The "Life of Aesop" and the Gospel of Mark: Two Ancient Approaches to Elite Values

Abstract

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) My aim in this essay is to compare the Life of Aesop and the Gospel of Mark with regard to their treatments of values of elite classes. In doing so my goal is to highlight the ethical demands that Mark's Gospel makes of its audience. This study will build upon recent research that has compared the Life of Aesop to early Christian narratives, in particular, to the Gospel of Mark.1 Past research has demonstrated that the written texts of these works are roughly contemporary.2 Both are anonymous narratives, probably composed from oral and written traditions, and both narratives are made up of series of relatively short episodes.3 Both may also be considered aretalogical, novelistic biographies.4 There are, in addition, several thematic similarities between the two narratives, such as the death of the protagonist through the connivance of his foes.5 An important starting point for my study is the recognition by previous interpreters that these two stories criticize values associated with the elite classes of the Hellenistic world.6 I will argue that they do so in very different ways. I hope to demonstrate that, while the Life of Aesop lampoons elite values, it makes no serious claims on its audience to change social structures related to slavery or class. The Gospel of Mark, by contrast, criticizes the elite value system while demanding fundamental changes in actions and attitudes toward status relations. I. Critique in the Life of Aesop: The Puncturing of Pretense The character Aesop represents the very opposite of the ideal Greek male. First, he is slave. To the Greek mind, and especially to the upper-class Greek mind, the was body at the disposal of master, living tool, to use Aristotle's terminology (Pol. 1.2.3-5). In fact, the most common terms for slaves were ... (body) and ... (child), underscoring that slaves were both powerless and passive.7 Aesop is thus seen as passive body whose function is to carry out his master's will. Yet even for his status is very low. He is unsuited for every service in the city and therefore is sent to dig in the fields. His master, moreover, often refers to him as runaway, category that Juvenal likens to cutthroats, thieves, hangmen, and coffin makers (Sat. 8.174-75). Second, Aesop's appearance contrasts markedly with the prevalent physiognomic ideals of his day.8 The author of the Physiognomics ascribed to Aristotle writes that single physiognomic sign is not good indicator of the character of an individual, but number of signs together make much stronger case (Phgn. 2.806b.38-807a.3). Aesop has more than his share of negative physiognomic signs. Described as loathsome of aspect . . . potbellied, misshapen of head, snub-nosed, swarthy, dwarfish, bandy-legged, short-armed, squint-eyed, and liver-lipped (1), he is also compared to turnip (14), goose egg (14), a frog, hedgehog, or potbellied jar, or captain of monkeys and a dog in basket (87).9 The Physiognomics states that the little-minded ... person is small-limbed, small and round, dry, with small eyes and small face (Phgn. 3.808a.30-31; trans. Hett, LCL). A snub-nosed ... person, moreover, is thought to be salacious (ibid., 6.811b.3-4). A person who is too swarthy ... is likely to be cowardly, and the ill-proportioned ... are thought to be scoundrels (ibid. 6.812a.12).11 These characteristics correspond to Aesop's short arms, small stature, large belly, squinty eyes, snub nose ..., and swarthy ... complexion. The Hellenistic audience of the text should therefore expect him to display low and ignoble character. Third, Aesop is not Greek but Phrygian. The term Phrygian was often used as synonym for slave in the Roman era.12 One could, through paideia, overcome the shortcoming of not having been born well-to-do Greek.13 Lucian of Samosota did this, as did the Roman Gaul Favorinus. …