The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius

and the relation between theory and practice*

Gert-Jan van Dijk

This paper focuses on a Greek prose fable collection by the rhetorician

Apthonius, comprising 40 fables. There are some entirely new fables, whereas
others present variations of older fables. We might distinguish simplifications,
contaminations, fabulizations (creating fables out of heterogeneous stories).
The collection was destined for school practice. Hence the ubiquitous use of
promythiums and epimythiums, as well as the very brevity of the fables. The fable
collection is preceded by a short theoretical introduction, which is especially
important because of its subdivision of fables in terms of their characters
(1. human protagonists, 2. animal protagonists, 3. a combination of both). The
collection perfectly corresponds with the preceding theoretical passage. In the
end we give a synopsis, comparing Aphthonius with all other extant ancient
fable collections.

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on a collection of Greek fables by the rhetorician Aphthonius,

which was composed ca. 400 AD and comprises 40 fables. Aphthonius’ Greek col-
lection is more or less contemporary with the Latin one by Avianus (both ­dating
back to ca. 400 AD) and is more or less the same size (Aphth. 40 ~ Avian. 42
fables)).1 Despite its modest size it is important for the history of education in that
it is explicitly designed for school practice.
The fable collection is opened by a theoretical introduction. Aphthonius bor-
rows Aelius Theon’s definition (2nd cent. AD), without, however, mentioning its
provenance: “A fable is a fictitious story which gives the semblance of reality.”
Aphthonius remarks that Aesop wrote down his fables better than anybody else,

*  I am very grateful to Ton Kessels, as well as to the Reinardus reading committee for their
critical remarks and to Heather van Tress for correcting my English.
.  An important difference, however, is that Aphthonius wrote down his fables in prose and
Avianus in verse (elegiac distichs).

Reinardus. Yearbook of the International Reynard Society 23 (2010–2011), –. doi 10.1075/rein.23.09van
issn 0925–4757 / e-issn 1569–9951 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

which seems to imply that in the time of Aphthonius fables circulated in writing,
not orally.
Aphthonius classifies fables by using their characters as a criterion. He dis-
tinguishes “rational” fables (λoγικÓν ~ logikon, with human characters), “moral”
fables (ἠθικÓν ~ èthikon), with non-rational characters), and “mixed” fables
­(μικτÓν ~ mikton), composed of both.
Aphthonius states that fables have a hortatory function, which can be
expressed in a promythium or epimythium (as have all but one of the 40 fables in
the collection). Finally as an example of the moral category he cites the famous
fable of the Cicada(s) and the Ant(s).
Now we can compare the practice of the rhetorical collection with the rheto-
rician’s own praxis: the fable collection which follows suit after the theoretical
introduction.
First let’s address the fables’ provenance. The main source of Aphthonius’
(prose) collection is the verse collection by Babrius2. Other literary models are

1. 7: Diodorus of Sicily, Library 19.25.5–6;

2. 8: Plato, Alcibiades I 123a;
3. 21: Demosthenes, fr. 13 Baiter-Sauppe apud Aristobulum, Fragmenta Grae-
corum Historiographorum 139F3 apud Plutarchum, Demosthenes 23.5;
4. 26: Horace, Satira 2.7.79–117;
5. 28: Stesichorus 103, fr. 280 Poetae melici Graeci apud Cratem Pergamenum
apud Aelianum, De Natura Animalium 17.37;
6. 32: Aeschylus, fr. 139 Radt;
7. 33: Herodotus, Histories 1.141;
8. 35: Democritus, fr. 68B224 Diels-Kranz apud Stobaeum 3.10.68;
9. 37: Leonidas, fr. 32 Gow-Page, Anthologia Palatina 9.99.

In accordance with Aphthonius’ main verse model we come across p

­ oeticisms,
like a paraphrase (μεγέθει c. gen. 30 (βoῆς);

adjectives c. gen. (21 έ̀ρημα ϕυλακῆς)

figures of speech like a:
chiasm 26 μῦ Ϛ ἀρoυραῐoς ἀστικ�̃ ...μυι ́,

.  This is not to say that Crusius was right in listing two fables by Aphthonius among
­fragments from Babrius’ collection: Aphth. 17 = Babr. 156b Crusius, Aphth. 15 = Babr. 161b
Crusius; O. Crusius, Babrii fabulae Aesopeae. Recognovit prolegomenis et indicibus instruxit.
­Accedunt fabularum dactylicarum et iambicarum reliquiae (Leipzig: Teubner 1897).
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

