If I had to wager, I'd put cash-money on the rewrite being penned by some 'social collectivist' who was attempting to justify the worker ants [i.e. 'commoners'] serving the lazy-yet-'superior' grasshopper [i.e. 'elites']. Such psycho-conditionings are found through literature, thus it would not at all surprise me.
Myself personally? I like the original better - let the arrogant fools freeze ;-)
That's a good point! My first thought was that it was a lame attempt at 'equity' messaging, but I think your theory makes more sense (especially since the rewrite seems to have been a 20th-century invention).
I'm with you—there's a reason the original has endured for so long.
We were taught about Aesop and his fables in kindergarten and first grade, they were used to teach us to read also. I also remember having a little record player that played the 45 rpm size records but they were played at 33 1/3 speed. Iirc it was the only speed on the turntable, anyway we used to get records with storybooks as gifts, a sleeve was in the back cover for storing the record. Disney stories, Aesop's Fables, Charlotte's Web, all kinds of stories were on those little records and you could read along in the storybooks. It taught us reading, the life lessons each story was trying to make, occasionally a smattering of history and how to take care of things.
Now kids are just sat in front of a tablet or TV screen, learning nothing but indoctrination and all sorts of things children have no business knowing. And that's called progress ladies and gentlemen.
I grew up on the same exact things! I work in the education system, and while the 'old-school' literature is still around (a decent amount of freedom is still given to individual teachers), I definitely see it being phased out. It's a shame.
In Aesop’s time it was easier to depict animals than humans. His status would have caused quite a few problems if the stories would be about humans. By using human traits in animals, it seemed more harmless. Different endings are quite often relating to the society or community they were told in, as happened with fairytales and legends.
Great one to highlight! Thank you. Also, If you don’t mind, as an FYI I’ll add the name of the wonderful artist responsible for the 1912 illustration: Arthur Rackham. He was one of the greatest of the “Golden Age” British Illustrators, with such diverse works as Das Rhinegold , Aesop’s Fables, Peter Pan, and Rip Van Winkle.
“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise; which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard?” Proverbs 6:6-9
Remember, oral story telling is different from writing. Here are some other reasons for changing the ending of a story than "to protect the children."
1. Haven't told the story in a while and can't remember how it was supposed to go.
2. Never really liked that story. How about a different ending?
3. The last time you told that story, the audience responded badly. Maybe they'll like it better this new way.
4. Lost a bet with (some other story teller) and now I have to tell it the silly way!
5. Oh no! You want to write it down? Well you're not blaming me for the horrific ending! I'd better clean it up a little bit, so I don't sound so bloodthirsty.
This makes a ton of sense!! It’s something I usually forget about, actually—I’m so used to reading stories that were written from the outset, so thinking about a story as a constantly-evolving thing that every person who tells it has a hand in shaping doesn’t really come ‘naturally.’
Re: different versions: my understanding is that Aesop's fables originally weren't meant for children at all, and their rewriting «for kids» happened relatively recently (17th-19th century).
Wow, it's definitely possible (and it would provide an alternate explanation for why the endings are often a bit 'dark' for children, at least from a modern viewpoint).
It actually makes a lot of sense. One of the other stories I read in preparation for this post was "The Frogs Who Desired a King." It has a political message which strikes me as way too complex for children.
It’s often believed «children’s books» didn’t even exist before 17th-18th century, although it’s a matter of definition. Oral folklore of course existed but systematic collection of it started even later.
I had no idea Aesop's fables were so old, I thought they were from the middle ages for some reason, they just 'felt' that way to me.
On side note, I have a series of shorts I have been doing on youtube called Frater's Fables, just little one minute fables with A.I. art, some of them funny, some of them not. I have been thinking of doing some longer form fables to post here on Substack where they may be more appreciated.
I think the art of the fable is a timeless thing and a great way to communicate some universal truths in a short catchy tale.
I've posted a couple of the videos as notes. Not really sure if video is the right way to go on here. I could keep trying, it doesn't take much effort to just post a note here and there and see the response. They are all under one minute to fit into the 'shorts' format, I find it is often difficult to work within the confines of that format, I'd like to write some longer form fables.
