Talk:The Ant and the Grasshopper

Fair use rationale for Image:Sillysymphony-grasshopper ant.jpg

Image:Sillysymphony-grasshopper ant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comic strip citation

The article says, "The 5 November 2006 episode of Jong-Cherl Yeon's comic-book format diary, Marineblues, featured an alternate version of this fable..." Trying to find references for this I turned up no Google hits for the name 'Jong-Cherl Yeon'. There's a cartoon called Marineblues at [1], and I guess that's it, but the author information is in Korean. Can anyone Korean-readers take a look and update the article with a better transliteration of the author's name, and perhaps a link to the strip this article references? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article Needs further research

The story was also known in the "far east," the term for East Asia in ancient times, however in east asia, it was a spiritual allegory as to the uselessness of materialism. Although atributed to Aesop, the story's likely origin is from somewhere in India or China. I need to point out, ancient Greek society, while it had myths pertaining to nature, it was not as "nature heavy" as Daoist fairy tales. Please do more research; you may end up finding an older version.

67.148.120.113 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

A "Counter" Fairy Tale

Here is my reason for pointing out, that the "Ant and the Grasshoper" is not about material gain, but rather, about spiritual. This story is familiar to anime fans; it can be heard in the anime movie "Vampire Hunter D; Bloodlust." Here goes;

Once upon a time there was a hard working squirrel, that gathered and gathered nuts, and took the nuts to its tree to prepare for winter. The squirrel was finished with its job when chance came, it spied on a delectable nut, and sought to grab it, but then, an owl swooped down and snatched the squirrel. The squirrel said "what a shame; what is going to happen to all that good food."

The moral of the story, is that a person may be a hardworker BUT, we are all at the mercy of greater powers, in the fable's case the "greater power" was the owl. In our case, our wealth (if we have it) could be taken away by an earthquake, a huricane, political upheaval, one minute a man can be a king among men, the next, a "homeless bum."

If you think of the story in materialistic terms, it can be "counter attacked" by the squirrel and the owl fairy tale, however if you think of it in spiritual terms, then, The Ant and the Grasshoper is unassailable. Winter, represents death, the ants work, represents spiritual cultivation. I have good reason to think this because the grasshoper can only be lazy if it has a good reason to be; namely the apparent wealth of the grassy fields. However the ant warns him "you're a fool."

It is a spiritual allegory, concerning those who do not acknowledge the spiritual things, and those who spend their time in wasteful, pointless hedonism. The ant, allegorically a spiritual person, needs not fear winter, namely death, because of his work, the grasshoper on the other hand has much to fear from "winter." I must point out these fables are ancient, going back, likely to "superstitious" times when spiritual matters dominated people's thoughts. If the Ant and the Grasshoper is indeed originally an Indian fairy tale, all the more reason to think it is in fact a spiritual story, urging people to cultivate themselves spiritually, cultivation, to prepare for "winter." Whether you choose to work or not, does not stop the fact that winter DOES come, for everyone.

Again though it depends how you view it; inevitably the western world gives it a materialistic interpretation while the eastern one, at least the ancient eastern one, likely gave it a spiritual interpretation. Spiritually speaking it could be said that the sincerely pious are the Ant, while people who go clubbing, drinking, gambling, movie watching, video game playing  ;-), hey even gaming is hedonism, "hedonism" does not have to mean drug use and womanizing, the point I'm trying to make is that all such types, represent the grasshoper. You spend your time playing video games if you're not wealthy enough for parties and women, or you spend your time in parties and women, or parties and men if you're a woman, where will you be when winter comes?

Its a powerful story, if you think of it in spiritual matters. Even Solomon said "learn from the ant, thou sluggard." Considering that Solomon was an ancient King, did Solomon refer to material or spiritual things I wonder? It was said of Solomon, that he was a learned man; it is very probably, he was familiar with the fairy tale, and that proverb of Solomon was a direct reference to the story. When Solomon said "learn from the ant," likely he was refering to spiritual cultivation. The western world inevitably applies material meaning to all things, it never acknowledges the soul. Talk of the soul, also, in the west, is generally misguided by centuries of dogma centered more around brain washing and thought control, rather than genuine spiritual growth. Does the idea of a God that does not share power, make sense? What I mean is, the idea of "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" seriously what kind of an egomaniac, demands worship? Having the whole universe to rule what does he want with worshipers on this tiny spec of cosmic dust we call a planet? Very little of it makes sense; due to such misguided views, millions live in ignorance.

Very ancient wisdom though, has its merits, and they can not be corrupted.

