“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs.
Two Men traveled together when one of them found a wallet of money. “How lucky I am!” he said. But the other said, “You should say, ‘how lucky we are!’”
“No,” replied the first Man. “I found it and it is mine.”
Just then they heard, “Stop, thief!” by a mob of Villagers armed with clubs and pitchforks.
The Man who found the purse panicked. “We are doomed,” he cried.
“No,” replied the other, “You should say, ‘I am doomed.’”
Moral of the Story: If we claim to be alone with our fortune, then we should be alone with our misfortune. If we do not create affinity during the good times, we cannot create it during the bad times.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: Aesop does not teach here about foolishness, per se, but rather he exposes his wisdom with an important principle of social interaction: mutual loyalty, or lack thereof. Aesop suggests here only a corollary of comeuppance for selfishness. But, such as it is for Aesop in his usual form, he’s warning us of a type of predictable cause and effect, by natural tendencies. [1]
We understand that selfishness is not inherently wrong any less than that quintessential selfishness, being the natural instinct of survival. Indeed, it is natural to desire and to intend to survive. [2] And, closely reviewed, Aesop is not teaching us any particular morality, as such, but he is exposing a point of human nature cause and effect; to wit:
Human selfishness might be voluntarily overcome by application of reciprocity to another for unselfishness, but it is only the exceptionally rare “perfect” case where unselfishness will pay back selfishness.
[3.1] It might be said that a mother’s perfect love for her child exemplifies the continued unselfish sacrifice for the continued selfish infant. Indeed, if we replaced a mother and her child in the above fable, the sacrificial perfect loving mother would still perhaps adopt responsibility. But that case is a mother’s unusual unbounded “perfect” sacrificial love for her child, not the usual “imperfect” love that has limits, if the love exists at all, in the first place. [3a]
Therefore, let us take the fable as it is, with two human adult Travelers who are bonded by a life-journey. One of the Travelers becomes lucky in a moment of time. [4] And, in this luck [5], the other Traveler suggests that the good fortune be shared, in the same manner as their larger journey by which that lucky accidental fortune was produced.
But, alas, in the good fortune of that moment, the Finder Traveler refuses to divide the benefits, thereby dividing the Travelers as journeymen from the new fortune; that is, the Finder Traveler is being selfish.
But, for those of us who are capable to do it, let us not judge the morality of the selfish Finder Traveler, such as Aesop does not, but rather only let us judge the natural human tendencies that follow causation as an effectual consequence. Calling the Finder Traveler or his selfishness “bad” and calling the Finder Traveler “unwise” are not the same thing. [6] But, notice that I said “unwise” and I did not say “foolish,” because the act itself would not necessarily be foolish.
Now, if you are capable to do it, follow this closely:
The simple lesson is for a child and everyone else, which is something like “Do unto others.” [3.2] That lesson is a per se “act-based” morality lesson; that is, based upon the “doing.”
But the advanced lesson here, for those who can accept it, is that the foolishness is not in the act, per se. The foolishness is in the expectation.
For a moralist, the condemnation is subsumed in the action itself. But, for the Aesopian sage, the condemnation, if it is such, is in the prediction of effect from the causation.
Let us compare. Let us say that Aesop had the Finder Traveler, upon the crowd accusation, saying something like Aesop’s Eagle in The Eagle and the Arrow. [7] E.g., “Alas, I am undone by my own doing,” then Aesop would have been demonstrating the Finding Traveler’s wisdom. But, not here. Here, the Finder Traveler expects to share the burden when he had refused to share the benefits. Silly traveler. That is not the tendency of human beings. Begrudgement tends to come around to manifest in action.
Such as it is, when the future reveals the burden, the once-lucky Finding Traveler, now being unlucky by the very same antecedent act, [*4] wants now to share the burden. But it is too late, and, by the Finder Traveler’s own rule, the Finder Traveler is now to be condemned. [3.3]
Thus the adage, “Fideles sperare possunt fideles, sed proditio debet proditionem exspectare.” (“Loyalty might expect loyalty, but betrayal must expect betrayal.”)
As the fable suggests wisdom in expectation, and suggests the concept of “mutual loyalty,” let us at least honor this moment to try to understand the nature of loyalty.