anaphora (24 νÓσoυ μὲν...νόσoυ δὲ́),

variatio 30 γάλακτoς μὲν ὲ́νεκεν αίξ, ἐρί�ν δε χάριν...πρóβατα).
Other stylistic characteristics are the occurrence of δέ between character and
τιò (which seems to be an ideosyncrasy, as well as the use of words typically used
in fable, such as: τις (30, almost exclusively with the protagonist of a fable),
6 (cf. 4 μέγα τι),
13 τις ἄνθρ�πoς,
14 πελαργòς...τις,
16 λέ�ν...τις,
19 κoλoιòς...τις,
27 πoιμὴν...τις,
35 τις κύ�ν, τινòς πoταμoῦ,
37 τράγoς...τις,
39 λύκoς...τις (but no indefinite time or place adjuncts).
What is anomalous is the use of the article in combination with the main
character(s) of a fable:
8 τòν λέoντα ἡ μήτηρ...τòν καρκίνoν,
15 ἡ κάμηλoς,
24 ὁ βάτραχoς,
40 τòν κύκνoν ὁ κóραξ,
cf. 14 oἱ γέρανoι
21 oἱ λύκoι...τὰ πρÓβατα.
In accordance with the hortatory function Aphthonius remarks in his theo-
retical introduction, the advice becomes explicit in promythia: [πρoτρεπ�]
1 (“urge on”); [παρακαλ�]̃ (“advise”)
2; [παραιν�]̃ (“exhort”)
3–5
8–14
16–22
25–29
31
33–363 as well as in programmatic fables:
11 & 17 deal with animals giving advice to young ones (17 ἐνoυθέτει,
παραινέσασα)

.  J.G.M. van Dijk, Aἶνoι, ΛÓγoι, Μυ̃ϑoι. Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek
Literature. With a Study of the Theory and Terminology of the Genre (Diss. Nijmegen, Leiden/
Köln/New York: Brill 1997) (Mnemosyne Supplements 166), 73, n. 189.
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

Nearly all4 fables are equipped with both a promythium and an epimythium.
But 18 does not have an epimythium. 13 and 32, too, do not have a formal epimy-
thium, but the last sentence contains a réplique finale (a term coined by Nojgaard)
with a general application. 24 does not have a formal epimythium, but the last
sentence has a conclusion with a gnomic aorist. Aesop is not mentioned. The col-
lection combines rational, moral and mixed fables and is in accordance with Aph-
thonius’ own definition of the genre.
Aphthonius wrote his fables for, as is obvious from his promythia
1
2 τoυ̇ς νέoυ, 22 τ�̜̃ νεÓτητι) and epimythia
(1 νεÓτης).
The presence of thematic pairs is noteworthy:

  1. 1 & 2 urge youth to work and study

~
  2. 11 & 17 a mother to her son (cf. epimythium; [ὠπαί] bis)
  3. 6 & 40 black and white
  4. 8 & 13 old age
  5. 9 & 25 the healer unrewarded (verbal parallels: ὲζή́τει τoν ἰασoμενoν)
  6. 15 & 35 he who covets more loses all,
  7. 21 & 29 don’t listen to cheaters (cf. promythium)
  8. 10 & 19 gnoothi sauton (γνωϑἰ σαὐτον)
  9. 34 & 36 dispute (incipit εἱς ἔριν)
10. 12 & 28 fight (ἐμάχoντo in opening line)
11. 37 & 38 harming is punished.

2.  New fables

The collection contains a relatively large number of New Fables:5 6 out of 40

– Aphth. 2, 4, 6, 20, 27, 40.6

.  Less accurately VD 1997 (previous note), 63: “all”.

.  B.E. Perry (ed.), Aesopica I (University of Illinois Press 1952, repr. Arno Press), 494: “Sup-
plementary Fables from Aphthonius”. I fail to see, however, why Aphth. 3 is listed as Aes. 396,
given that this fable is an elaboration of Babr. 73; it had, according to Perry’s system, be better
included in a previous section (478: “Nos. 274–378: Supplementary Fables of Babrian Ori-
gin”). Likewise, Aphth. 28 (listed by Perry as Aes. 395) is discussed below, as it is a variation
of a fable attributed to Stesichorus (who lived circa one millennium before) by Crates of Per-
gamon according to Aelian, NA 17.37 (7F1, 60F/A1, 7T4 VD [Van Dijk n. 3 above]).
.  All fables have been compared with the versions listed in the Synopsis below.
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

2  The Man, the Goose, and the Swan

“A prosperous man decided to keep both a goose and a swan, but his intentions
towards the two were different, for he had got the one for the sake of its song and
the other for the sake of his table. When it was time for the goose to die for the
cause for which it was being kept it was night, and the darkness prevented telling
one from the other. The swan, although he got caught instead of the goose, gave
indications of his nature by singing and escaped death by means of his music.”7
This fable was later almost verbatim included in the anonymous collections.8
It is partially inspired by Plato, Phaedo 85b; cf. fab. aes. 247 Hausrath.9

4  The Fowler and the Cicada

“A fowler heard a cicada and thought he was going to make a big catch, making
the mistake of judging the size of his match by the song. But when he put his art
into practice and caught his prey he got nothing but song and found fault with
expectation for leading people to false conclusions.”10 This fable is inspired by Life
of Aesop 99 = fab. aes. 298 Hausrath.11

6  The Aethiopian
“A man bought an Aethiopian, thinking that his colour was the result of the
neglect of his former owner. He took him home and used all kinds of soap on him
and tried all kinds of baths to clean him up. He couldn’t change his colour, but he
made him sick with all his efforts.”12