Pardon the unsolicited advice, but you might get the best response if you post the videos and then write out the stories underneath (this obviously only speaks to my own experience, but I don't often watch videos on Substack, and usually when I do, it's the result of skimming through a transcription and deciding that it looks interesting).
I think this is interesting but mostly disagree with the quote you found on X:
“The same reason that George Orwell wrote Animal Farm is the same reason Aesop's Fables were about animals. Animals help us to tell and understand stories... and still do in the 21st century.”
The reason that Orwell resorted to allegory is that he was talking about real people, i.e. Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky - it was coded because he did not want the story banned and as it was, it only narrowly missed being lost to history. Allegories are useful because they often allow certain truths to be told in times when they are forbidden - it is true that using animal characters is one way to make an attack less pointed. Animal Farm is about the idealism of the revolution, overthrowing the farmer and taking over the means of production... and what happens next.
In oral traditions what is original is really a moot point. Stories tend to get embellished in the telling by gathering all sorts of accretions - the same goes for history or even witness testimony. It is all fluid and the 'official version' of anything really starts when it is written down, but if it is fiction there is no objective 'truth'. I think the alternative endings you speak about re- the ant and grasshopper story had different lessons as you note. The first is about foolishly failing to prepare but also the need to take pity on the foolish and in the other, the emphasis is on personal responsibility and consequences. I am sure something similar happens with the three little pig story. In one version I seem to remember the pig in the brick house takes the others in, in another he leaves them to their fate. Staying with fiction (ahem), The New Testament somewhat perversely cautions against making provisions for tomorrow re Luke 12:16-21, so go figure. Many of the tales of the Brothers Grimm came from traditional folklore and they, along with the likes of Hans Christian Anderson were very dark. The same goes for the Jack Tales that I got introduced to in the US - witches boiled alive and so forth. You are absolutely right when you say: "Even these cases are explained by the simple fact that times change, and as our opinions shift, our fables do, as well."
This actually reminds me of a comment from Joyce on this post:
"In Aesop’s time it was easier to depict animals than humans. His status would have caused quite a few problems if the stories would be about humans. By using human traits in animals, it seemed more harmless. Different endings are quite often relating to the society or community they were told in, as happened with fairytales and legends. "
I'd certainly never considered this about Aesop's fables before, and it's a great illustration about how times don't really change that much.
Great point about the lesson of the ant and the grasshopper about taking pity on the foolish. I initially mocked this alternate ending, but this actually poses a great argument for taking it seriously.
I think nowadays there is a tendency to over-generalise which, without wishing to be unkind, seems to be what many are trying to do in this comment section. An allegory is a way to tell a story in an abstracted way. Many parables have so called moral lessons in them and are often made engaging by using animal characters. Without reiterating, that was not Orwell's purpose, obviously. The Aesop of legend was a storyteller to children. Many of his stories and those of other Greek writers have been reworked many times over. Some of Aesop's tales found their way into the New Testament as parables, which was an oral tradition up until about 70 years after the historical Jesus died. These borrowings are understandable because some of these ideas would have been the common currency of storytelling. Obviously stories were created or modified to suit the context of the time but that is about being relevant and not necessarily having sinister intent. You say you 'mocked' the 'alternative' ending presumably because you thought it had been sanitised for some political reason - but I venture to suggest you are thinking about this in terms of today's context. It is a mistake to superimpose what is happening in modern society on ancient history in order to reinterpret it - which incidentally what the post modernists schools try to do. I don't know which ending would be the 'original' but I suspect you are right because charity and forgiveness would fit with Christian sentiments. Wouldn't you say the grasshopper is the prodigal son?
Why do you say this wasn't Orwell's purpose? He was communicating a message about human behavior using animal characters. In my opinion, the fact that he was referencing real people and events does not negate this. He even called the book a 'fairy story.'
You're right that I assumed that the 'alternative' ending of The Ant and the Grasshopper was sanitized for children, and that in doing so, I was looking at the story from today's context. However, I don't believe that this was a case of superimposing what's happening today on ancient history. My mistake was in assuming that this ending was a modern invention. The distinction is slight, but I believe it is important.
I think the possible Christian influences are really interesting. The grasshopper does have a lot of similarities to the prodigal son—perhaps Aesop's tale was its inspiration.
