A vizier is the most trusted consul of the sultan, with powers constrained only by the sultan himself. One particular vizier had dutifully served his sultan for over 30 years, but his blunt honesty had created many enemies within the sultan’s court, who spread rumors designed to instill doubt in the sultan’s mind as to the vizier’s true loyalty. Finally, enough damage was done, and based on the lies of others the sultan ordered the vizier put to death, thrown into a pit with vicious dogs and torn to shreds. Once sentenced to death, the vizier asked the sultan for 10 days to get his affairs in order, and promised to present himself for execution as commanded. Upon being granted those 10 days, the vizier took 100 gold pieces to the master of the hounds, and asked that he be allowed to care for the dogs. Over the next 10 days, the vizier diligently fed and pampered and butt-scratched and belly-rubbed the vicious hounds until it was time for him to die. He presented himself to the sultan as commanded, who then ordered him thrown into the pit. Once he struck the ground the dogs ran over to him, wagging their tails and licking his face. All of the witnesses watched in amazement, and when the vizier was brought up out of the pit, the sultan asked him why the dogs did not tear him apart. The vizier replied, “I cared for these dogs for a mere 10 days, and you see the result. I have cared for you for 30 years, and you sentenced me to death based on the lies of others.”
The sultan, ashamed, pardoned the vizier and further ordered those who had slandered him to be presented to the vizier for punishment. The vizier, in turn, set his detractors free.
Rather than pleading his case and trying to defend himself, the vizier demonstrated his ability to attend to the needs of others, even man-killing dogs, to prove his worth, loyalty, and fealty to the sultan.
Back in the age of Michelangelo, a 16th-century mayor of Florentine had a beautiful hunk of marble, ruined by an unskilled sculptor who had drilled a hole through the center of it. The mayor eventually contacted Michelangelo, the artist who ultimately molded the marble into the epic, nearly 6M / 17-ft statue of David. However, the mayor felt it was not quite perfect, critiquing the work and claiming that the nose was too big. Rather than argue, Michelangelo motioned the mayor towards the scaffolding, and while the man watched from below Micelangelo pretended to chisel away at the nose, releasing dust concealed in his hand to fool his patron while making no changes to the sculpture. When he finished, the mayor proudly declared the work complete.
Rather than argue that the mayor was wrong, that he was ignorant and unlearned as to the precision and depth of his artistic skill, Michelangelo merely gave the impression of altering his work to appease the other man, not bothering to complain about the mayor’s lack of vision.
Lesson? Talk is cheap, and more often than not those in power will not be swayed by earnest appeals to judgment but are more likely to be convinced by decisive, yet reserved, action.
Had the vizier argued against the rumors, he would have been devoured by dogs.
Had Michelangelo ridiculed his patron, the epic marble of David would have been lost to history.
Demonstrating, as opposed to persisting, the correctness of one’s opinion serves two functions: first, the audience – particularly those in power – is provided with a physical representation of the correctness of one’s ideas, and second, the preservation of pride. The disagreeable, the disputer, the contentious are not offended by appearing stupid, foolish, or unaware, but rather allowed their “lightbulb” moment within the darkness of their own minds.
“The truth is generally seen, rarely heard.”
– Balthasar Gracián (d. 1658)
Nikita Khrushchev, former member under Stalin’s regime and later a political leader of the Community Party of the USSR, gave a speech denouncing the crimes of Stalin, during which a heckler called out, “Why didn’t you stop him!” In response, Khrushchev barked at the crowd: “WHO SAID THAT.” Not a hand was raised. No one moved. The audience held its breath. In a much quieter voice, Khrushchev replied, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.” Instead of trying to convince others of the abject fear instilled by Stalin, Khrushchev allowed everyone there to feel it.
There are instances whereby action transcends mere movement into symbolism. The American flag has become a symbol of might, of power, of rule, recognized by every nation on the globe, a representation of US action across the world. Prior to the 1940’s, the swastika represented harmony and peace in Asian, African, and American cultures, but the appropriation of the symbol by the Nazis converted its meaning into something dark, evil, and cruel, based on the actions of the party. In Mr. Martin’s epic of Westeros, the sigil of the Hand indicated, much like the vizier, the power of the one wielding it, tempered only by the king, and the innate, unspoken validation of his words, thoughts, and deeds.
But.
Occasionally, circumstances necessitate the verbal counter, and argument is required to defeat your opponent; specifically, when you are caught in a lie. Deft application of a forked tongue can distract from the issue, disguise your deceit, and confound the aggressor, until the words have tied others into a knot.
Count Lusting, swindler supreme, sold boxes he claimed could copy money. The vast majority of his dupes never reported his crimes, but a sheriff from Oklahoma took significant umbrage at being conned out of $10,000 and tracked Lustig to a Chicago hotel. When presented with a gun in his face, Lustig acted surprised that the machine did not work, and insisted the sheriff was not operating it properly. Furthermore, he offered to return the purchase price, refunding the man 100 Ben Franklins, while allowing the sheriff to keep the device and giving him instructions for proper use. Later, the sheriff was arrested for passing counterfeit money, and Lustig’s problem was permanently solved.
The most astute fraudsters are considered artists of the con for a reason.
However, in most cases, an argument can be won or dispute can be solved or persuasion can be made with decisive action that demonstrates the error of the other’s thinking and the correctness of your position. But, as always, there are times when it is best to cut your losses and concede the issue, rather than risk jeopardizing future plans by alienating a powerful foe, patron, or superior.