.  Daly’s translation quoted in Perry (B.E. Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus. Newly Edited and
Translated into English, together with an Historical Introduction and a Comprehensive Survey of
Greek and Latin Fables in the Aesopic Tradition (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard
University Press, Heinemann, 1965; (repr. 1984), pp. 495–496.
.  fab. aes. 277 is from the Byzantine so-called Accursiana recension.
.  F. Rodríguez Adrados and J.G.M. van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. Translated
by L.A. Ray and F. Rojas del Canto, vol. 3: Documentation of the Graeco-Latin Fable (Leiden/
Boston: Brill, 2003), p. 259. For a list of abbreviations of fable collections used in this article
see the synopsis below.
.  Daly’s translation quoted by Perry, Aesopica I, p. 495.
.  Rather than by fab. aes. 126 (Hausrath) (thus Rodríguez Adrados – van Dijk, History of
the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3, p. 341).
.  Daly’s translation quoted in Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus, p. 494.
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

This fable was later almost verbatim included in the anonymous

collections.13

20  The Lion and the Fox

“A fox used to go around with a lion in the capacity of a helper in the hunt. He
would point out where the prey was, and the lion would fall upon it; then a share
would be apportioned to each according to his worth. The fox became jealous of
the lion’s larger share, and decided to hunt for himself, instead of merely scouting.
But when he attempted to take a lamb from the flock he was the first to become
the prey of hunters.”14
The main fable theme is that of a common hunt (the Lion and the Ass). It
contains an inversion of the famous fable about the lion’s share.15

27  The Shepherd and the Bees

“Bees were making honey in a hollow oak, and a shepherd who found them at
work decided to take some of their honey. When the bees flying around him from
all sides stung him, he gave up and said, “I’m leaving. I don’t need any honey if I
have to deal with these bees for it.”16
The theme is that of denigrating things out of reach (Fox and Grapes, fab. aes.
15ab Hausrath). The fable is possibly a fabulization of the proverb “neither honey
nor bees”17 (cf. the procedure in the fable about the Shadow of an Ass – Demos-
thenes, fr. 15 Baiter-Sauppe apud Ps.-Plutarchum, Moralia 848AB).18

40  The Raven and the Swan

“A raven, envying the swan’s whiteness and supposing it to be due to the waters
in which he bathed, left the altars, where he got his sustenance, and went to live
on the lakes and rivers. He failed to change the colour of his body in spite of his
efforts to brighten it, and he wasted away from want of food.”19

.  To 277 the same applies as to 277 in n. 8 above.

.  Daly’s translation quoted in Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus, p. 494–495.
.  Rodríguez Adrados – Van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3, p. 292.
.  Daly’s translation quoted in Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus, p. 496.
.  Diogenianus 6.58; Rodríguez Adrados – Van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable,
vol. 3, p. 376.
.  40F2 in Van Dijk, Aἶνoι, Λόγoι, Μῦθoι.
.  Daly’s translation quoted by Perry, Aesopica I, p. 495.
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

This fable is inspired by the fable about the Aethiopian (ibid. 3).

3.  Variations of older fables20

Furthermore, the collection innovates the Aesopic tradition by inserting new vari-
ations into old or well-known fables

1 The well-known fable of the singing Cicada and the hard-working Ant.
–– the fable is an elaboration: both characters are put into the plural form
(ants, cicadas);
–– the fable is also a simplification: the dialogue between the ant(s) and the
cicada(s) is omitted;
–– a promythium and an epimythium are added, addressing young people.21
3 How the Kite lost his voice, imitating Horses neighing.
–– an introduction is added: originally the kites had the voice of swans,22
–– all characters (like in the former fable) are put into the plural form (swans,
kites, horses).23
9 The Ass was cured from a thorn in his paw by a Wolf, who admitted having
been educated as a butcher rather than as a physician: he got a severe blow in
his face.24
–– some characters are added: (unspecified) animals refusing to cure the ass;
–– the dialogue is omitted;25
10 The famous Ass in the Lion’s Skin (clubbed to death when exposed by the
wind).
–– farmers are introduced instead of shepherds;
–– the ass harms the fields instead of chasing men away;

.  For the following sections the Aphthonius fables have been compared with all other
ancient fable versions which have been listed in the table at the end of this article, based on
Rodríguez-Adrados – Van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3 (q.v.).
.  Other variations in fables include: only the ant is in the plural form, the dialogue is elabo-
rated (Par. Bodl. 336 Chambry, Dod. ibid., Rom. 93 Thiele; Rhet. Branc. 1; Syr. XL, 40 Lefèvre;
Synt. 43; Tetr. 1.6, 2.25).
.  “The other birds” in the indirect tradition represented by Julian, Misopogon 366A.
.  Julian (lc) has the kite in the singular and puts the other animals in the plural form.
.  Yet other variations include.
.  Yet other variations include (fab. aes. 198 Hausrath (I: the ass feigns being wounded;
Rom. 52 Thiele: both characters have been changed – the ass to a horse, the wolf to a lion, and
an introduction is added).
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