I was trying to expand on my previous point which was to note out that Orwell was not really writing for children - apologies but I omitted two words, "are often made engaging [to children] by using animal characters..." then you may find that the next sentence makes more sense. However as a 'fairy story' it would be no darker than traditional fairy tales at the time and he was referring to tragic events so that is British irony for you. Even in the 1960s the traditional books I grew up were much darker than Animal Farm. The attempts to first stop Orwell's book getting into print and then subsequently trying to destroy all the copies was political.
Some of your other commenters are trying to suggest that modern censorious political agendas are an explanation for historic variations to Aesop - I thought that was what you were implying - sorry if that's not correct.
I do not suggest that the prodigal son was inspired by the story of a forgiven grasshopper - from the very little I know about Hellenistic literature forgiveness was not a big feature. I was saying that the Christian sentiment may have inspired the 'alternate' ending. It certainly influenced the retelling of folklore generally. That was made unclear by me via the Luke comment - which I will address now.
There are passages in Luke (traditionally credited to an evangelist who was Greek) that are word for word copies (in Greek) of Aesop. One example about fishing comes to mind but you would have to look it up. Stories have always been requisitioned for new purposes.
Thanks for clarifying the Luke comment (& the prodigal son confusion). Really interesting! I had no idea there were word-for-word copies in there.
As far as the modern political agendas thing, it wasn't the conclusion that I came to (although the thought crossed my mind). The impression I got was that it was a 'sanitized' version written not for political reasons, but because of a general cultural feeling that talk of death is too 'harsh' for children.
I suppose there could, in theory, be politically-motivated reasons why modern people would choose to tell this version of the story in favor of the others, but as far as the origins are concerned, I think you've proposed the best theory by mentioning potential Christian roots.
This kind of brings us back to your original point (at least, your point as I'm now interpreting it—forgive me if it's incorrect) about superimposing modern ideas on ancient history. A three thousand year-old story is about as unpolitical as it gets; it is strange that politics is even mentioned in the same conversation. I think a lot of people (myself included) have gotten into this unfortunate habit of seeing politics everywhere, even in places where it isn't.
I knew Aesop went back a fair ways but not over 500 years BC. Thanks!
Animal cautionary tales; Uncle Remus; his Br'er Rabbit & Br'er Fox, at least in print, do back to your 17-1800s era courtesy of Joel Chandler Harris in 1881.
However via word of mouth some of them probably go back to deepest darkest Africa although the animals probably changed to fit the locale. Br'er Rabbit may have been a rabbit way back in Zimbabwe days but he could'a been Br'er Bush Baby and Br'er Bear maybe Br'er Honey Badger!
I feel the children's tales and shaman stories are excellent indicators of traits held in high value in different cultures. For example most Eskimo tales place heavy emphasis patience while Athabaskan Indian stories laud quickness.
"Animal cautionary tales; Uncle Remus; his Br'er Rabbit & Br'er Fox, at least in print, do back to your 17-1800s era courtesy of Joel Chandler Harris in 1881."
Ah, let;s just pretend that's what I was thinking of, then!
Good point about these stories reflecting what traits each culture values. It kind of makes me want to revisit these familiar ones and see how they've been changed throughout translations.
"Propaganda only does its job when you can’t empathize with both sides. Some days you could be the ant. Some days you could be the grass hopper."
That's a great point, and I think you're right that knowing which one is the 'original' doesn't really matter, and that both endings provide some value. Thanks for this comment!
Haha, Dark/Middle Ages was a way better guess than mine!
It's remarkable. I wonder if their timelessness is because they feature animals. Animals stay consistent in our minds in a way that humans and our fleeting trends do not.
If I had to wager, I'd put cash-money on the rewrite being penned by some 'social collectivist' who was attempting to justify the worker ants [i.e. 'commoners'] serving the lazy-yet-'superior' grasshopper [i.e. 'elites']. Such psycho-conditionings are found through literature, thus it would not at all surprise me.
Myself personally? I like the original better - let the arrogant fools freeze ;-)
Excellent post as always, Melissa...
That's a good point! My first thought was that it was a lame attempt at 'equity' messaging, but I think your theory makes more sense (especially since the rewrite seems to have been a 20th-century invention).
I'm with you—there's a reason the original has endured for so long.
