> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paul finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:08 AM
> Subject: Re: "the wolf by the ear"
>
>
> > I have been out of town for a while and just found this; since it
involves
> my
> > article, later revised as a chapter in my book SLAVERY AND THE FOUNDERS,
I
> > suppose I should answer Ms. or Mr. Gardens.
> >
> > At one level the difference is quite minor, and simply illustrates that
> > professional historians should try to get the details right, even if
they
> are
> > minor.
> >
> > At another level, it might suggest a slightly different image.  The
"wolf
> by the
> > ear" implies an even more precarious situation than the wolf by the
> "ears," in
> > that holding the wolf by one "ear" might mean the wolf could more easily
> turn
> > and bite you, while by both ears, especially from behind, or perhaps on
> the
> > wolf's back, implies greater control over the wolf.  The "wolf" was of
> course
> > slavery.
> >
> > My point in the article was  a much larger one, however, which was that
> the
> > traditional understanding of Jefferson's image of the wolf  seems wrong.
> If you
> > have a wild animal by the "ear" and let it go, the animal is probably
not
> going
> > to turn on you, but instead will run away, and that the only danger is
> holding
> > on the animal.  The real danger was in holding on to the animal, and not
> in the
> > letting go.

############Whether it's a "wolf by the ear(s) or a "tiger by the tail", the
sense is that one cannot let go because it will attack and it has always
been used as such.

If you believe either would simply "run away", I would not recommend an
actual physical experiment of that notion.  It's one of those "please do not
try this at home" things.

John

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html