–– different promythium and epimythium: be content with what you have,

adornment is dangerous26.
13 A war Horse was sold as a corn-grinder. The horse which in his youth cel-
ebrated many a triumph on the battle-field, was compelled in his old age to
serve the miller.
–– One character is added: the Miller (addressed by the old horse, replies);
–– there is a change of his earlier activity: the animal has served as a war
horse instead of as a race horse;
–– the complaint of the horse is elaborated (the former owner is evoked in
a flash back);
–– the epimythium is changed into a réplique finale.27
15 A Camel wanted the horns of a bull, but was deprived of its ears because of its
immodesty.
–– one character is added: Hermes (to typically execute Zeus’ order; already
in the Odyssey);
–– the aetiological function is emphasized by adding a final sentence; ὅθεν...
τoυ̃ λoιπoυ̃;
–– a promythium is added.28
17 The Mother of a Stag reproached her Young for being so scared off the dogs,
but ran away herself.
–– a double inversion: the mother reproaches her young instead of the
young father29 (which is more in accordance with the didactic function);

.  More variations in other versions: fab. aes. 199 Hausrath (there are animals instead of
farmers, the ass is recognized by the fox when braying [the lion’s skin is not removed by the
wind], the réplique finale is by the fox (ass not beaten) (I; III: the ass tries to scare the fox too);
Babr. 139 but there the ass is beaten by only one person Avian. 5 (there are cows instead of
farmers, the ass is recognized by the farmer for his long ears, the réplique finale is by the farmer);
Tetr. 1.19 (there are goatherds instead of farmers, the ass is put into the mill); Tetr. 2.23 (there are
harvesters instead of farmers, the ass is clubbed to death).
.  Phaedr. App. 21 different: horse stolen instead of getting old, and sees his congeners.
.  Other variations in other versions: the bull is put in the plural form in Avian. 8, who adds
a promythium; the bull is omitted in Syr. 73 Lefèvre, ibid. XLIII, Synt. 59, Dod. 147 Chambry;
(Christian?) God instead of Zeus, the bull is omitted, the ears are bowed instead of partially
removed, the head is bowed in Tetr. 1.13).
.  Rodríguez Adrados – Van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3, p. 258 states
there is a change in character, too, but I think here μóσχoς probably does not mean “calf ”
but “young” (see Liddell-Scott-Jones, sub voce, 3. “any young animal”; Dod. 238.5-8 Chambry,
where the μóσχος and the ἔλαϕoς address each other with μɳ̃τερ “mother” and τέκνoν “child”,
respectively).
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

–– action finale instead of réplique finale:30 the stag does not reply, but runs
away upon the sound of the dogs in the distance (improvement: evidently
fails to give a good example);
–– other epimythium: give a good example, instead of: cowards are incurable;
–– the change is influenced by another fable in same collection (11): the
mother crab reproaching her young:31 arrangement of the collection in
pairs (see above).32
23 The Hares wanted to commit suicide collectively by running into a lake but
refrained from this action, when they saw that the Frogs were still more cowardly.
–– the hare who utters the réplique finale is defined: he is old;33 likewise in
some other comparable fables34, where, however, a direct speech of the
Hares is added;35
26 A Country Mouse, invited by his congener from the City could not eat in
peace and decided therefore to go home.
–– the meals offered by country and city (house) mouse are not described;
–– the man enters repeatedly;36
–– there is a city mouse, no house mouse;
–– the direct speech is shortened to a réplique finale by the Country Mouse;
28 An Eagle thanked a Farmer by warning him not to drink, because the cup was
poisoned by the very snake the farmer had freed the eagle from.
~~ indirect tradition (Stesichorus fr. 103 apud Aelianum NA 17.37);37  the
fable is greatly simplified and abbreviated (more than four times);

.  Terms coined by M. Nøjgaard (La fable antique, I: La fable grecque avant Phèdre, II: Les
grands fabulistes, København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag/Arnold Busck, 1964–1967) to describe the
final action and / or words in a fable.
.  Cf. Crusius (n. 3) ad Babr. 156b in app. crit. (p. 145).
.  Later version: Dod. 238 Chambry: in-between: young reproaches mother.
.  This is typical: Phaedr. 3.3, Hermog. Prog. 1; Pa. Bodl. 101 Knöll, fab. aes. 13 Hausrath
(Aes. 13), Babr. 21 (Aes. 290).
.  Fab. aes. lc (IIIg (Accursiana)), Par. Bodl. 192 Chambry; (in)direct speech of the Hares is
also added in fab. aes. lc (III (Accursiana)) and Dod. 192 Chambry.
.  Other variations in yet other fables: The pond is replaced with a river in Rom. 35 Thiele;
the réplique finale of the hares is omitted in Tetr. 1.44.
.  Other variations: Hor.: dogs only once, Babr. [+ Par. Bodl., Dod., fab. dact.] twice;
Dos.+Rom. man only once.
.  320–321 (where Tzetzes, History 4.305–315 and Apostolius 1.78 (Arsenius 2.36) are
­added in the supplements to the revised edition Rodríguez Adrados – Van Dijk 2003.
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

