![]() | The Scorpion and the Frog was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 1, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This fable — or rather an earlier version of it, concerning a scorpion and a turtle — is to be found in the Baharistan (or Beharistan) of Jami (1414-1492). Whether or not it is original to that work, I don't know. Though often ascribed to Aesop (as indicated in the article), it is not in any edition of his fables that I have consulted.
Max Kappa 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The curator of an online Aesop collection says this story isn't in Aesop:
http://mythfolklore.net/3043mythfolklore/reading/aesop/pages/15.htm
I'll change 'attributed' to 'often mis-attributed'.
BillMcGonigle
13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A similar story appears in the Tractate Nedarim, a Talmudic treatise dating from about A.D. 200 or earlier:
The earliest appearance known to me of the scorpion-and-frog fable that is the subject of this article is in the film Mr Arkadin (1955), written and directed by Orson Welles and based on a novel that bears Welles's name but which in later years he denied having written and claimed never to have read. (It includes the fable, and was published in 1955, about the time of the film's release.) When asked by Peter Bogdanovich what the origin of the fable was, he answered: "Who knows? I heard it from an Arab."†
It seems probable that the scorpion-and-turtle fable mentioned above by my friend Max Kappa has at sometime been conflated with the Talmudic story.
* A Talmudic Miscellany (1880, compiled and translated by Paul Isaac Hershon), p. 12. Samuel is quoting Psalm 119: 91.
† This Is Orson Welles (1992, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum), p. 232.
alderbourne 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about Black Scorpion (which the author misnamed The Scorpion) has nothing to do with the topic. I'm cutting it. JDspeeder1 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this fable appears in the book The Game. -- 64.91.108.162 ( talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also seen a variation of this in the online RPG PlaneShift, called "Serpent and Eagle". The only variation (other than character changes) is that they fall instead of drowning. EricLarge ( talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"In television" got to similar entries about Weeds season 2: make a choice or merge, please. Lacrymocéphale 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The setting is the Jordan River.
When the frog asks the scorpion why he stung him, causing both of them to drown, the scorpion replies: "This is the Middle East."
Notapussycat ( talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The image used in the article is a pretty poor "photoshop", putting the images of the scorpion and the frog next to each other as if the church door was referencing the story.
I suspect the story has been told and illustrated in old (PD) children's litterature. Isn't there any other image we could use? Personally, I think even separate images of a scorpion and a frog would be better than the current one. – Caesar ( talk) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is a substantial objection, I am going to sharply prune the pop culture section, and add a note in the code cautioning against bloat. Shajure ( talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Recreating the section with a bogus name is still not encyclopedic. While it is certainly true that this multi-cultural tale is mentioned in many moves, TV shows, songs, children's books... that does not have anything to do with an encylopedia article. If there is *truly* a need for a list of uses of this general tale, perhaps an article "list of modern uses of xxxx" might be needed. User talk:Unfriend12 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This section was recreated, but, again, these are junk magnets... we could list hundreds or even thousands... this is a popular, ancient story. Shajure ( talk) 14:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked it up solely for pop culture references only to find the information USED TO BE AVAILABLE and has been removed. This is information that people want and you're keeping it from them for the brevity of an article online. And online space isn't exactly running put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrhG ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I added a Popular culture section because, before reading the above Talk, it seemed to be a section that was conspicuously missing - popular culture is mentioned in the opening sentences, yet there is nothing about it in the Article. This is not consistent. If there are "many references", what are they? Whilst I appreciate the arguments for brevity and avoiding trivia, citing a few example seems perfectly logical, of interest and worthy of inclusion (and clearly others are in agreement). However, I will refrain from recreating the section for the time being. What do others think? Manbooferie ( talk) 07:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a small article and seems adequately sourced. Do we still need the article flag? If no one objects, I expect to drop the tag in a few days or when I next notice it. Shajure ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed this bit:
Because the Angelfire page is the only "real" source. But it doesn't have a date, not even a Last-Modified header (earliest Archive.org capture is March 2002), but without a reference, the author might as well have made it up.
The vast majority of the results for the Google search source (isn't there some WP policy against that?) almost literally echo back what this WP article says, and if you filter those out, the rest are copies of or references to the Angelfire webpage.