I'm tired though; I better go to bed. I violated Wikipedia's rules against my better judgement.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Popular Culture

I have recycled as many items as possible from the section originally called "Popular Culture" in new sections which now give them context and significance. I don't know enough about the rest to be sure what significance they have, although I have deleted two items where not enough information is given to form any judgement. The section is now retitled "Modern Allusions" (since many aspects of popular culture have been discussed in earlier sections) and needs sorting by a more knowledgeable editor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Story as a representation for libertarian ideals.

Noticed the line beneath the main intro to this section alluded to the story having something to do with Libertarian ideals. Removed after checking the citation for this statement. Website was not citing any specific texts on this matter and states on its front page: "Welcome to revolution, one person's view of ideas that can change our world for the better. Revolution was started in 1995 as a guide to libertarian ideas and is always a work in progress." The statement given appears to be a matter of personal opinion and therefore no place in this article. I've been seeing a lot of political assertions in non political articles. Someone needs to pay close attention to these as they are tricky to catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.63.179 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Jacob-The Ant and the Grasshopper.normal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Lawrence Jacob-The Ant and the Grasshopper.normal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the Grasshopper on the Ant Lifestyle

In the excellent Disney cartoon, hiring the Grasshopper really brightens things up for the Ants. The drab tunnels become a Grand Ballroom, and the Ants, from the Queen to the lowliest worker, all dance happily to the lively fiddle music. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternaative tradition of Ant relavence?

The "alternative tradition" whereby the ant is a theif is not relevant to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.95.62 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aesop or La Fontaine?

Is this article, as stated in the lead, supposed to be Aesop only, or as in the La Fontaine section with its extensive list, about all instances and variations of the Ant and Grasshopper theme? Either is possible - we could insist that this is one in the Aesop's F. series, or that this is a broader subject, but right now it's a mess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead said no such thing. The supposed ambiguity has been removed by a small adjustment of the century when alternative versions began. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please! It plainly does. "The Ant and the Grasshopper, also known as The Grasshopper and the Ant (or Ants), is one of Aesop's Fables" (my emphasis). The lead goes on to say it has been adapted, etc. That directly makes the article about the Aesop fable, with variations around, etc. Since you seem to wish to keep the La Fontaine material, which is extensive, this emphasis does need to be shifted. I'll redraft the lead as slightly as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What you implied (that the article is "only" about the Aesop fable) and what the lead actually said are two different things! An 'Aesop's fable' is modified every time it is retold, especially in other languages. The fables have been ascribed to Aesop but there is no original document, and sometimes there are major variations even in the earliest Classical texts. That's a point made countless times in articles dealing with many others of 'his' fables.

Thanks for trying to keep changes to a minimum. I've streamlined the wording and made changes where the statements were questionable. "The Ant and the Grasshopper" was never the name of Aesop's fable, which was in Greek of course. And, as mentioned elsewhere in the article, the second insect is usually a cicada. Furthermore, the ironical La Fontaine seldom makes an outright criticism but proceeds by delicate innuendo. What he actually says is that the ant has a tiny failing ('son moindre défaut') and leaves it to his Christian readers to make judgement. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement "In turn, La Fontaine's version was set to music by French composers including Jacques Offenbach and Charles Gounod." is derived directly from the (very long) text about La Fontaine and the resulting music; if you think it is unsupported, then the article text definitely needs amending: you can't have it both ways. But I'll leave you to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Amateur story-telling = OR

Dear Saddad, Since you have a literary focus, I ought not to have to point out to you that adding material unsanctioned by an original text counts as OR. I italicize the redundant words in your suggested revision that come from your personal reconstruction of the fable: "grasshopper carelessly enjoying a warm summer, not preparing for the impending cold winter, while an ant works tirelessly to prepare for winter." The Greek original starts in the actual winter with the grasshopper begging from the ant and that is where all comment should begin. I hope you'll appreciate where I'm coming from now.

It was not a good idea to delete my new online direction to the text, rather than to a printed edition that few have by them to check. And since I also added that my later revision included putting right faulty grammar, you should not have reverted wholesale. I think you are not crediting me with good faith and are turning this into a contest. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: There are a number of problems with the assumptions that come with you revisions:

1. its a fable, and has taken on a narrative of its own as its been shared across the cultu: the summary of how the story is experienced across all tellings, is more important in the lead, than the "sanctioned" version. Authority does not lie in original texts: but rather in their cultural legacy
2. Descriptive redundancy of language is good in these cases, because it emphasizes the framework of the moral of the story.
3. You talk about authority, but point to a version with no editorial control, and no clear authority (the website doesn't document permission for taking the translations, nor does it have very clear sourcing: its a clearly commercial site promoting sales of books via Amazon). The textual work, on the other hand, is coming with the authority of OUP's editorial standards . Thats not to say the mythfolklore link shouldn't be in the external links, but it most certainly should not be a citation.

