Accepting anything from an enemy could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, as it shows you are dependent upon your enemy. This is clearly something that Georg definitely wanted to avoid. Having been feuding for so long, forgiveness and learning to accept something from your mortal enemy is not something that is easily learnt.
The irony at the end of the short story "The Interlopers" by Saki is that both men were going to receive what they had wished for. Also there is irony in that the land over which they fought was responsible for their predicament--the trees and the animals. Another irony is that the hunters were becoming the hunters. Were they the interloper in nature?
one reason that Georg refuse Ulrich's offer to share the wine is that he
is proud. Very, very proud. That, of course, is the root of the feud between the two men and their families for generations back. There is probably some validity to both sides of the argument--the land probably did actually belong to both of them, and one family undoubtedly usurped the other's portion in a deed or will...but only because they felt wronged by someone in the other family. Those are the classic moves of two families who are too stubborn to give in. That's what keeps Georg from accepting Ulrich's gesture of friendship and sharing at first.
. . .does not want to "need" anything from his enemy. When a person accepts charity from another, he/she often feels indebted and inferior to the person. Georg is not ready to completely disregard the years of feuding between him and Ulrich.
What is the surprisingand ironic about the ending of the story? What truth is revealed, and what do you predict the consequences will be?
What is the moral of The Trapper Trapped, and how is it similar to the moral of The Interlopers?