Thanks so much! :)
We were taught about Aesop and his fables in kindergarten and first grade, they were used to teach us to read also. I also remember having a little record player that played the 45 rpm size records but they were played at 33 1/3 speed. Iirc it was the only speed on the turntable, anyway we used to get records with storybooks as gifts, a sleeve was in the back cover for storing the record. Disney stories, Aesop's Fables, Charlotte's Web, all kinds of stories were on those little records and you could read along in the storybooks. It taught us reading, the life lessons each story was trying to make, occasionally a smattering of history and how to take care of things.
Now kids are just sat in front of a tablet or TV screen, learning nothing but indoctrination and all sorts of things children have no business knowing. And that's called progress ladies and gentlemen.
I grew up on the same exact things! I work in the education system, and while the 'old-school' literature is still around (a decent amount of freedom is still given to individual teachers), I definitely see it being phased out. It's a shame.
We had Aesop’s Fables, and The Canterbury Tales in 2nd grade.
In Aesop’s time it was easier to depict animals than humans. His status would have caused quite a few problems if the stories would be about humans. By using human traits in animals, it seemed more harmless. Different endings are quite often relating to the society or community they were told in, as happened with fairytales and legends.
Oh wow, interesting. I would've never considered this, but it makes a ton of sense. Thanks! :)
Great one to highlight! Thank you. Also, If you don’t mind, as an FYI I’ll add the name of the wonderful artist responsible for the 1912 illustration: Arthur Rackham. He was one of the greatest of the “Golden Age” British Illustrators, with such diverse works as Das Rhinegold , Aesop’s Fables, Peter Pan, and Rip Van Winkle.
Thank you!! :) I'll be sure to credit him—the site where I pulled this from had no illustrator listed.
“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise; which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard?” Proverbs 6:6-9
Great quote!! Isn’t it so interesting how these old myths and folktales all influenced one another?
Thanks so much for reading and restacking!
Hum I just noticed Jayshree Gururaj in her Hello Indra stack, posted "Wisdom of the Animal Stories
Of Rulers, Life, Teachers, and Children, - about the ‘Panchatantra,’ or the beloved ancient animal stories of India. ". https://jayshreegururaj.substack.com/p/wisdom-of-the-animal-stories
Serendipitous, strange concurrence, -or just two intelligence young ladies happened to...?
Oh wow, cool!!
I don't believe in coincidences...
Thanks for the shout-out - what a coincidence!
Remember, oral story telling is different from writing. Here are some other reasons for changing the ending of a story than "to protect the children."
1. Haven't told the story in a while and can't remember how it was supposed to go.
2. Never really liked that story. How about a different ending?
3. The last time you told that story, the audience responded badly. Maybe they'll like it better this new way.
4. Lost a bet with (some other story teller) and now I have to tell it the silly way!
5. Oh no! You want to write it down? Well you're not blaming me for the horrific ending! I'd better clean it up a little bit, so I don't sound so bloodthirsty.
See?
This makes a ton of sense!! It’s something I usually forget about, actually—I’m so used to reading stories that were written from the outset, so thinking about a story as a constantly-evolving thing that every person who tells it has a hand in shaping doesn’t really come ‘naturally.’
Re: different versions: my understanding is that Aesop's fables originally weren't meant for children at all, and their rewriting «for kids» happened relatively recently (17th-19th century).
Wow, it's definitely possible (and it would provide an alternate explanation for why the endings are often a bit 'dark' for children, at least from a modern viewpoint).
It actually makes a lot of sense. One of the other stories I read in preparation for this post was "The Frogs Who Desired a King." It has a political message which strikes me as way too complex for children.
Interesting!
It’s often believed «children’s books» didn’t even exist before 17th-18th century, although it’s a matter of definition. Oral folklore of course existed but systematic collection of it started even later.
I had no idea Aesop's fables were so old, I thought they were from the middle ages for some reason, they just 'felt' that way to me.
On side note, I have a series of shorts I have been doing on youtube called Frater's Fables, just little one minute fables with A.I. art, some of them funny, some of them not. I have been thinking of doing some longer form fables to post here on Substack where they may be more appreciated.
I think the art of the fable is a timeless thing and a great way to communicate some universal truths in a short catchy tale.
Totally agreed about the power of fables.