I am going to revert your change: please move disagreements to the articles' talk page, so that its not just a two person conversation, Sadads (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have waited to reply until I had time to check versions in various languages to see if Sadads' contention in point 1 above is correct. It is not. Greek, Latin, Caxton's late mediaeval English, Croxall in the principal 18th century retelling, Townsend in his newly translated 19th century version, all start the story in the winter. La Fontaine begins "The cicada, having sung all summer, found herself in want when the winter breeze arrived", also shifting attention immediately to the cold season. The only version I have found beginning in the summer is the notoriously unreliable Joseph Jacobs, who retells the story with a large amount of unnecessary detail. However, the point of a fable is that it tells a story briefly in order to make an immediate point.

I ask those interested to take a look at the talk page for Aesop's Fables, where I and a co-editor drew up guidelines for articles on these at a time some years ago when we were revising and adding to coverage of the fables. One of them includes looking at variations (of telling and intrepretation) over the course of the article. The lead, however, is the place to give a bare outline of the commonest form of the fable and that is the reason why I am reverting the misleading revision that does not reflect the commonest story-line. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The thieving ant

Because the fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper is well known, it has attracted a good deal of comment on its possible interpretations on this talk page. An earlier unsigned comment in 24 January 2013 questioned the relevance of the counter-fable of the thieving ant. Techhead7890 recently added a template also questioning its inclusion and asking for discussion - without the courtesy of starting such a discussion (him)self. I have therefore reversed that change and am starting the discussion here.

Techhead7890 cites WP:UNDUE as his authority for a proposed high-handed removal of the paragraph altogether "in 24h if no counterreason is given". I seem to remember a WP guideline that suggests considerably longer than that to allow reasonable discussion. But in any case, WP:UNDUE is not applicable in this case since it refers to relatively recent interpretations of a subject whereas the paragraph is comparing two ancient texts attributed to the same author. One also wonders whether the editor bothered to read the lead, where the counter-fable is cited and given a context that justifies its mention.

I have slightly rewritten the later paragraph in order to make it clearer. The point turns, not on the "immutable personality" of the editor's attempted revision, but on the different reading of the ant's behaviour given in ancient texts. The tradition of its diligence has been strengthened by ancient Christian intervention, but long before that there was a different interpretation which was later recorded by such impeccably Christian writers and collectors of fables as Gabriele Faerno and Roger L'Estrange, who are cited in the relevant paragraph.

A single paragraph in a very long article which goes on to discuss several later reinterpretations of the story of The Ant and the Grasshopper is not at all excessive. The model on which all fable articles have been based are discussed under the heading "General guidelines..." at Talk:Aesop's Fables and the development of often conflicting interpretations is mentioned there as a valid subject within such articles. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ant and the Grasshopper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420172650/http://www.warroom.com/antgh.php to http://www.warroom.com/antgh.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian Folklore

Should the Russian folklore variant based on Krylov's poem be mentioned? It has numerous variations (as both a joke and a poem). There, the Grasshopper (a female) is a high society girl who survives perfectly well throughout the year. When the Ant, who, despite all his efforts, is still a peasant in ragged clothes, sees her in the winter (after two previous meetings in the summer and autumn), going about her business, and learns that she is going to a club to socialize with famous authors, he says: "if you see Krylov there, tell him he's a (add insult about intellect or honesty)". Omeganian (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Krylov's poem was a close version of La Fontaine's French. A later adaptation involving a joke at Krylov's expense does not merit a section of its own, it would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was talking not about a separate section, but a mention in the Moral and artistic debate part, but if you say so... Omeganian (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It struck me that the debate section might be the best place to include mention of some of the later Russian interpretations. What put me off was your use of the word "folklore", which was inappropriate. What would be interesting is not that these readings are 'Russian' but that they provide a new (political) slant in the ongoing debate over the fable's moral. In order to avoid WP:OR, proper references would be needed that acknowledge this fact, rather than appeal to the texts themselves. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Christ

Saw a mention of this, seems related.Omeganian (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not related, apparently; it refers to the actual insect dried and powdered into the flour. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I see absolutely no indication it's the same thing. In fact, it seems obvious it isn't; the name refers to a single loaf among many, nor a recipe. Seems to be a cicada in the Russian translation, too (can't check the original).Omeganian (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, have it your own way, but a good deal more would be needed by way of trustworthy sources to establish a connection with the fable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)