It piqued my curiosity because the alternative ending changes the meaning of the whole fable. In fact, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Of course if anyone has a proper source for this alternative ending, by all means put it back.
Addition: I also just noticed that the Angelfire story is about a **Fox** and a Scorpion, instead of a Frog. Now it even makes less sense, in my eyes. - User talk:Max Ijzersteen - appears to be the author of the above. User talk:Unfriend12 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the image is a picture of a scorpion and a turtle? Maybe we could be a little more accurate.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:RM is for moves, not mergers so we can't help you unfortunately. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The Scorpion and the Frog →
The Frog and the Mouse – 1.It is a comparatively recent variation of an old fable theme. Its origin has been attributed to Aesop in Europe, to the Indian Panchatantra, and to West Africa, without any reliable evidence. 2. A tendentious attempt to suggest continuity of the story of the scorpion and the frog from past variants is lifted from a previous attempt to merge this article with
The Frog and the Mouse in which the very opposite is argued. 3. The article has acted in the past as a magnet for large amounts of trivia which have constantly had to be purged. The proposed merger would help quarantine it.
Mzilikazi1939 (
talk)
11:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A notice porposing a merge was posted on 4 June 2013. No response was received and the merge was carried out at the end of that month. This action was reversed without previous discussion in November 2013. The proposal to merge is therefore renewed here. The discussion should centre on why the unsatisfactory article here should be retained when there is already a section in The Frog and the Mouse which covers all the main (and verifiable) facts. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Unbelievable picture and story: http:// www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/ the-tale-of-the-weasel-and-woodpecker The Tale of the Weasel and the Woodpecker 82.171.6.217 ( talk) 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Lquilter's quotation from Malcolm was well spotted, and that from Goldsmith is interesting. I have changed it to something found nearer the start of his chapter, since it mentions an unoffending frog and mouse. The bit about it stinging itself to death was not so much about its "irascible nature" as about another common belief that a scorpion will commit suicide with its own sting.
If the intention of these additions is to undermine the finding of an academic study that there was no evidence for the story about the scorpion and the mouse before the 20th century, they come short of the mark. Malcolm merely provides a variation in a different story that is much older, while all the scorpion stories mentioned in the article are predicated on its natural characteristic. Even the oldest examples from Arab and Jewish sources only cite instances where divine intervention protects the ferrying creature. One wonders, therefore, how relevant the quotation from Goldsmith really is? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The section about being "misattributed" to Aesop seems to have disappeared. This attribution is so widespread ( http://www.aesopfables.com/aesop4.html) that I hope someone will put it back. 173.48.47.101 ( talk) 10:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
== Large addition of opinion ==
"Though the fable is recent, its outlook that certain natures cannot be reformed was common in ancient times, as in
Aesop's fable of
The Farmer and the Viper. Here the scorpion’s reply indicates that what is fundamentally vicious will not change."
This is a bunch of
wp:OR, and cited to a personal website, pretensiously using a journal citation. Unless there is support, I will promptly remove the whole thing, including the sideways reference.
"The Prisoner's Dilemma". The Ethical Spectacle. 1 (9). September 1995.
Shajure (
talk)
02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worthwhile listing all the references to this tale in movies and books. Firstly, it doesn't give much insight; and secondly, there are so many references that this list could get really long. Kurzon ( talk) 10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the earliest known publication of this fable is the 1944 book. However, consulting various collections of fables I noticed that "Frog and Scorpion" is mentioned in The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, with those of Avian, Alfonso and Poggio, now again edited and induced by Joseph Jacobs - see page 231. It's an obscure mention that references (Auguste) Wagener. Might be worth further investigation... Manbooferie ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Manbooferie and Sweetpool50: Hi guys, I'm revisiting this lead. Even if Joseph Jacobs was not a reputable scholar, we're only talking about a footnote in his book (which reads "Wagener-Weber, No. 9 [Frog and Scorpion]). I'm trying to figure what that means. What does "Wagener-Weber, No. 9" mean? Did Wagener and Weber collaborate on a compendium of fables? Kurzon ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked up Auguste Wagener, and he studied ancient Greece. Perhaps he came across the fable in Greek. Kurzon ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I found what the footnote was referring to: A page in Albrecht Weber's book Indische Studien. Apparently, it's about frogs and snakes, not scorpions. Jacobs made a mistake, it seems. Kurzon ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I reverted some of Sweetpool50's reversions, but since he did them in good faith, he deserves an explanation.