I think yours would do really well on Substack—have you considered posting the short ones on here, too?
I've posted a couple of the videos as notes. Not really sure if video is the right way to go on here. I could keep trying, it doesn't take much effort to just post a note here and there and see the response. They are all under one minute to fit into the 'shorts' format, I find it is often difficult to work within the confines of that format, I'd like to write some longer form fables.
Pardon the unsolicited advice, but you might get the best response if you post the videos and then write out the stories underneath (this obviously only speaks to my own experience, but I don't often watch videos on Substack, and usually when I do, it's the result of skimming through a transcription and deciding that it looks interesting).
I'll keep an eye out for them! :)
That is a good idea, I'll give it a try
Aesop is deep.
I think this is interesting but mostly disagree with the quote you found on X:
“The same reason that George Orwell wrote Animal Farm is the same reason Aesop's Fables were about animals. Animals help us to tell and understand stories... and still do in the 21st century.”
The reason that Orwell resorted to allegory is that he was talking about real people, i.e. Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky - it was coded because he did not want the story banned and as it was, it only narrowly missed being lost to history. Allegories are useful because they often allow certain truths to be told in times when they are forbidden - it is true that using animal characters is one way to make an attack less pointed. Animal Farm is about the idealism of the revolution, overthrowing the farmer and taking over the means of production... and what happens next.
In oral traditions what is original is really a moot point. Stories tend to get embellished in the telling by gathering all sorts of accretions - the same goes for history or even witness testimony. It is all fluid and the 'official version' of anything really starts when it is written down, but if it is fiction there is no objective 'truth'. I think the alternative endings you speak about re- the ant and grasshopper story had different lessons as you note. The first is about foolishly failing to prepare but also the need to take pity on the foolish and in the other, the emphasis is on personal responsibility and consequences. I am sure something similar happens with the three little pig story. In one version I seem to remember the pig in the brick house takes the others in, in another he leaves them to their fate. Staying with fiction (ahem), The New Testament somewhat perversely cautions against making provisions for tomorrow re Luke 12:16-21, so go figure. Many of the tales of the Brothers Grimm came from traditional folklore and they, along with the likes of Hans Christian Anderson were very dark. The same goes for the Jack Tales that I got introduced to in the US - witches boiled alive and so forth. You are absolutely right when you say: "Even these cases are explained by the simple fact that times change, and as our opinions shift, our fables do, as well."
This actually reminds me of a comment from Joyce on this post:
"In Aesop’s time it was easier to depict animals than humans. His status would have caused quite a few problems if the stories would be about humans. By using human traits in animals, it seemed more harmless. Different endings are quite often relating to the society or community they were told in, as happened with fairytales and legends. "
I'd certainly never considered this about Aesop's fables before, and it's a great illustration about how times don't really change that much.
Great point about the lesson of the ant and the grasshopper about taking pity on the foolish. I initially mocked this alternate ending, but this actually poses a great argument for taking it seriously.
I think nowadays there is a tendency to over-generalise which, without wishing to be unkind, seems to be what many are trying to do in this comment section. An allegory is a way to tell a story in an abstracted way. Many parables have so called moral lessons in them and are often made engaging by using animal characters. Without reiterating, that was not Orwell's purpose, obviously. The Aesop of legend was a storyteller to children. Many of his stories and those of other Greek writers have been reworked many times over. Some of Aesop's tales found their way into the New Testament as parables, which was an oral tradition up until about 70 years after the historical Jesus died. These borrowings are understandable because some of these ideas would have been the common currency of storytelling. Obviously stories were created or modified to suit the context of the time but that is about being relevant and not necessarily having sinister intent. You say you 'mocked' the 'alternative' ending presumably because you thought it had been sanitised for some political reason - but I venture to suggest you are thinking about this in terms of today's context. It is a mistake to superimpose what is happening in modern society on ancient history in order to reinterpret it - which incidentally what the post modernists schools try to do. I don't know which ending would be the 'original' but I suspect you are right because charity and forgiveness would fit with Christian sentiments. Wouldn't you say the grasshopper is the prodigal son?
Why do you say this wasn't Orwell's purpose? He was communicating a message about human behavior using animal characters. In my opinion, the fact that he was referencing real people and events does not negate this. He even called the book a 'fairy story.'
