A lion joins a partnership with other animals—often a fox, a wolf, and a smaller beast like a jackal or ass—to hunt. Together, they succeed in bringing down a large prey (such as a stag). When it comes time to divide the meat, the lion arrogantly assigns himself the first portion because he is king; he then takes the second portion as a reward for his courage; for the third portion, he growls that it belongs to him by virtue of his strength; and as for the fourth part, he warns that whoever touches it will face his wrath. Thus, the lion takes all the shares, leaving nothing for his erstwhile “partners.” The others depart, grumbling helplessly. This is the origin of the term “the lion’s share,” meaning the largest (or entire) portion taken by the most powerful party. The fable’s moral can be stated cynically: Might makes right, or “Partnership with the mighty is never equitable.”
This fable starkly portrays the injustice that often accompanies alliances between unequals. The lion’s reasoning in dividing the spoils is a parody of justice: he invokes various principles (royalty, bravery, strength) all conveniently to his own advantage. In doing so, he exposes the reality that power often cloaks itself in the language of legitimacy. Philosophically, it invites consideration of Thrasymachean justice (from Plato’s Republic, where Thrasymachus argues justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger). Indeed, “The Lion’s Share” fable could be seen as an animal parable of that concept. It challenges any naive notion of fairness when a dominant party is involved: the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must—unless checks and balances are present.
From a historical perspective, the phrase “lion’s share” entered common parlance through this fable (first recorded by Greek sources like Babrius and later by Latin authors like Phaedrus). Over time, it has often been referenced in political commentary. For instance, colonial powers taking the lion’s share of colonies’ resources, or a corrupt official claiming the lion’s share of profits, allude back to this fable’s imagery. It has served as a caution: weaker parties should not expect fair dealing when entering compacts with those vastly more powerful, for promises of equality may prove empty once the objective is achieved.
In ethical terms, the lion’s behavior is often held up as an example of shameless greed and tyranny. The other animals might symbolize naïve allies or common folk misled into trusting a ruler’s rhetoric of partnership. The fable thereby can be read as political satire. Indeed, some versions replace the partner animals with humans (like a cow or goat friend) to drive the point that if you join a venture with someone who far outranks you, be prepared to be defrauded. It underscores a kind of Realpolitik wisdom: bargain from a position of strength, or don’t be surprised at betrayal.
For modern readers, “The Lion’s Share” resonates whenever we see disproportionate outcomes cloaked in supposedly fair processes. One might think of negotiations where one side holds all leverage—perhaps a giant corporation dealing with small contractors, or a dominant country in trade agreements—and how the outcome inevitably favors the big player. The lion’s glib justifications mirror the rationalizations often given by the powerful to legitimize their disproportionate gains. The fable encourages critical thinking about justice versus power. It might spur discussions among philosophy or law students about the foundations of justice: is it merely a social construct vulnerable to power imbalance, as this fable cynically implies, or is there a moral imperative that should override such imbalances?
The simple outcome—lion takes everything—also offers a grim perspective on alliances: if you partner with someone lacking scruples, documents and words mean little; their capacity to enforce their will is what will count. It highlights the importance of trust, or enforcement mechanisms, in any joint venture. Without them, the result is as foregone as the lion’s banquet.
Thus, while brief, The Lion’s Share fable provides a potent insight into human (and animal) nature: power tends to claim privilege for itself. The wise are wary of this tendency. The moral warning might be twofold: to the powerful, a reminder that naked greed makes a mockery of justice; to the powerless, a warning to be cautious and realistic in dealings with the mighty. In sum, the fable cynically—but truthfully—observes that equal partnership is impossible when one partner can devour the rest.
Leave a Reply