Girl with Peacock by Peter Schlosser, 1896 (Photo credit: fleurdulys)
Peter Schlosser was an Austrian artist, in the days of Art Nouveau, Jugendstil and the Wiener Secession (the Vienna Secession). I found a post about him, but no entry. This above painting is dated 1896.
Gustav Klimt and other artists founded the Wiener Secession in April 1897. Klimt’s Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer is dear to me because I was a friend of relatives, members in fact, of the Bloch-Bauer family. My friends were Hélène and Francis Gutmann. Francis, whose mother was a Bloch-Bauer, finished a PhD in physics, at the University of British Columbia, where I also completed a PhD. However, we had met in Victoria. I also met Mr. Bloch-Bauer, an uncle (I believe). He was an older gentleman at the time, the very late 60s. If my memory serves me well, he spoke French. Francis met his wife, my friend Hélène, in Montreal. He enjoyed playing the piano. The Nazis pillaged the family home. His brother-in-law, a prince, taught me the Viennese Waltz. Francis was born in Vienna and died in Montreal, in 2014.
The Fox and the Crane, by Walter Crane (1845–1915)
Photo credit: Gutenberg [eBook #25433]), p. 19
Perry Index 426
Aarne-Thompson Classification Systems 60 (now ATU [Uther])
You have heard how Sir Fox treated Crane:
With soup in a plate. When again
They dined, a long bottle
Just suited Crane’s throttle:
And Sir Fox licked the outside in vain.
THERE ARE GAMES THAT TWO CAN PLAY ATCover Page: Baby’s Own Æsop
Photo credit: Gutenberg [eBook #25433]
(Please click on the image to enlarge it.)
Walter Crane: a Limerick
We are still in the “‘Golden Age’ of British illustration”[i] (see Arthur Rackham, Wikipedia). Walter Crane (1845–1915) created illustrations for Baby’s Own Æsop (1887), Æsop‘s Fables adapted for children. The above illustrations are examples of Art Nouveau (curves…). Famed engraver W. J. Linton (7 December 1812 – 29 December 1897) provided Walter Crane with the limericks, which does not mean he is their author. To the best of my knowledge, the limericks are anonymous. In Æsop and Jean de La Fontaine, the crane is a stork. Consequently, these are functions.
As for the text, it is a limerick version of the Æsopic fable “The Fox and the Stork” and Jean de La Fontaine’s retelling. Limericks are five-line poems and, typically, nonsensical, which is not the case with “The Fox and Crane.” The fable has simply been adapted for children. Limericks can be learned easily and then recited. Their rhyme scheme is AABBA and their meter, the tri-syllabic anapest: two short and a long. Interestingly, the shortened text is inserted in the illustration, suggesting the growing importance of illustrations. Therefore, the limericks have a dual purpose. They suit children and allow for large illustrations.
“The Fox and the Stork,” by Æsop
In Æsop’s fable, the crane (la grue) is a stork (la cigogne) and the limerick, a genuine fable. It is number 426 in the Perry Index and type 60 and AT type 60. The following is V. S. Vernon Jones’ translation of Æsop’s “The Fox and Stork.” [eBook #11339]
A Fox invited a Stork to dinner, at which the only fare provided was a large flat dish of soup. The Fox lapped it up with great relish, but the Stork with her long bill tried in vain to partake of the savoury broth. Her evident distress caused the sly Fox much amusement. But not long after the Stork invited him in turn, and set before him a pitcher with a long and narrow neck, into which she could get her bill with ease. Thus, while she enjoyed her dinner, the Fox sat by hungry and helpless, for it was impossible for him to reach the tempting contents of the vessel.
« Le Renard et la Cigogne » (I.18)
“The Fox and the Stork” (I.18)
Old Mister Fox was at expense, one day,
To dine old Mistress Stork.
The fare was light, was nothing, sooth to say,
Requiring knife and fork.
That sly old gentleman, the dinner-giver,
Was, you must understand, a frugal liver.
This once, at least, the total matter
Was thinnish soup served on a platter,
For madam’s slender beak a fruitless puzzle,
Till all had passed the fox’s lapping muzzle.