I removed the stuff about the Babylonian Talmud and the Arab Sufi thing, because they don't seem to have a connection to The Scorpion and the Frog. They certainly don't teach the same moral. Scorpions and frogs are common characters in fables. I suspect (and yes this is my conjecture) that The Scorpion and the Frog is a variation of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. Someone changed the Tortoise to a Frog perhaps to emphasize the self-destructive nature of the scorpion.
I think we should actually read what the existing references actually say, because they do not necessarily validate the text of the article. For instance, the website by Ashliman simply recounts The Scorpion and the Tortoise, and we don't need this reference because we can reference the Anvaar Soheili, which is the original appearance of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. In a more general sense, while we must not do original research and instead cite sources, we do have to decide what sources are worth citing. So just because something is "properly referenced", doesn't necessarily make it valid.
I took Sweetpool50's criticism's to heart and reduced some of my conjectures. Kurzon ( talk) 21:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Aesop bit, I want to add this line to the paragraph:
I think it's a salient point. A lot of people think this fable comes from Aesop, and they need to be told that it's only as a pseudonym and Aesop might in fact not have existed. That's something that should be said right here in the article because it's a key insight into this particular fable. It's not off-topic. Kurzon ( talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Mauro Lanari: I took a look at Hood's book, and he writes that "the story of the scorpion and the frog has been retold for thousands of years". That's incorrect. That doesn't make the reference invalid, of course, because his recounting of the fable is correct, but it does show that Hood is no scholar of literature. He's a psychologist. I think we should should favor scholars of literature (or at least people who know what they're talking about) whenever we can. Kurzon ( talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody asks? What was 'in the deal' for the frog? Or, is this just a story about a good, charming con-man, like the serpent was to Eve? 66.217.5.196 ( talk) 05:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sweetpool50, could you explain what capacity he's speaking in then? -- Fyrael ( talk) 16:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments
That's it for me. Primarily issues with "vicious" and the material in other related articles. On hold. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
An amazing coincidence, but I'm watching the second episode of the second season of After Life and the tale is retold there to Ricky Gervais in the graveyard. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: I fixed some flaws, didn't fix others for these reasons:
Kurzon ( talk) 10:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's my impression that the image at the head of the article has been lifted from a copyrighted source without permission, against all guidelines. It should be removed until its status is clarified. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 00:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
For one thing, the way the upper margin cuts off the plant suggests scanning from a larger picture. Kurzon, you loaded the image and have been on WP long enough to know that guidelines require you to present proof that it is free. I'll give you one week to provide a verifiable source and then will raise it with the curator of Wikimedia. I'm not the only one suspicious of the image; it was queried by the GA moderator. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, you acknowledge authorship and the metadata bears you out on GIMP. Now add a caption to the file. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I just bought a copy of Jura by Georgii Tushkan and the English translation The Hunter of the Pamirs. The scorpion and frog fable appears in the English translation but it does not appear in the Russian original. I can only speculate that the fable was inserted by the English translator — I won't offer this speculation in the article because it's too much original research, but simply mentioning that the fable doesn't appear in the original Russian should be fine. Since this is such an esoteric topic, I doubt I'll find a secondary source to cite on this particular fact. Kurzon ( talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
«Жил был скорпион. И понадобилось ему перебраться через топь. Плавать скорпионы, как известно, не умеют. Делать нечего, скорпион покликал лягушку: — Перевези. — Лягушка боится: «Да ведь ты меня ужалишь?» — Дура, зачем же я тебя жалить буду, ты потонешь, и я с тобой. — Лягушка поверила. Поплыли. Скорпион сидит, терпит. Уж так хочется ему лягушку ужалить, так хочется, так хочется . . . Однако ничего, терпит. Только начали к середине топи подбираться, не вытерпел скорпион. Ужалил. Лягушке, понятно, кюк. Однако и скорпиону каюк. Лягушка, помирая, все же успела спросить: «Зачем же ужалил? Сам ведь тонешь». И захлебываясь, ответил скорпион: — Ха-а... рактер такой. Алеша посмеялся. Сказал: — Ну разве же этакие потонут? Влад покрутил бородой: — Пожалуй, что понемногу и перетонут.