–– the (sixteen) fellow farmers are omitted (they do therefore not drink
and die);
–– the farmer’s activity (reaping) is omitted;
–– the time (in the heat of the day) is not specified;
–– the locality (a well) is not specified;
–– the fable is “demythologized”: the eagle is not connected to Zeus;
–– there is no intertextuality: the reference to the omen in the Iliad is omitted;
–– the snake is not killed, the eagle is simply freed;
–– the snake poisons the farmer’s cup instead of the well from which the
water is taken;
–– the eagle knocks the cup from the farmer’s hands instead of from his lips
(less dramatically);
–– there is no direct speech (the farmer’s indignant monologue is omitted);
–– a promythium and epimythium are added (who does well meets well).38
30 Farmer carried a Pig, a Goat, and a Sheep towards the city. Only the Pig
screamed because he knows he will be slaughtered.39
–– the fable is simplified: one character is omitted: the fox’s part is played by
the man himself;
–– the produce is simplified (the goat yields milk, the sheep gives wool, and
the goat cheese and kids).40
31 Beauty contest among the birds. The Crow, adorned with other birds’ feath-
ers, nearly won, until the Owl recognized his own plumes and took them
away. So do the other birds;
–– Hermes is added as messenger of Zeus;
–– river and lakes are added;
–– title and epimythium are added.
32 An Eagle died because of a fully-fledged Arrow.
–– the fable is simplified: the hares hunted by the eagle are omitted (in this
way, the fable is closer to the indirect tradition (Aeschylus, fr. 139 Radt
= 12F1 VD));41
–– the fable is abbreviated: an epimythium is omitted. réplique finale instead.

.  Later abbreviation closer to oldest version.

.  In itself an elaboration of fab. aes. 87 Hausrath (Aes. 85).
.  Likewise Syr. 82 Lefèvre.
.  For this fable and the numerous allusions to it, see the present author’s ‘Intertextualiteit
in de Griekse literatuur. De functie van een fabel van Aeschylus tot Eustathius’, Kleio 22 (1993),
pp. 141–157.
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

33 A Fisherman could not catch Fish by playing a flute, so he took a net and
caught them.
–– there is an inversion: the protagonist is a flute-playing fisherman instead
of a fishing flute-player;
–– there is a simplification: the action finale and réplique finale are omitted:
the fish are simply caught, they do not flounder;
–– there is a new promythium and epimythium: use your crafts appropri-
ately (fish are caught with a net, not with a flute) instead of: relax only
after your work (Babr., if authentic) or everything in due time (fab. aes.,
Syr., cf. Hdt. 1.141).
34 A Lion remarked that if lions could make works of art, they would depict
lions beating Men (instead of vice versa).
–– the artist is added: γλύϑoνoίς (sculptors);
–– title and epimythium.
36 An Oak boasted on its strength but was eradicated in a storm, whereas the
tiny little Reed survived by bowing.
–– an indirect speech of the oak is added (admiring itself, denigrating reed).42

Finally, seven fables do not contain any variations concerning content, they are
just new versions of older fables (stylistically adapted to the standard format).

7 A Lion fell in love with the Daughter of a shrewd man.

indirect tradition (D.S. 19.25.5–6 = 38F1 VD).43
–– remarkably enough: promythium differs from epimythium (don’t
indulge in pleasures; don’t listen to enemies).
11 A Young Crab walked like his Mother.
–– only stylistic changes: the young crab asks a rhetorical question of his
mother, instead of being reproached by her.
–– promythium added (don’t advise the impossible).

.  There are variations in other comparable fables (Babr. 36, Avian. 16, Par. Bodl.
101 Chambry: the uprooted oak drifts in a river, where he meets the reed (+ hedera Tetr. 1.45)
dialogues; the oak is replaced with trees (fab. aes. Hausrath (I) (uprooted from start) or olive
tree: ibid. (II/III (Vindobonensis/Accursiana)) (indirect speech trees added).
.  Van Dijk, Αἶνοι, Λόγοι, Μῦϑοι. fab. aes. 145 Hausrath: the Father is specified as Farmer,
the lion is not killed; Babr. 98: the Father is specified as an Old Man, there is direct speech by
the Old Man, unspecified characters are added: Par. Bodl. 199 Chambry; Dod. 199 Chambry:
Father specified as Old Man, a réplique finale by the Old Man is added; Syr. 36: the Mother is
added, the Lion is not physically maltreated.
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

–– an epimythium – telling others to do what you cannot do yourself is easy

– is added (put in conformity with the rest), as in the later fables, if with
different emphasis.44
16 Three Bulls were together too strong for a Lion, but separated they were an
easy prey
–– a promythium is added.
there are slight variations, notably in the number of bulls, in other fables.45
21 Streitgedicht among plants (Olive tree and Fig tree).
–– the olive tree boasted of having flowers all year long, whereas the fig tree
has flowers along with the seasons; but after snow-fall the olive tree looks
miserable, whereas the fig tree is beautiful.
25 A Crane picked a bone out of the Wolf’s throat. When asking for a wage, the
wolf said he still had his beak intact and was alive.
–– the réplique finale is in indirect speech instead of in direct speech.
–– An epimythium is added.
29 The famous fable of the Raven and the Fox (meat instead of cheese) only has
slight variations: the fox uses other arguments (colour); the tree is not explic-
itly mentioned.
35 A Dog with a piece of Meat saw another dog with a yet bigger piece of meat
in the river he was passing by. He loses all. In some fables the dog crosses the
river.
[spurious epimythium]
37 A He-goat devastated a Wineplant, which warned him that he will give the
wine at his sacrifice.
likewise in later versions46 and in the indirect tradition.47
–– only stylistic: one metaphor is added (the vine has “long hair”<consisting>
of grapes).
–– a title is added.