A short story is illustrative: I once sat on a compensation committee where we were considering giving an employee a pay increase. A committee member said the pay raise should be given, because the employee was “loyal for 20 years of service.” The issue: That employee was always paid significantly higher than market rate, with significantly higher benefits than the market rate. Therefore, loyalty was not an appropriate component of consideration. This context is simply the paid mercenary, where the employee had received sufficient reward not to test the social bond. [3.4]
An essential element of loyalty is pain, or sacrifice. We simply cannot test for loyalty without seeking that element. If, per market conditions, Ebenezer is of average income and could pay Cratchit less than market rate, but still pays him market rate by social affinity, Ebenezer is choosing pain and demonstrates loyalty to Cratchit that earns reciprocation. But, if Ebenezer is extremely wealthy, and even if he pays Cratchit better than market—doing so in Ebenezer’s own self-interest for retention purposes—there is no loyalty by Ebenezer; it is simply a bargain for an employee mercenary or it might simply be a gift. In this case, we might say that Ebenezer is “good to Cratchit” but that is not the same thing as being loyal to Cratchit. The effect is the same, but from a different causation. Moreover, even if Cratchit is paid less than market for many years, but the market does not permit Cratchit’s free choice of changing jobs, there is no loyalty in Cratchit—Cratchit is not loyal, Cratchit is simply stuck.
Therefore, one essential element of loyalty is pain (or, sacrifice), another is choice (options). The greater the choice and pain, the greater the demonstration of loyalty. [12]
This teaching by Aesop is subtle, but complex, and life-critical. It reminds us that we earn the loyalty of another by our choice to sacrifice for the other. A mercenary’s bond is money, and that bond is fungible. A human bond is personal, and that bond is not fungible.
A martyr’s loyalty to a cause is demonstrated in the choice to self-sacrifice. Great leaders and great teams develop bonds by choosing mutual personal sacrifice, often in the little things that add up.
And behold that not all the choices of sacrifice are destructive, as in Aesop’s fable here. This Traveler fable exposes not a sacrifice sourced from need, but the lessening of a overfilled lucky pleasure. Therefore, Aesop suggests the comeuppance of the vice of gluttony, being a failure of fortitude and temperance [8], which is implicit in the lesson. [9, 10]
That is, we distinguish in this fable the difference in sharing from what is our surplus and sharing from what is otherwise our needs.
Now, here’s the advanced part of loyalty. The concept of loyalty implies less than perfect love, as the adage suggests, “Where perfect love exists, duty gets a free ride.” If you ask a mother why she sacrifices for her selfish child, it’s not loyalty, per se, because it’s perfect love. Loyalty implies a force of principle, a duty.
And absolutely nothing is stronger than perfect love and mutual human loyalty, as both give the last full measure. The space of gods, and martyrs, and heroes. [11, *12]
So taught Jesus: “He sat down opposite the treasury. He looked up and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. He called his disciples to himself, he said to them, ‘Amen, I say to you truly, this poor widow put in more than all they who have contributed to the treasury. For they have all contributed offerings from their abundance, but she has contributed all she had—her whole livelihood.’” [3.5]
[1] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [GRZ24] [LinkedIn #GRZ_24]
[2] The Evolution of Revolution; Or Stopping the Revolution at 180°, And Not Going Full Circle [GRZ172] [LinkedIn #GRZ_172]
[3] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 3.1 ONE: 543 [L6:36] (“Perfect“); 3.2 ONE: 535 [T5:45] (“Golden Rule“); 3.3 ONE: 2368 [T25:25, L19:20] (“Profitable Servant; Talents”); 3.4 ONE: 545 [T6:1] (“Reputation Gifts”); 3.5 ONE: 2178 [R12:41, L21:1] (“Poor Widow’s Gift”)
[3a] Love or Fear to Motivate: Which is Better? [GRZ216] [LinkedIn #GRZ_216]
[4] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VIII [Prayer] [GRZ131] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131]
[5] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. IX [Hope] [GRZ157] [LinkedIn #GRZ_157]
[6] The Tarpeian Rock; Or, America’s Hard Decisions [GRZ205] [LinkedIn #GRZ_205]
[7] Blame 101. Or, Attitude, and Sticks and Stones. – No. 88. The Eagle and the Arrow – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_88] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_88]
[8] The Two “Master Virtues” – The Executive Summary [GRZ209] [LinkedIn #GRZ_209]
[9] Benefit and Burden [GRZ101]
[10] Consumption and Gluttony [GRZ93]
[11] Failing to Die Is Killing Us, or Logan’s Run Revisited – Stand for America® [GRZ76] [LinkedIn #GRZ_76]
[12] Who is a Hero? [GRZ103] [LinkedIn #GRZ_103]
Looney Tunes [MUID50X] – It’s Mine, All Mine
“Moralitas non est in statu naturae.” (“Morality does not exist in the state of nature.”); “Fidelitatis est disciplina ac dolor.” (“Loyalty is discipline and suffering.”); “Sapientia et bonitas non sunt idem.” (“Wisdom and goodness are not the same thing.”); “Ubi amor est, officium fit eros libero.” (“Where love exists, duty gets a free ride.”);“Fideles sperare possunt fideles, sed proditio debet proditionem exspectare.” (“Faithfulness might expect faithfulness, but betrayal must expect betrayal.”) ~ grz
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s “Mutual Loyalty – No. 21 – The Two Travelers and the Purse” is a deceptively simple Aesop fable that, under his method of expansion, becomes a profound and multilayered treatise on loyalty, expectation, reciprocity, and human nature. Let’s break this down followed by a reasoned conclusion.