Google Translation:
“There was a scorpion. And he needed to cross the swamp. Scorpions do not know how to swim. There is nothing to do, the scorpion called out to the frog: - Move it. - The frog is afraid: “Why, you sting me?” - Fool, why am I going to sting you, you will drown, and I'm with you. - The frog believed. Sailed. Scorpio sits, suffers. He really wants to sting a frog, he wants it so much, he wants it so much. . . However, nothing suffers. Just started to approach the middle of the swamp, the scorpion could not bear it. Stung. A frog, of course, a kyuk. However, the scorpion kayuk. The frog, dying, nevertheless managed to ask: “Why did you sting? You’re drowning yourself. ” And choking, the scorpion answered: - Ha-ha ... such [is my] character. Alyosha laughed. Said, “Well, are they really going to drown?” Vlad twirled his beard: - Perhaps, that little by little they will also grind.
Kurzon ( talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Yes, rereading it now, it's actually a pretty complete retelling (if we forgive Google Translate's spotty translation). My faulty memory. I found this via Google Books. This is the earliest reference I could find. I have shared my findings with Areta Takeda, who AFAIK is the only scholar studying this fable's history. Maybe he'll write another paper and we'll have a new source to cite. Kurzon ( talk) 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Did Orson Welles speak Russian? Kurzon ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: In the course of my research I found tons of animal fables that had scorpion or frogs or both in them. Let's just stick to the ones that have a clear and strong connection. Kurzon ( talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It was I who added the stuff about Aesop. I felt it was necessary because a lot of people attribute this fable to Aesop, even though Aesop was not even a real person and this fable dates back to the early 20th century as far as I can tell. It's an understandable error because Aesop does have a few fables that teach a similar lesson. Your rabbinic tale, however, does not teach that moral (also, scorpions are arachnids, not insects).
The Scorpion and the Turtle is almost certainly a precursor to the fable. If the rabbinic tale is an earlier precursor, then why did someone change the scorpion to a turtle and then back again? I don't see the chain of evolution here. I don't think this article should list every old fable that has a passing resemblance to The Scorpion and the Frog, it should stick to a plausible chain of evolution.
Takeda's essay makes no mention of Genesis Rabbah. Kurzon ( talk) 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: I looked up Takeda's essay and the Jewish encyclopedia. Neither make a connection between that Genesis Rabbah tale and The Scorpion and the Frog. The Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't even have any scholarly critiques. Kurzon ( talk) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I should note, also, that as editors it is we who make the call as to whether some scholar's opinion is worth including. We're required to provide references to whatever we include, but we decide what to include or ignore. Kurzon ( talk) 14:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Who is Folklore Forum? Kurzon ( talk) 14:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I created the Aesop bit to clear the misconception that some have that this fable is by Aesop. I would like to mention that Aesop wasn't even a real person as far as historians can tell. Why do other people keep deleting this whenever I put it in? Kurzon ( talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
But it would directly address the misconception. Kurzon ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It is misleading to suggest this story originated in 1933. It originated centuries ago, and the latest iteration is from 1933. If you don't like how I phrased it, please re-phrase it instead of reverting it. Sincerely, Kingturtle = ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Scorpion and the Turtle only seems to be Persian because a Persian book is the earliest appearance I could find. It could have come from India. Kurzon ( talk) 15:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
For readers who are interested in a historical exegesis, there is an extended and detailed study by Arata Takeda, University of Tübingen, “Blumenreiche Handelswege. Ost-westliche Streifzüge auf den Spuren der Fabel Der Skorpion und der Frosch”, published in Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte in March, 2011, who finds that a fable called “The Scorpion and the Turtle” may have its origin in the ancient Sanskrit tradition collected in the Panchatantra – though it isn’t found in any documents prior to the 14th century. (Dr. Takeda intends to continue his search.) The fact is that, in the Persian texts found so far, the tale is never the same as “The Scorpion and the Frog”. Giancarlo Livrarghi, May 2011
![]() | The Scorpion and the Frog was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 1, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This fable — or rather an earlier version of it, concerning a scorpion and a turtle — is to be found in the Baharistan (or Beharistan) of Jami (1414-1492). Whether or not it is original to that work, I don't know. Though often ascribed to Aesop (as indicated in the article), it is not in any edition of his fables that I have consulted.
