Reading Notes: Jataka Tales A
Jataka Tales
Author source: Ellen C. Babbitt
Click!
These reading notes discuss The Measure of Rice. The setting of the plot is not complex with the purpose of serving as potential metaphors and introducing two moral topics: honesty versus dishonesty. A king, without a name, had a Valuer. A king, like many stereotypical kings, was dishonest and greedy. However, his Valuer was very honest, as his responsibilities included deeming the worth of animals and other material items. The Valuer's honesty served as a peacemaker ensuring that no matter the social status of an individual, he or she would be treated fair when trading or doing other business. Why did the king have this Valuer, if he served as a disadvantage to him? Was this a type of democratic society? Partially answering this question, the king replaces this Valuer with a peasant. The uneducated peasant was naive and simply did not know the honest price of these goods. The king was deceiving and taking advantage of the peasant. When a horse-dealer is scammed for selling his horses to the king for the price of only a measure of rice, he goes to the Valuer. From this, I could infer that the Valuer was a well respected man. It makes me wonder why the people didn't riot or protest the position's exchange for the peasant. As an effort to solve the problem, the new peasant Valuer was given a present and asked to value what the rice is worth. In an exchange of words, the peasant is deemed incapable, when the valuer reports that the measure of rice is worth the whole city. When reading, I didn't retain that the king was punished at all-- only the peasant, who was tricked to begin with. In this sense, the resolution of this story was not fulfilling to me personally. However, the people of the city did get a new valuer. What valuer took his place though? Another dishonest or naive one?
Author source: Ellen C. Babbitt
Click!
The Valuer, The Telegraph
These reading notes discuss The Measure of Rice. The setting of the plot is not complex with the purpose of serving as potential metaphors and introducing two moral topics: honesty versus dishonesty. A king, without a name, had a Valuer. A king, like many stereotypical kings, was dishonest and greedy. However, his Valuer was very honest, as his responsibilities included deeming the worth of animals and other material items. The Valuer's honesty served as a peacemaker ensuring that no matter the social status of an individual, he or she would be treated fair when trading or doing other business. Why did the king have this Valuer, if he served as a disadvantage to him? Was this a type of democratic society? Partially answering this question, the king replaces this Valuer with a peasant. The uneducated peasant was naive and simply did not know the honest price of these goods. The king was deceiving and taking advantage of the peasant. When a horse-dealer is scammed for selling his horses to the king for the price of only a measure of rice, he goes to the Valuer. From this, I could infer that the Valuer was a well respected man. It makes me wonder why the people didn't riot or protest the position's exchange for the peasant. As an effort to solve the problem, the new peasant Valuer was given a present and asked to value what the rice is worth. In an exchange of words, the peasant is deemed incapable, when the valuer reports that the measure of rice is worth the whole city. When reading, I didn't retain that the king was punished at all-- only the peasant, who was tricked to begin with. In this sense, the resolution of this story was not fulfilling to me personally. However, the people of the city did get a new valuer. What valuer took his place though? Another dishonest or naive one?
Comments
Post a Comment