You're right that I assumed that the 'alternative' ending of The Ant and the Grasshopper was sanitized for children, and that in doing so, I was looking at the story from today's context. However, I don't believe that this was a case of superimposing what's happening today on ancient history. My mistake was in assuming that this ending was a modern invention. The distinction is slight, but I believe it is important.
I think the possible Christian influences are really interesting. The grasshopper does have a lot of similarities to the prodigal son—perhaps Aesop's tale was its inspiration.
I was trying to expand on my previous point which was to note out that Orwell was not really writing for children - apologies but I omitted two words, "are often made engaging [to children] by using animal characters..." then you may find that the next sentence makes more sense. However as a 'fairy story' it would be no darker than traditional fairy tales at the time and he was referring to tragic events so that is British irony for you. Even in the 1960s the traditional books I grew up were much darker than Animal Farm. The attempts to first stop Orwell's book getting into print and then subsequently trying to destroy all the copies was political.
Some of your other commenters are trying to suggest that modern censorious political agendas are an explanation for historic variations to Aesop - I thought that was what you were implying - sorry if that's not correct.
I do not suggest that the prodigal son was inspired by the story of a forgiven grasshopper - from the very little I know about Hellenistic literature forgiveness was not a big feature. I was saying that the Christian sentiment may have inspired the 'alternate' ending. It certainly influenced the retelling of folklore generally. That was made unclear by me via the Luke comment - which I will address now.
There are passages in Luke (traditionally credited to an evangelist who was Greek) that are word for word copies (in Greek) of Aesop. One example about fishing comes to mind but you would have to look it up. Stories have always been requisitioned for new purposes.
Thanks for clarifying the Luke comment (& the prodigal son confusion). Really interesting! I had no idea there were word-for-word copies in there.
As far as the modern political agendas thing, it wasn't the conclusion that I came to (although the thought crossed my mind). The impression I got was that it was a 'sanitized' version written not for political reasons, but because of a general cultural feeling that talk of death is too 'harsh' for children.
I suppose there could, in theory, be politically-motivated reasons why modern people would choose to tell this version of the story in favor of the others, but as far as the origins are concerned, I think you've proposed the best theory by mentioning potential Christian roots.
This kind of brings us back to your original point (at least, your point as I'm now interpreting it—forgive me if it's incorrect) about superimposing modern ideas on ancient history. A three thousand year-old story is about as unpolitical as it gets; it is strange that politics is even mentioned in the same conversation. I think a lot of people (myself included) have gotten into this unfortunate habit of seeing politics everywhere, even in places where it isn't.
I knew Aesop went back a fair ways but not over 500 years BC. Thanks!
Animal cautionary tales; Uncle Remus; his Br'er Rabbit & Br'er Fox, at least in print, do back to your 17-1800s era courtesy of Joel Chandler Harris in 1881.
However via word of mouth some of them probably go back to deepest darkest Africa although the animals probably changed to fit the locale. Br'er Rabbit may have been a rabbit way back in Zimbabwe days but he could'a been Br'er Bush Baby and Br'er Bear maybe Br'er Honey Badger!
I feel the children's tales and shaman stories are excellent indicators of traits held in high value in different cultures. For example most Eskimo tales place heavy emphasis patience while Athabaskan Indian stories laud quickness.
"Animal cautionary tales; Uncle Remus; his Br'er Rabbit & Br'er Fox, at least in print, do back to your 17-1800s era courtesy of Joel Chandler Harris in 1881."
Ah, let;s just pretend that's what I was thinking of, then!
Good point about these stories reflecting what traits each culture values. It kind of makes me want to revisit these familiar ones and see how they've been changed throughout translations.
...um, yes?
...I at least was fully clear on the ancientness of Aesop's fables.
"Propaganda only does its job when you can’t empathize with both sides. Some days you could be the ant. Some days you could be the grass hopper."
That's a great point, and I think you're right that knowing which one is the 'original' doesn't really matter, and that both endings provide some value. Thanks for this comment!
Haha, Dark/Middle Ages was a way better guess than mine!
It's remarkable. I wonder if their timelessness is because they feature animals. Animals stay consistent in our minds in a way that humans and our fleeting trends do not.
Truth is eternal.