Max Kappa 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The curator of an online Aesop collection says this story isn't in Aesop:
http://mythfolklore.net/3043mythfolklore/reading/aesop/pages/15.htm
I'll change 'attributed' to 'often mis-attributed'.
BillMcGonigle
13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A similar story appears in the Tractate Nedarim, a Talmudic treatise dating from about A.D. 200 or earlier:
The earliest appearance known to me of the scorpion-and-frog fable that is the subject of this article is in the film Mr Arkadin (1955), written and directed by Orson Welles and based on a novel that bears Welles's name but which in later years he denied having written and claimed never to have read. (It includes the fable, and was published in 1955, about the time of the film's release.) When asked by Peter Bogdanovich what the origin of the fable was, he answered: "Who knows? I heard it from an Arab."†
It seems probable that the scorpion-and-turtle fable mentioned above by my friend Max Kappa has at sometime been conflated with the Talmudic story.
* A Talmudic Miscellany (1880, compiled and translated by Paul Isaac Hershon), p. 12. Samuel is quoting Psalm 119: 91.
† This Is Orson Welles (1992, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum), p. 232.
alderbourne 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about Black Scorpion (which the author misnamed The Scorpion) has nothing to do with the topic. I'm cutting it. JDspeeder1 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this fable appears in the book The Game. -- 64.91.108.162 ( talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also seen a variation of this in the online RPG PlaneShift, called "Serpent and Eagle". The only variation (other than character changes) is that they fall instead of drowning. EricLarge ( talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"In television" got to similar entries about Weeds season 2: make a choice or merge, please. Lacrymocéphale 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The setting is the Jordan River.
When the frog asks the scorpion why he stung him, causing both of them to drown, the scorpion replies: "This is the Middle East."
Notapussycat ( talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The image used in the article is a pretty poor "photoshop", putting the images of the scorpion and the frog next to each other as if the church door was referencing the story.
I suspect the story has been told and illustrated in old (PD) children's litterature. Isn't there any other image we could use? Personally, I think even separate images of a scorpion and a frog would be better than the current one. – Caesar ( talk) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is a substantial objection, I am going to sharply prune the pop culture section, and add a note in the code cautioning against bloat. Shajure ( talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Recreating the section with a bogus name is still not encyclopedic. While it is certainly true that this multi-cultural tale is mentioned in many moves, TV shows, songs, children's books... that does not have anything to do with an encylopedia article. If there is *truly* a need for a list of uses of this general tale, perhaps an article "list of modern uses of xxxx" might be needed. User talk:Unfriend12 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This section was recreated, but, again, these are junk magnets... we could list hundreds or even thousands... this is a popular, ancient story. Shajure ( talk) 14:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked it up solely for pop culture references only to find the information USED TO BE AVAILABLE and has been removed. This is information that people want and you're keeping it from them for the brevity of an article online. And online space isn't exactly running put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrhG ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I added a Popular culture section because, before reading the above Talk, it seemed to be a section that was conspicuously missing - popular culture is mentioned in the opening sentences, yet there is nothing about it in the Article. This is not consistent. If there are "many references", what are they? Whilst I appreciate the arguments for brevity and avoiding trivia, citing a few example seems perfectly logical, of interest and worthy of inclusion (and clearly others are in agreement). However, I will refrain from recreating the section for the time being. What do others think? Manbooferie ( talk) 07:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a small article and seems adequately sourced. Do we still need the article flag? If no one objects, I expect to drop the tag in a few days or when I next notice it. Shajure ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed this bit:
Because the Angelfire page is the only "real" source. But it doesn't have a date, not even a Last-Modified header (earliest Archive.org capture is March 2002), but without a reference, the author might as well have made it up.
The vast majority of the results for the Google search source (isn't there some WP policy against that?) almost literally echo back what this WP article says, and if you filter those out, the rest are copies of or references to the Angelfire webpage.
