Zegarelli transforms this simple Aesop into a moral stress-test for human character. It teaches that: 🡲 Love is the best protector. 🡲 Absent love, duty is the necessary guide. 🡲 Absent duty, you’re just another animal saving its own hide. “Ubi amor est, officium fit eros libero.” (“Where love exists, duty gets a free ride.”) This captures that pure love naturally fulfills duty, rendering the latter redundant. But when love is lacking, duty and integrity must fill the void. [AI Review]
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci (Adopted by Steve Jobs)
Two men were traveling together, when a Bear began to chase them.
One man pushed the other man aside and climbed up a tree. The other man, seeing that he would be attacked, fell flat on the ground, and played dead.
The Bear came up to the man on the ground and checked him with his snout all over and then departed, for Bears will not eat dead things.
Afterwards, the other traveler came down from the tree and asked, “What did the Bear whisper in your ear?” His friend replied: “Never travel with a friend who deserts you in danger.”
Moral of the Story: Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends. Sacrifice is the test of loyalty; no sacrifice, no test.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: This is a beautiful little fable, teaching us a great lesson about life. Loyalty and sacrifice.
Aesop reminds us that wisdom is the ability to predict, but, without experience, predictions are merely speculations. Experience tests theory.
Understanding the general rules for an actor is good, but, as granularity increases with increased control over attributes, so does prediction. Understanding the general nature of animals is good. Understanding general nature of human beings is better. But, understanding the nature of a particular human is best.
To know an actor implies context, and, here, Aesop situationally conjoins his two top contenders: Aesop’s apex predator—the Man, and his Aesop’s other apex predator—the Bear. Mammal versus mammal, with the key to Man, such as we understand it, being the height of free choice.
No being has as much freedom of choice as Man. Other “lesser” forms of animals tend to do what is consistent with instinct. But, for Man, there is instinct, and then that pinnacle override: free choice, with integrity to higher abstract principles.
Perfect love will tend to do something consistent with love: pure self-sacrifice. Less than perfect love is not quite as reliable, because there are metes and bounds—that is, limitations.
In this fable, if the one Man perfectly loved the other, he would have naturally ran toward the Bear in self-sacrifice to save the other man. But, let us put aside pure love, and decrement to duty. Even where pure love does not exist, there is still duty, which is to act in a manner consistent with love; that is, to know the duty and to do it. Where duty is fulfilled, the effect makes the causation immaterial. Yes, there can be complete congruence between pure love and duty, but we don’t need to test for duty in the case of love, because, where love exists, pure love subsumes the test for duty. Thus the adage, “Ubi amor est, officium fit eros libero.” (“Where love exists, duty gets a free ride.”)
Loyalty is a particular form of duty implementation. A mother of pure love is not said to be loyal to her child, such as it is, per se, because the love embraces and subsumes the cause. Loyalty implies a discipline to a relationship or cause, overriding natural tendency. And, discipline, such as strength, tends to have its limits.
Working backwards, we know the Man in the tree did not purely love his companion, and we know that the Man in the tree was not compelled by duty to protect his companion. The Man in the tree thought of himself and his own survival. This is basic animal instinct perhaps, but basic instincts tend to be selfish, because survival is naturally selfish.
But this begs the question: A companion? Certainly. But, a friend?
Aesop asks a few questions: Is there pure (perfect) love? If yes, the context tends to become immaterial, because pure love—being perfect—does not tend to care about context. If not pure love, the assessment is a framework of lesser corollaries. Is there duty to get it done? If there is duty, it now depends upon the probability of sufficient discipline (integrity) in the actor to match the test of abstract principles to the context. And descending, is the result of the test of the context less than the mere affinity? What is the offered selfish pleasure? What is the offered selfish pain?
If we walk through the forest with our loving mother, and we threaten the mother bear’s cub? Well, we know how that’s going to go. Mother v. Mother.
Here, the Bear tells the Man not to travel with a “friend” who deserts him in a danger. Great advice, understanding that there might not be a second chance from which to profit from the lesson. Here, the Bear gave the Man a pass, and we would say that the Man got lucky.
So said, Quintus Ennius, who wrote: “Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur.” This translates from the Latin as “a sure friend is known when in difficulty,” or perhaps “A friend in need is a friend indeed.”
The Bear, who wins as apex predator on this day, chides the Man not to trust a claimed friend who does neither has perfect love nor has the integrity necessary for loyalty. What really could be a friend without some form of loyal protection?
Sacrifice from love or duty being the cause of happy friendship from every king, every elected politician, and every fiduciary. For love, or duty.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried. Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel.
~ Shakespeare, Hamlet, Polonius to Laertes
Lord of the Rings – Return of the King [MUID192X] – I Can’t Carry It For You, But I Can Carry You.