.  Par. Bodl. 152 Chambry (metaphor of fable continued: “walk straight yourself before
­telling others to”); Tetr. 1.34 (if authentic; “do what you advise others to”).
.  Two Bulls, and a Fox is added: Them. Or. 22, 278d–279a; Four Bulls, réplique finale by
one bull added: Avian. 18; Two Bulls, there is (in)direct speech by the Lion: Syr. XVI Lefèvre,
ibid. 18; Synt. 13.
.  Par. Bodl. 339 Chambry; see the synopsis.
.  Leonidas 32 Gow-Page, AP 9.99 (26F1 VD), Euenus 3 Gow-Page, AP 9.75 (on a fres-
co in Pompeii), Suetonius Dom. 14, Suda a 4177 Adler, Tzetzes in Ar. Pl. 1129; cf. Martialis
3.24.1–2, 13.39; Ovid, Fasti 1.353–360 adds a typical anonymous survenant (aliquis; the term
is ­Nojgaard’s).
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

–– the epimythium Par. is changed: you meet what you do instead of against
the ungrateful and covetous.

4. Contaminations

Three new fables seem to combine two or more older ones, and might be called
“contaminations“

5 A solitary goat had his horn broken by the goatherd

contamination of Babrius and three tetrastich versions:
like the tetrastichs:
–– the place of the goat (ravine) is not specified;
–– the precise activity of the goat (eating) is not specified;
–– the direct speech by the goatherd is indirectly summarized (directly in
Tetr.);
–– a promythium (Phaedr.) and an epimythium are added. like Babr.
–– The horn is broken with a stone instead of with a staff;
–– There is a trace of “demythologization”: Pan by whom the goatherd
swears is omitted but converted into whistling on his syrinx: flute made
from reed into which the nymph Syrinx was metamorphosed when pur-
sued by Pan.
19 A Jackdaw tried in vain to imitate an Eagle in lifting up a Ram.
–– the réplique finale is omitted;48
–– the jackdaw’s vanity is yet more exaggerated: in itself, imitating an eagle
by trying to lift a ram instead of a lamb is already ridiculous, but Aph-
thonius heightens the comic effect by saying that the jackdaw selects “the
hugest ram” (τ�ν κρι�ν...τὸν μέγιστoν);
contamination:
like Babr.:
–– the eagle’s “basis” (high rock) is omitted;
like fab. aes. (and Tetr.):
–– the eaglets are not mentioned;
–– the jackdaw tries to catch a ram instead of a lamb.

.  Whether spoken by the shepherd (fab. aes. 2 Hausrath), the jackdaw himself (Babr. 137),
or the shepherd’s child (Tetr. 1.55); likewise in a later version, where the shepherd kills the
poor jackdaw (Syr. IX Lefèvre, ibid. 11; Synt. 9).
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

38 A Farmer devastated his Neigbour’s land by means of a Fox with a burning

tail49
–– there is another motive: the man sets the fox’s tail on fire because he
wants to harm his neighbour’s fields instead of the poor animal;
–– < contamination50 of the fable and an historical episode in LXX,
Ju. ­15.4–5, where Samson devastates the crops of the enemies by send-
ing 300 foxes with lit lamps attached to their tails: the intention from the
LXX, the result (his own field is burnt) from the fable;
–– other means are used: δαλoν instead of τοω (λινoν);
–– the fable is “demythologized”: Demeter is absent;
–– a promythium (title) is added;
–– the epimythium is specified: not in general but focuses on neighbour..

5. Simplifications

Other51 Aphthonius fables simplify older ones:

8 A Fox understood the hunting method of the old lion in his cave; the fable
is old, witness an allusion in the indirect tradition (Plato Alcibiades I 123a =
49A1 VD).
simplified: the dialogue (in all other versions) between the Fox and the Lion
is omitted (the Fox simply does not enter the Lion’s cave);
12 Two Cocks in one house are rivals: the one is victorious on the roof, the other
hides under the bed;
–– the action finale is omitted: the loser has all hens to himself after the win-
ner has been taken away by an eagle (ad usum delphini?);
–– the fable is simplified (as in all other comparable fables): they are just
cocks, not cocks from Tanagra;
–– the wounds are omitted (ad usum delphini?);
–– there is a different hiding place: under the bed instead of in a corner of
the house52.

.  Indirect tradition (Ovid, Fasti 4.701–708).