It piqued my curiosity because the alternative ending changes the meaning of the whole fable. In fact, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Of course if anyone has a proper source for this alternative ending, by all means put it back.
Addition: I also just noticed that the Angelfire story is about a **Fox** and a Scorpion, instead of a Frog. Now it even makes less sense, in my eyes. - User talk:Max Ijzersteen - appears to be the author of the above. User talk:Unfriend12 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the image is a picture of a scorpion and a turtle? Maybe we could be a little more accurate.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:RM is for moves, not mergers so we can't help you unfortunately. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The Scorpion and the Frog →
The Frog and the Mouse – 1.It is a comparatively recent variation of an old fable theme. Its origin has been attributed to Aesop in Europe, to the Indian Panchatantra, and to West Africa, without any reliable evidence. 2. A tendentious attempt to suggest continuity of the story of the scorpion and the frog from past variants is lifted from a previous attempt to merge this article with
The Frog and the Mouse in which the very opposite is argued. 3. The article has acted in the past as a magnet for large amounts of trivia which have constantly had to be purged. The proposed merger would help quarantine it.
Mzilikazi1939 (
talk)
11:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A notice porposing a merge was posted on 4 June 2013. No response was received and the merge was carried out at the end of that month. This action was reversed without previous discussion in November 2013. The proposal to merge is therefore renewed here. The discussion should centre on why the unsatisfactory article here should be retained when there is already a section in The Frog and the Mouse which covers all the main (and verifiable) facts. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Unbelievable picture and story: http:// www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/ the-tale-of-the-weasel-and-woodpecker The Tale of the Weasel and the Woodpecker 82.171.6.217 ( talk) 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Lquilter's quotation from Malcolm was well spotted, and that from Goldsmith is interesting. I have changed it to something found nearer the start of his chapter, since it mentions an unoffending frog and mouse. The bit about it stinging itself to death was not so much about its "irascible nature" as about another common belief that a scorpion will commit suicide with its own sting.
If the intention of these additions is to undermine the finding of an academic study that there was no evidence for the story about the scorpion and the mouse before the 20th century, they come short of the mark. Malcolm merely provides a variation in a different story that is much older, while all the scorpion stories mentioned in the article are predicated on its natural characteristic. Even the oldest examples from Arab and Jewish sources only cite instances where divine intervention protects the ferrying creature. One wonders, therefore, how relevant the quotation from Goldsmith really is? Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The section about being "misattributed" to Aesop seems to have disappeared. This attribution is so widespread ( http://www.aesopfables.com/aesop4.html) that I hope someone will put it back. 173.48.47.101 ( talk) 10:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
== Large addition of opinion ==
"Though the fable is recent, its outlook that certain natures cannot be reformed was common in ancient times, as in
Aesop's fable of
The Farmer and the Viper. Here the scorpion’s reply indicates that what is fundamentally vicious will not change."
This is a bunch of
wp:OR, and cited to a personal website, pretensiously using a journal citation. Unless there is support, I will promptly remove the whole thing, including the sideways reference.
"The Prisoner's Dilemma". The Ethical Spectacle. 1 (9). September 1995.
Shajure (
talk)
02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worthwhile listing all the references to this tale in movies and books. Firstly, it doesn't give much insight; and secondly, there are so many references that this list could get really long. Kurzon ( talk) 10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the earliest known publication of this fable is the 1944 book. However, consulting various collections of fables I noticed that "Frog and Scorpion" is mentioned in The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, with those of Avian, Alfonso and Poggio, now again edited and induced by Joseph Jacobs - see page 231. It's an obscure mention that references (Auguste) Wagener. Might be worth further investigation... Manbooferie ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Manbooferie and Sweetpool50: Hi guys, I'm revisiting this lead. Even if Joseph Jacobs was not a reputable scholar, we're only talking about a footnote in his book (which reads "Wagener-Weber, No. 9 [Frog and Scorpion]). I'm trying to figure what that means. What does "Wagener-Weber, No. 9" mean? Did Wagener and Weber collaborate on a compendium of fables? Kurzon ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked up Auguste Wagener, and he studied ancient Greece. Perhaps he came across the fable in Greek. Kurzon ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I found what the footnote was referring to: A page in Albrecht Weber's book Indische Studien. Apparently, it's about frogs and snakes, not scorpions. Jacobs made a mistake, it seems. Kurzon ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I reverted some of Sweetpool50's reversions, but since he did them in good faith, he deserves an explanation.