But, little relishing his laughter,
Old gossip Stork, some few days after,
Returned his Foxship’s invitation.
Without a moment’s hesitation,
He said he’d go, for he must own he
Never stood with friends for ceremony.
And so, precisely at the hour,
He hied him to the lady’s bower;
Where, praising her politeness,
He finds her dinner right nice.
Its punctuality and plenty,
Its viands, cut in mouthfuls dainty,
Its fragrant smell, were powerful to excite,
Had there been need, his foxish appetite.
But now the dame, to torture him,
Such wit was in her,
Served up her dinner
In vases made so tall and slim,
They let their owner’s beak pass in and out,
But not, by any means, the fox’s snout!
All arts without avail,
With drooping head and tail,
As ought a fox a fowl had cheated,
The hungry guest at last retreated.
You knaves, for you is this recital,
You’ll often meet Dame Stork’s requital.
Jean de La Fontaine
(Photo credit: La Fontaine, ancien site officiel)
(Photo credit: La Fontaine, ancien site officiel)
The Deceiver Deceived or “le trompeur trompé ”
The structure of this fable is that of the “deceiver deceived” or “trompeur trompé.” The fox, as host, serves the crane (la grue) her meal on a flat plate. So the crane, as hostess, serves the fox (le renard) his meal in an urn. Molière used this structure in shorter plays (one to three acts) known as farces, as opposed to grandes comédies (five acts). These shorter plays resemble French medieval farces and facéties as well as comedies belonging to the Italian commedia dell’arte, an improvised comic form where the characters were stock-characters or archetypes, i.e. they always played the same role in plays following the same formula, or plot, as in “Harlequin” Romances.
In short, “The Fox and the Crane” is a farce; a trick played on one character is played on the trickster. It is as though “The Fox and the Stork” were reversed into “The Stork and the Fox,” a mirror image æsthetics.
The Moral of “The Fox and the Stork”
At its simplest level, the moral of this fable is that what harm we do unto others can be done to us. The trickster may expect retaliation (lex talionis),[i]but not of a military nature. So this fable is a cautionary tale. The stork having been fooled by the fox, the fox can expect anything, and it is fooled the stork.
Yet, what this fable has to teach is an all-encompassing rule. It is the “do not do unto others what you do not wish others to do unto you.” According to Wikipedia,
“[t]he moral drawn is that the trickster must expect trickery in return and that the golden rule of conduct is for one to do to others what one would wish for oneself.”
Wikipedia emphasizes the universality of this rule (see Golden Rule). Let’s scroll down to the Sanskrit tradition.
“In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, ‘Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control – are the ten wealth of character (self). O King aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.’”
—ooo—
“In the best of all possible worlds” (Candide [Leibniz], Voltaire), would the stork or crane have tricked the trickster?
My purpose is to show images. Two are by Milo Winter (The Æsop for Children, eBook #19994) and one is the work of Ferdinand Hodler, perhaps the finest Swiss artist of the 19th century. I would like to show you more of his work.
Ferdinand Hodler (14 March 1853 – 19 May 1918) was born in Berne, Switzerland. He was soon the only surviving member of his family. All died of tuberculosis. This experience coloured his life. For instance, Hodler painted several portraits of his mistress and former model Valentine Godé-Darel during the years she was dying of cancer. The video I am inserting in this post documents her “disintegration.” Interestingly, Hodler also painted some 20 portraits of himself. These may be a chronicle of the gradual metamorphosis that characterizes human life.
After Ferdinand Hodler’s father died, his mother married a decorative artist. This may explain Hodler’s career as illustrator. He apprenticed at Thun and then moved to Geneva. He is associated with many movements: from realism to expressionism, including symbolism and Art Nouveau (see “Adoration III” at the bottom of this post). We have seen the work of Alphonse Mucha (24 July 1860 – Prague, 14 July 1939) who was a Czech Art Nouveau artist.
In order to improve his skills, Hodler travelled so he could study the work of other artists. He was particularly interested in the art of Hans Holbein.
Hodler painted several landscapes and portraits. Favourite subjects were women and people going about their daily activities, genre painting. However he was also an illustrator.
