified. One of the key clues that Lafontaine gives the reader is that the frog was once small, lower class. The "frog" wanted desperately to move from the ranks of the lower class, and become upper class.

Social class was rigid in Lafontaine time, one was born into their class and rarely had the chance to move up in social rank. If one's parents were poor, there was little chance that the children could be more than their parents. Education was a privilege of the wealthy, and those that were born wealthy often had better opportunities to maintain their wealth. This was the point that Lafontaine tried to make in this fable. This is a further key to the identity of the "frog" in the poem. The "frog" tried to be bigger than they were meant to be by puffing themselves up, perhaps an allegory for making outward displays of wealth beyond one's means. In the end, the "frog" could not keep up the facade and this led to its ultimate destruction. If a poor person tried to appear to be wealthier than they were, they would be likely to expend all of their resources in doing so. They would eventually be found out and would be "socially" destroyed for their actions. In the finals stanza, Lafontaine tells us that indeed, this poem was about a human and that these characters represent the foibles of a human, instead of an animal.

Not all of Lafontaine fables can be found in Aesops' tales. The story of the Frog That Wished to Be as Big as the Ox appears to be an original work of Lafontaine. It is not included in collections of Aesop's fables. However, it is difficult to ignore the influence of Aesop's fables on those that are only found in Lafontaine work. The existence of fables that do not appear in the original support the thesis that Lafontaine did not simply copy the ancient Greek writings and take them for his own.

The theme of differences in social class repeats again in the Two Mules (Shapiro, p. 6-7). This analogy, once again, illustrates the differences between the upper and lower classes of French Society. At that time, there was no middle class, and as Lafontaine observed, the two classes were growing apart. This is the key point made in the story of the Two Mules. In this fable, one mule has a heavy, but mundane load. The second mule carries a lighter load of silver collected as tax, representing the wealthy feudal lords of the time. The wealthy mule is proud of his wealthy and displays it with pride. However, in the end, he becomes a target for thieves, who kill him. The poor mule was not an attractive target to the thieves.

Lafontaine continuously reminds the reader, that the lower, working class is sometimes luckier than the wealthy class. Many people of the time only saw the outward display of wealth and power by the ruling class. They did not see the treachery that comes with outward display of the symbols of wealth. There was a considerable amount to danger inherent in the upper class, as there were those that would see the outward appearances and desire to be wealthy themselves, at any cost. In this manner, the lower class was lucky because they did not have anything that would be worth risking one's life to obtain.

Lafontaine continuously points out the differences between the upper and lower classes. Lafontaine saw through the upper class, and saw them for what they are on the inside. He gives his readers a glimpse at what lies below the fancy clothes and riches of the upper class. The wealthy almost always succumb to their own greed and boastfulness. A common theme in Lafontaine is that the poor are actually luckier than the upper class, as the wealth of the upper class is often their undoing.

In his views on class structure and the differences between upper and lower class, Lafontaine differs little from the original Greek fables. This division in class and the downfall of the wealthy as a result of greed and corruption is a common theme in the original poems and in Lafontaine re-writes of them. The question is if Lafontaine preserved this theme as a portion of Greek society, or if he preserved it because it also reflected what he saw in his own society. It is difficult to make a true comparison between Lafontaine work and the original tales, written nearly 1000 years before his time. A comparison of this type would rely on a translation of the original Greek. Much context can be lost in the translation process This may also explain differences in Lafontaine work. In a modern perspective, it may appear that Lafontaine took liberties with the text, but it may be that these differences are simply an artifact of translation.

It is difficult to determine Lafontaine intention in using the distinctions of social class. However, they can be found in the original Greek as well. Lafontaine may have seen the similarities between class structure in ancient Greece and in his own time. No one will ever know for certain, but the morals do seem to apply the French society of Lafontaine time, as much as they did to Greek society.

The Heifer, the Goat, and the Sheep, in Company With the Lion (Shapiro, 8-9), is another example of satire about the ruthlessness and selfishness of the upper class towards the poor. It is a metaphor for how the feudal lords treat the peasantry. One must remember that the feudal lord owned vast stretches of land and only allowed others to live on it for the purpose of collecting taxes. As such, the feudal lords had almost unlimited power over the peasantry, even if it meant that the peasantry would starve at the expense of the lord and his household.

The Heifer, the Goat, and the Sheep, in Company With the Lion illustrates the absolute power of the feudal lord (the lion) over the peasantry (the goat and sheep). This fable may be referring to the division of taxes and possessions, or it may be a direct reference to the hunting rights of feudal lords. The feudal lord (lion) declares that a stag killed by the goat is his, by the right of the strong.