I removed the stuff about the Babylonian Talmud and the Arab Sufi thing, because they don't seem to have a connection to The Scorpion and the Frog. They certainly don't teach the same moral. Scorpions and frogs are common characters in fables. I suspect (and yes this is my conjecture) that The Scorpion and the Frog is a variation of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. Someone changed the Tortoise to a Frog perhaps to emphasize the self-destructive nature of the scorpion.
I think we should actually read what the existing references actually say, because they do not necessarily validate the text of the article. For instance, the website by Ashliman simply recounts The Scorpion and the Tortoise, and we don't need this reference because we can reference the Anvaar Soheili, which is the original appearance of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. In a more general sense, while we must not do original research and instead cite sources, we do have to decide what sources are worth citing. So just because something is "properly referenced", doesn't necessarily make it valid.
I took Sweetpool50's criticism's to heart and reduced some of my conjectures. Kurzon ( talk) 21:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Aesop bit, I want to add this line to the paragraph:
I think it's a salient point. A lot of people think this fable comes from Aesop, and they need to be told that it's only as a pseudonym and Aesop might in fact not have existed. That's something that should be said right here in the article because it's a key insight into this particular fable. It's not off-topic. Kurzon ( talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Mauro Lanari: I took a look at Hood's book, and he writes that "the story of the scorpion and the frog has been retold for thousands of years". That's incorrect. That doesn't make the reference invalid, of course, because his recounting of the fable is correct, but it does show that Hood is no scholar of literature. He's a psychologist. I think we should should favor scholars of literature (or at least people who know what they're talking about) whenever we can. Kurzon ( talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody asks? What was 'in the deal' for the frog? Or, is this just a story about a good, charming con-man, like the serpent was to Eve? 66.217.5.196 ( talk) 05:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sweetpool50, could you explain what capacity he's speaking in then? -- Fyrael ( talk) 16:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments
That's it for me. Primarily issues with "vicious" and the material in other related articles. On hold. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
An amazing coincidence, but I'm watching the second episode of the second season of After Life and the tale is retold there to Ricky Gervais in the graveyard. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: I fixed some flaws, didn't fix others for these reasons:
Kurzon ( talk) 10:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's my impression that the image at the head of the article has been lifted from a copyrighted source without permission, against all guidelines. It should be removed until its status is clarified. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 00:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
For one thing, the way the upper margin cuts off the plant suggests scanning from a larger picture. Kurzon, you loaded the image and have been on WP long enough to know that guidelines require you to present proof that it is free. I'll give you one week to provide a verifiable source and then will raise it with the curator of Wikimedia. I'm not the only one suspicious of the image; it was queried by the GA moderator. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, you acknowledge authorship and the metadata bears you out on GIMP. Now add a caption to the file. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I just bought a copy of Jura by Georgii Tushkan and the English translation The Hunter of the Pamirs. The scorpion and frog fable appears in the English translation but it does not appear in the Russian original. I can only speculate that the fable was inserted by the English translator — I won't offer this speculation in the article because it's too much original research, but simply mentioning that the fable doesn't appear in the original Russian should be fine. Since this is such an esoteric topic, I doubt I'll find a secondary source to cite on this particular fact. Kurzon ( talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
«Жил был скорпион. И понадобилось ему перебраться через топь. Плавать скорпионы, как известно, не умеют. Делать нечего, скорпион покликал лягушку: — Перевези. — Лягушка боится: «Да ведь ты меня ужалишь?» — Дура, зачем же я тебя жалить буду, ты потонешь, и я с тобой. — Лягушка поверила. Поплыли. Скорпион сидит, терпит. Уж так хочется ему лягушку ужалить, так хочется, так хочется . . . Однако ничего, терпит. Только начали к середине топи подбираться, не вытерпел скорпион. Ужалил. Лягушке, понятно, кюк. Однако и скорпиону каюк. Лягушка, помирая, все же успела спросить: «Зачем же ужалил? Сам ведь тонешь». И захлебываясь, ответил скорпион: — Ха-а... рактер такой. Алеша посмеялся. Сказал: — Ну разве же этакие потонут? Влад покрутил бородой: — Пожалуй, что понемногу и перетонут.