.  Cf. Rodríguez Adrados – Van Dijk, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3, p. 311: “fabu-
lización” (without mentioning the difference in motive).
.  Two fables containing simplifications have already been discussed above: 1 and 33 (q.v.).
.  Variations in other fables (Tetr. 2.19: the hiding place is omitted); a direct speech by the
winner. Dod. 20 Chambry.
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

13 A Stork is caught amidst the Cranes.

~ like Babr. 13, fab. aes. 208 Hausrath (a fowler instead of the farmer; the
words of the stork are in indirect speech)53;
22 The Wolves persuaded the sheep that their watchdogs impede peace; the
sheep are eaten when the dogs are .
~ fab. aes. 158 Hausrath, and the indirect tradition (Vita Aesopi)
(perhaps Aphthonius is closer to the older indirect tradition (Demosthenes,
fr. 13 Baiter-Sauppe, apud Aristobulum, FGH 139F3, apud Plutarchum, Dem-
osthenes 23.5);
–– one character is omitted: the envoys of the wolves are omitted;
–– stylistically: there is direct speech instead of indirect speech by the
wolves.54
–– the concluding dialogue between the stork and the farmer is omitted;
2355 A Stag was proud of his horns, but ashamed of its tiny legs;
–– the réplique finale of the stag is omitted;
likewise Par. Bodl. 103(b) Chambry (but the hunters are put into the sin-
gular form), Tetr. 1.14 (but lion instead of hunters);
24 A Frog boasted about being a doctor, but a Fox said “how about your own
facial colour?”
~ Babr. 120, Par. Bodl. 69 Chambry, Avian. 6;
the fable is simplified:
–– the kenning (enigmatic circumscription) of the frog is omitted (the defi-
nite article may be a remainder);
–– “demythologized”: mythological references are omitted (Παι�ν Babr.,
Παιάν Par. Bodl., Paeonio Avian.; Ὂλυμπoν Babr.);
clarified:
–– a concluding statement is added.
later fables:
fab. aes. 287 Hausrath = Accursiana;
–– changes the protagonist (the Frog) into a Worm;
Par. Bodl. 69 Chambry, Dod. ibid.

.  Cf. Par. Bodl. 285 Chambry, Dod. ibid. (geese are added).
.  There are more variations in other fables: an old ram prevents the extradition of the
sheep in Babr. 93, Par. Bodl. 219 Chambry; in Rom. 63 Thiele an introductory war is added,
rams are added, and the young wolves are suckled by sheep.
.  Other variations: Phaedr. 1.12 (adding dogs; likewise Dos. 1), fab. aes. 76 Hausrath (a lion
instead of hunters; likewise Tetr. 2.11), Par. Bodl. 103(a) Chambry (the hunters are put into
the singular form).
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

3956 A crying Child was threatened by the Wolf, which heard this and waited an
entire night. But the child went to sleep and the wolf was cheated of his hope.
–– The réplique finale is omitted (the wolf goes away without comment).57
–– There is a different emphasis in the epimythium: it focuses on the wolf
instead of on men (empty hope instead of “never trust a woman”58 or
“against men who don’t do what they say”).59

6. Conclusions

In conclusion one might briefly say that the minor Greek prose collection by Aph-
thonius is interesting in spite of its brevity. There are some entirely new fables
(2, 4, 6, 20, 27, 40), whereas others (1, 3, 9–10, 13, 15, 17, 23, 26, 28, 30–33; 7, 11,
16, 23, 25, 29, 35, 37) present variations of older fables. We might distinguish sim-
plifications (1, 8, 12–13, 22–24, 28, 30, 32, 39), contaminations (8, 12, 13, 22–24,
39), inversions (17, 20, 33), fabulizations (creating fables out of stories; Praefatio,
27), and demythologizations (5, 24, 28, 38).
The collection was destined for school practice. Hence the ubiquitous use of
promythiums and epimythiums, as well as the brevity of the fables.
The fable collection is preceded by a short theoretical introduction, which is
important because of its subdivision of fables in terms of their characters.
The main source is the collection by Babrius.
And last, not least, collection perfectly corresponds with his preceding theo-
retical passage.
In the end we give a synopsis by way of epimythium.

Synopsis

Abbreviations:
Aphth. = Aphthonius (Hausrath, A., Haas, H. and Hunger, H. (eds.), Corpus
Fabularum Aesopicarum (I: Fabulae Aesopicae soluta oratione conscriptae, 2 vols.
(Leipzig: Teubner 1959–1970))

.  This version has a variation: the wolf does not go away because nothing happens but
because the old woman comforts the child by saying “we’ll kill the wolf if he comes”.
.  Monologue in fab. aes., Dod.; there is a dialogue with his wife in Babr., Avian., Par. Bodl.
.  Like Babr., Par. Bodl., Avian.
.  As in fab. aes., Dod.
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

Aes. = Perry (n. 7 above)