Again, as the bravest, the third must be mine.

To touch but the fourth whoso makes a sign,

I'll choke him to death

In the space of a breath!" (Shapiro, p. 9).

This attitude represents the attitudes of the wealthy towards the peasantry. They would rather see them dead than share even a small portion of their wealth with them. This fable is where the phrase "a lions' share" originates (Shapiro, p. 9). A similar version to this story can be found in the Greek version of Aesop's fables, once again bringing into question the intention of Lafontaine in his writing.

Messages to the Poor and Purpose in Writing

Lafontaine was not of lower class upbringing and was highly educated. He was not of the upper class, that he loved to taunt with satire, but of slightly lower class. He was not poor, but was born into the lower end of the upper class (Shapiro, p. xvii). His concern for those less fortunate than himself is apparent in his advice to them. He often addresses the poor, which is of interest, because many of the poor were illiterate. Education was a privilege of the wealthy. Lafontaine may have been attempting to derive sympathy for the poor through telling the wealthy of their plight. However, Lafontaine left few clues other than those found in his work.

One example of this type of moral is found in the Grasshopper and the Ant (Shapiro, p. xxxviii). There are many fables that are similar in content to this one. This is the story of a grasshopper who played all summer and then had nothing to eat in the winter. The ant had been working all summer and had ample stores for the winter. The grasshopper offers to pay the ant double for a morsel, but the ant will not let the hungry grasshopper have the benefits of its hard work. The moral of the story is to work and save in good times for the bad. This is also a message to the wealthy that money cannot buy them everything and they need to understand the power of the poor, especially when it comes to controlling commodities.

Lafontaine renders several of Aesop's fables almost verbatim from the original. The Grasshopper and the Ant is one example. The Raven and the Fox is another example (Shapiro, p. xxxiii). Many different versions of this story exist, some using different animals to make the point. Regardless of the animal characters used in these classic tales, the moral of the story remains the same. In many of the classic tales, Lafontaine appears to have done nothing more than to translate them into the French language.

Through an exploration of the collection of Lafontaine work, we can find two different types of Aesops' fables. We can find examples that appear to be a retelling of the classics. Lafontaine versions are similar to other translations with very little embellishment. In other cases, Lafontaine version appears to have been altered to reflect French society. A prime example of this is the tale of the Two Mules. We can also find examples of Lafontaine Fables that do not appear in the original Aesop's Fables. These appear to be original works that used Aesop's Fables as inspiration.

At the beginning of this research, we mentioned that some feel Lafontaine could be accused of plagiarism. From a modern standpoint, this may be true in that Lafontaine did not come out and directly cite his source. However, in his time, these tales were classic, largely passed on through the oral tradition. When one considers this question in historical context, it appears that Lafontaine was simply acting as a transcriptionist or translator of the original tales.

If one only examines one of Lafontaine fables, it would be easy to draw an incorrect conclusion. If one takes his work as a whole, it becomes apparent that Lafontaine had different purposes in writing at different times. Sometimes Lafontaine was acting as a translator, at other times, his work took on a satirical style meant to entertain a particular audience. It is from what appear to be Lafontaine original works that we gain the greatest insight into French society. Lafontaine sympathy of the poor and amusement with the ability of the wealthy class to cause themselves harm through their arrogance was apparent, when one looks at the body of Lafontaine work as a whole.

Unlike other writers whose work has a consistent style and theme throughout, one must take a different approach to an analysis of Lafontaine work. For instance, it is easy to examine only one poem and discuss the metaphorical portrayal of French Society. However, only when one takes a holistic approach to Lafontaine work does one begin to see the message that he was trying to send to the audience. Patterns begin to emerge in his work as a whole, as well as within individual pieces. Examining Lafontaine work holistically allows the researcher to place it within the proper context of 17th century French Literature.

Comparison and Contrast

Applying the holistic approach to Lafontaine Fables allows one to recognize a central theme, not only in the individual pieces, but in the Lafontaine philosophy. The story of the Horse Who Sought Revenge on the Stag (Shapiro, p. 94-95) is the story of how the horse's blind rage and raw emotions led him to make a decision that would later imprison him. The horse used the human to murder the stag, which resulted in a small emotional reward for the horse, but the satisfaction was short-lived as the horse discovered that it would be doomed to a life of servitude.