Google Translation:
“There was a scorpion. And he needed to cross the swamp. Scorpions do not know how to swim. There is nothing to do, the scorpion called out to the frog: - Move it. - The frog is afraid: “Why, you sting me?” - Fool, why am I going to sting you, you will drown, and I'm with you. - The frog believed. Sailed. Scorpio sits, suffers. He really wants to sting a frog, he wants it so much, he wants it so much. . . However, nothing suffers. Just started to approach the middle of the swamp, the scorpion could not bear it. Stung. A frog, of course, a kyuk. However, the scorpion kayuk. The frog, dying, nevertheless managed to ask: “Why did you sting? You’re drowning yourself. ” And choking, the scorpion answered: - Ha-ha ... such [is my] character. Alyosha laughed. Said, “Well, are they really going to drown?” Vlad twirled his beard: - Perhaps, that little by little they will also grind.
Kurzon ( talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Yes, rereading it now, it's actually a pretty complete retelling (if we forgive Google Translate's spotty translation). My faulty memory. I found this via Google Books. This is the earliest reference I could find. I have shared my findings with Areta Takeda, who AFAIK is the only scholar studying this fable's history. Maybe he'll write another paper and we'll have a new source to cite. Kurzon ( talk) 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Did Orson Welles speak Russian? Kurzon ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: In the course of my research I found tons of animal fables that had scorpion or frogs or both in them. Let's just stick to the ones that have a clear and strong connection. Kurzon ( talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It was I who added the stuff about Aesop. I felt it was necessary because a lot of people attribute this fable to Aesop, even though Aesop was not even a real person and this fable dates back to the early 20th century as far as I can tell. It's an understandable error because Aesop does have a few fables that teach a similar lesson. Your rabbinic tale, however, does not teach that moral (also, scorpions are arachnids, not insects).
The Scorpion and the Turtle is almost certainly a precursor to the fable. If the rabbinic tale is an earlier precursor, then why did someone change the scorpion to a turtle and then back again? I don't see the chain of evolution here. I don't think this article should list every old fable that has a passing resemblance to The Scorpion and the Frog, it should stick to a plausible chain of evolution.
Takeda's essay makes no mention of Genesis Rabbah. Kurzon ( talk) 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: I looked up Takeda's essay and the Jewish encyclopedia. Neither make a connection between that Genesis Rabbah tale and The Scorpion and the Frog. The Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't even have any scholarly critiques. Kurzon ( talk) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I should note, also, that as editors it is we who make the call as to whether some scholar's opinion is worth including. We're required to provide references to whatever we include, but we decide what to include or ignore. Kurzon ( talk) 14:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Sweetpool50: Who is Folklore Forum? Kurzon ( talk) 14:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I created the Aesop bit to clear the misconception that some have that this fable is by Aesop. I would like to mention that Aesop wasn't even a real person as far as historians can tell. Why do other people keep deleting this whenever I put it in? Kurzon ( talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
But it would directly address the misconception. Kurzon ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It is misleading to suggest this story originated in 1933. It originated centuries ago, and the latest iteration is from 1933. If you don't like how I phrased it, please re-phrase it instead of reverting it. Sincerely, Kingturtle = ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Scorpion and the Turtle only seems to be Persian because a Persian book is the earliest appearance I could find. It could have come from India. Kurzon ( talk) 15:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
For readers who are interested in a historical exegesis, there is an extended and detailed study by Arata Takeda, University of Tübingen, “Blumenreiche Handelswege. Ost-westliche Streifzüge auf den Spuren der Fabel Der Skorpion und der Frosch”, published in Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte in March, 2011, who finds that a fable called “The Scorpion and the Turtle” may have its origin in the ancient Sanskrit tradition collected in the Panchatantra – though it isn’t found in any documents prior to the 14th century. (Dr. Takeda intends to continue his search.) The fact is that, in the Persian texts found so far, the tale is never the same as “The Scorpion and the Frog”. Giancarlo Livrarghi, May 2011