⚖️ I. Core Teaching: Fable Summary & Surface Moral
Fable: Two travelers walk together. One finds a purse and claims it as his own. When trouble comes from an angry mob, the same man suddenly seeks solidarity, only to be reminded: “You should say, I am doomed.”
Stated Moral: “If we claim to be alone with our fortune, then we should be alone with our misfortune.”
Surface Takeaway: This is a clear cause-and-effect principle of fairness—those who exclude others in prosperity have no moral basis to expect support in adversity.
🧠 II. Pedagogical Layers of the Article
Zegarelli employs Socratic dialectic and Aesopian cause-effect reasoning to turn the simple parable into a comprehensive education on loyalty:
1. Distinction Between Act-Based Morality vs. Wisdom-Based Expectation
- Act-based morality (child-level): “Do unto others.”
- Wisdom-level (Aesopian): Don’t expect loyalty if you never offered it—foolishness lies in the expectation, not in the selfish act per se.
- → This detaches moral judgment from natural consequence. The unwise man isn’t necessarily “bad”—just blind to cause and effect.
2. Foolishness of Expectation
- The Finder is not condemned for selfishness per se, but for expecting communal support after acting individualistically.
- → Pedagogical inversion: Not “selfishness is bad,” but “don’t expect benefit from a bond you chose to sever.”
3. Principle of Loyalty as Sacrifice + Choice
- Loyalty ≠ transaction. True loyalty demands:
- Choice (alternatives must exist)
- Pain or sacrifice (cost must be borne)
- Loyalty, therefore, is measured by opportunity cost, not by sentiment or long-term presence alone.
4. Economic and Leadership Application
- Example: A worker paid above-market wages for 20 years is not “loyal” just because they stayed. There was no cost.
- Leader lesson: Build teams through shared sacrifice, not just compensation. Loyalty is forged through hardship, not subsidy.
5. Love vs. Loyalty
- Perfect love (e.g., a mother’s to her child) doesn’t require duty. It’s beyond loyalty.
- Loyalty is duty-driven, volitional, and reciprocal, not unconditional.
- → The hero, martyr, or patriot merges the two: personal sacrifice by choice with love.
🧬 III. Zegarelli’s Broader Ethos Embedded in the Teaching
A. Civilization Depends on Predictable Reciprocity
- Loyalty is the glue of functioning relationships and societies, but it is not automatic—it must be earned and given mutually.
- His maxim: “Loyalty might expect loyalty, but betrayal must expect betrayal.”
- → This is aligned with realpolitik, not naive idealism.
B. A Theory of Moral Discipline
- Zegarelli distances himself from dogmatic morality (“don’t be selfish”) and instead promotes a discipline-based ethic:
- Human nature is what it is.
- Wisdom lies in understanding how to navigate it, not deny it.
C. Civic and Corporate Application
- Mercenary relationships (based on pay) are fungible.
- Loyal relationships (based on shared suffering or principle) are not.
- → This directly informs Zegarelli’s civic ethos: “A nation built on transaction alone cannot stand.”
D. Spiritual and Philosophical Integration
- The inclusion of the Widow’s Mite parable from Jesus is a subtle spiritual reinforcement: true worth is in sacrifice, not quantity.
- The widow and the second traveler are aligned—they give even when not obligated.
🧾 Conclusion: Zegarelli’s Teaching, Pedagogy, and Ethos
This fable, as analyzed by Gregg Zegarelli, teaches far more than fairness or manners. It becomes a layered moral, philosophical, and sociopolitical lesson on the logic of loyalty.
Teaching: Do not expect support in hardship if you rejected mutuality in success.
Pedagogy: The article shows how to extract layered meaning—moving from simple morality to nuanced wisdom, rooted in human tendencies.
Ethos: Zegarelli’s broader system values discipline over sentiment, reciprocity over idealism, and cause-effect understanding over moral fiat. Loyalty is a binding force of civilization—earned, not assumed.
In sum, the article functions not only as a morality tale, but as a handbook for leaders, a warning to narcissists, and a call to mutual sacrifice in any true relationship—personal, civic, or professional.
20250506.4o
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mutual-loyalty-21-two-travelers-purse-essential-zegarelli-esq-
Related Articles:
- [25] Going It Alone – Business of Aesop™ No. 21. – Two Travelers and the Purse [GRZ25] [LinkedIn_#GRZ_25]
- [98_74] Loyalty and Partnerships – No. 74. The Bear and the Two Travelers – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_74] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_74]
GRZ98_21.20250506 GRZUID98_21