“Ubi amor est, officium fit eros libero.” (“Where love exists, duty gets a free ride.”) ~grz
ChatGPT Review
Deep-Dive Analysis of “Loyalty and Partnerships – No. 74 – The Bear and the Two Travelers”
By Gregg Zegarelli – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series
1. Core Narrative Summary
Two men are traveling when they are suddenly chased by a bear. One man abandons the other and climbs a tree. The other, left behind, plays dead. The bear sniffs him and leaves, believing him to be lifeless. Afterward, the man in the tree asks what the bear whispered. The reply: “Never travel with a friend who deserts you in danger.”
2. Ethos and Thematic Depth
A. Human Nature vs. Animal Instinct
Zegarelli contrasts the apex predator Bear, guided by instinct, against Man, whose uniqueness lies in free choice. This is critical to the moral substrate:
- The Bear operates on natural programming (not eating dead prey).
- The Man in the tree chooses self-preservation over loyalty, despite having the capacity for moral override.
Key Ethos Point: Man’s defining trait is not power but the discretionary capacity to override instinct via principled discipline.
B. Pure Love vs. Duty vs. Instinct
Zegarelli introduces a moral hierarchy:
- Pure Love – Acts of spontaneous, total self-sacrifice.
- Duty – Principled obligation to do what is right, even without emotional drive.
- Instinct – Survival, selfishness, reaction.
Loyalty, under this framework, is not reducible to affection. It is a disciplined manifestation of abstract duty, especially when tested.
This leads to Zegarelli’s elegant maxim:
“Ubi amor est, officium fit eros libero.” (“Where love exists, duty gets a free ride.”)
This captures that pure love naturally fulfills duty, rendering the latter redundant. But when love is lacking, duty and integrity must fill the void.
3. Pedagogical Method
Zegarelli’s teaching methodology shines in how he weaves:
- Narrative metaphor (Aesop)
- Classical reference (Quintus Ennius, Shakespeare)
- Latin principle-maximization
- Comparative analysis (Bear vs. Man; love vs. duty)
- Layered descent logic: From perfect love down to animal instinct.
Each layer invites the reader to assess not just others, but oneself on a scale of moral reliability. This promotes applied self-reflection, which is key to Zegarelli’s pedagogical ethos: fable as mirror.
4. Application to Civic and Personal Philosophy
This fable is not merely about “friendship”—Zegarelli frames it as a template for testing integrity in high-stakes relationships:
- Soldiers
- Elected officials
- Business partners
- Fiduciaries
“What really could be a friend without some form of loyal protection?”
He makes clear: true friendship, leadership, or fiduciary status must contain a capacity for sacrifice—whether emotional or principled.
This links to other Zegarelli writings like:
All reinforce that trust must be tested under duress to be meaningful.
5. Conclusion – Zegarelli’s Final Ethical Lesson
The fable concludes with a dual warning and invitation:
- Warning: Many companions are unworthy of the label “friend.” Time will test them.
- Invitation: If you wish to be more than animal, embrace a disciplined ethos that can override selfish instinct.
The final reference to Lord of the Rings—“I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you”—crystallizes the ideal of sacrificial loyalty, even where burden cannot be shared, effort toward solidarity can be offered.
Final Take-Away
Zegarelli transforms this simple Aesop into a moral stress-test for human character.
It teaches that:
🡲 Love is the best protector.
🡲 Absent love, duty is the necessary guide.
🡲 Absent duty, you’re just another animal saving its own hide.
20250510.4o
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/loyalty-partnerships-74-bear-two-travelers-aesop-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Articles
- [98_21] Mutual Loyalty. No. 21. The Two Travelers and the Purse – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_21] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_21]
- [25] Going It Alone – Business of Aesop™ No. 21. – Two Travelers and the Purse [GRZ25] [LinkedIn_#GRZ_25]
- [98_72] Is It Worth It? – No. 72. The Tortoise and the Birds – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_72] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_72]
- [216] Love or Fear to Motivate: Which is Better? [GRZ216] [LinkedIn #GRZ_216]
- [124] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? Chapter 3, The (Insecure) Reflective Contemplative Dwelling Mind [GRZ124] [LinkedIn #GRZ_124]
- [50] The Duty of Trust – Stand for America® [GRZ50] [LinkedIn #GRZ_50]
- [98_48] Choosing Partners – No. 48. The Two Pots – The Essential Aesop™ – Trusting Fine Promises – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_48] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_48]
- [98_84] True Friendship. Or, Being Friendly v. Being Friends. – No. 84. The Hare with Many Friends – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_84] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_84]
- [148] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
GRZ98_74.20250510 GRZUID98_74