As. = Tabulae ceratae Assendelftianae (Hesseling, D.C., “On Waxen Tablets
with Fables of Babrius (Tabulae Ceratae Assendelftianae)”, Journal of Hellenic
Studies 13 (1892/1893), pp. 293–314 (plates XIII–XIX);)
Av. = Avianus (Gaide, F., Avianus, Fables, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1980 (Budé))
Babr. = Babr. (Eds. Luzzatto, M.J. – La Penna, A., Babrii mythiambi Aesopei,
(Leipzig: Teubner 1986))
Br. = rhetor Brancatianus (ed. Sbordone, F., “Recencioni rettoriche delle favole
esopiane”, (Rivista Indo-Greco-Italica 16 (1932), pp. 141–174)
da. = dactylic fables (ed. Crusius; see above)
Dod. = dodecasyllabic fables (ed. Chambry, E., Aesopi fabulae, 2 vols. (Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1925–1926 (Budé))
Dos. = Pseudo-Dositheus (ed. Hausrath ex Goetz, G., Corpus Glossariorum Lati-
norum , III, Leipzig: Teubner, 1892)
fab. = fabulae aesopicae (ed. Hausrath; see above)
Li. = Libanius (ed. Hausrath; see above)
Ni. = Nicolaus (ed. Hausrath; see above)
Ph. = Phaedrus (A. = Appendix Perrottiana) RAVD = see n. 9 above
Rom. = Romulus (ed. Thiele, G., Der Lateinische Äsop des Romulus und die
­Prosa-Fassungen des Phädrus (Heidelberg: Winter, 1910; repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
1985)
Synt. = Syntipas (ed. Hausrath; see above)
Syr. = Syriac fables (ed. Lefèvre, D., Une version Syriaque des fables d’Ésope
conservée dans huit manuscrits (Paris : Firmin Didot 1941)
Tetr. = tetrastichs (ed. Van Dijk, J.G.M.), (Ignatius Diaconus. Fabelkwatrijnen.
Byzantijnse Tetrasticha. Groningen: Styx 2000) 60

Aphth.60 Aes. fab. Babr. Par. Dos.+ Ph. Av. Rom. Syr. Synt. Dod. Tetr.
 1 373 140 336 Br. 1 34 93 XL 43 336 1.6
40
 2 399 = 277
 3 396  73
 4 397

.  RAVD 1: H. 114; 2: H. 277; 3: not-H. 125; 4: not-H 127; 5: not-H. 8; 6: H. 274; 7: H. 145;
8: H. 147; 9: H. 198; 10: H. 199; 11: H. 211; 12: H. 266; 13: not-H. 128; 14: H. 208; 15: H. 119; 16:
not-H. 183; 17: H. 275; 18: H. 76; 19: H. 2; 20: not-H. 21; 21: H. 158; 22: not-H. 94; 23: H. 143;
24: H. 287; 25: H. 161; 26: not-H. 210; 27: H. 207; 28: not-H. 88; 29: H. 126; 30: H. 189; 31: H.
103; 32: H. 273; 33: H. 11; 34: H. 264; 35: H. 136; 36: H. 71; 37: not-H. 295; 38: not-H. 66; 39:
H. 163: 40: not-H. 140.
 The rhetorical fable collection of Aphthonius and the relation between theory and practice 

Aphth.60 Aes. fab. Babr. Par. Dos.+ Ph. Av. Rom. Syr. Synt. Dod. Tetr.
 5 280  3 15 A.24 15 1.35
2.26
 6 393 = 274 LX 41
67
 7 140 145 98 199 36 199
 8 142 147 103 197 6 86 XXXVII 197 2.2
As. 1 63 37
Ni. 1
 9 187 198 122 282 da. 12 52 282 1.21
10 188 199 139 280 As. 11 5 1.19
Ni. 2
11 322 109 152 3 1.34
12 281 266 5 20 VII 7 20 2.19
9 2.23
13 318 29 139 Ni. 3 139
~549 ~A.21
14 194 208 13 285 285 1.2
15 117 119 147 8 73 59 147 1.13
XLIII
16 372 44 71 18 XVI 13 1.11
18
17 351 275 238 Ni. 4 238
18  74 76 43 103 1 1.12 57 XVII 15 1.14
19 2.11
19  2 2 137 5 As. 2 IX 9 1.55
Br. 2 11
20 394
21 153 158 93 219 Ni. 5 63
22 413(a) Ni. 6 XXXIV 31 39
39
23 138 143 25 192 Ni.10 35 192 1.44
24 289 287 120 69 Ni. 7 6 69 2.29
25 156 161 94 225 Br. 7 1.8 11 225 1.30
26 108 245 16 15 245
da. 10
27 400
28 395
29 124 126 77 61? 9 1.13 19 1.15
Br. 8
Ni. 8
30 ~85 189 82 ~87
31 101 103 72 125 Li.1.3 ~1.3 ~45
32 276 273 7
33 11(a) 11 9 35
 Gert-Jan van Dijk

Aphth.60 Aes. fab. Babr. Par. Dos.+ Ph. Av. Rom. Syr. Synt. Dod. Tetr.
34 284 264 (fr. 21) 59 15 24 91 LIX 59 1.1
59
35 133 136 79 186 11 1.4 6 XXXI 1.9
Br. 4 33 28
36 70 71 36 101 16 1.45
239
37 374 339 339 1.7
38 283 11 58
39 158 163 16 224 da. 1 1 224
40 398

Author’s address
Lombardje 26
5211 HM ’s-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands

gertjanvandijk@hotmail.com