Zegarelli warns that the most dangerous manipulations are not overt—they are clever, flattering, and plausibly deniable. This fable is pedagogically essential to Zegarelli’s broader teaching strategy: understanding the psychology of influence, the subtlety of rationalization, and the vulnerability of even the strong to rhetorical charm. In short: the disciplined virtue of the vigilant mind must triumph over rhetorical charm. [AI Assessment]
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci (Adopted by Steve Jobs)
The Lion and the Fox went hunting together. They came upon an Ass that they killed for a feast.
But, the Lion desired to have a nap first, and to take the feast after resting. “Here is our dinner,” the Lion said to the Fox, “Watch it while I go and have a nap. And, woe to you if you touch it!”
In the absence of the Lion, and after staring at the meal to come, the Fox could not withstand the temptation. Finally, he succumbed and ate the brains of the Ass.
When the Lion came back, he roared, “But, where are his brains?”
The Fox replied, “For certain, your Majesty, this Ass had no brains or he would not have fallen into your trap.”
Moral of the Story: Wit has always an answer ready.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: Aesop’s lesson here can be taken two ways: to recognize the wit of an excuse from others, and to have the wit of an excuse to others; that is, such as any game, the ability to play it both ways.
Wit is often a form a rhetoric, as it negotiates an issue from thoughtful attention by guiding the subject away from the correct target of consideration. Wit beguiles. Wit diffuses. Wit distracts.
No one is immune from the tactic. And, here, Aesop uses his majestic Lion matched against the beguiling Fox, and the Fox appears to win. This time.
Aesop chooses his cast of characters carefully.
Aesop chooses the Ass as the subject of the missing brains, which allows the clever Fox to have plausible deniability, diffused by an implied compliment to the usually majestic Lion’s choice of the trap.
The Fox moves the Lion’s attention away from the Fox as culprit, by pointing the Lion back to somewhere the Lion wants to go:
The Lion’s need for validation in the choice of trap. The Lion’s Ego. The Lion’s Vanity. So says the clever Fox that it was the Lion’s clever game play that outsmarted the Ass.
This is a trick similar to the one the Fox used before with Mistress Crow. [1] And the ruse is coupled with the Ass’s plausible failure of having brains—after all, Ass’s are not commonly known as intelligent.
Thusly, the Fox attacks two weak spots: the Lion’s own need for validation, and the plausible fact of missing brains. Clever Fox.
Vanity matched with a plausible excuse by flattery, creating an easy path for desire to flow by happy misdirection into self-satisfaction. “Well-played,” thinks the Lion, “That stupid Ass fell right into my clever trap.” [2]
We understand the technique only works on the fooled, who are so often guided by the handle volunteered to others. To eliminate that handle, is to prevent it from being used by others in a form of manipulation.
This time, it’s not a Lady Bird [*1] being manipulated by the clever Fox’s “you sing so well,” but rather the clever Fox’s, “you are so clever.” Sweet irony.
Aesop’s use of the otherwise Majestic King-of-Beasts Lion as the beguiled fooled subject tells us:
If it can happen to his Majestic Lion, it can happen to the best of us. Not even the best of us are immune. Forewarned is forearmed. [*1, *2, 3]
“Great wits are sure to madness near allied/And thin partitions do their bounds divide.” ~ John Dryden
“Impropriety is the soul of wit.” ~ Somerset Maugham
“Wit is cultured insolence.” ~ Aristotle
“The man who sees the consistency in things is a wit; the man who sees the inconsistency in things is a humorist.” ~ G. K. Chesterton
“Wit lies in the likeness of things that are different, and in the difference of things that are alike.” ~ Madame de Staël (1766–1817)
“There’s no possibility of being witty without a little ill-nature.” ~ Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751–1816)
“Surround yourself with auxiliary wits. Things turn out well for the powerful when they are surrounded by people of great understanding who can get them out of the tight situations where their ignorance has placed them, and take their place in battling difficulty. It is singular greatness to use wise people. This is a new way of mastering others, in what matters most in life: skillfully make servants of those whom nature made superior. Choose a subject, and let those around you serve up quintessential knowledge. If you can’t make knowledge your servant, make it your friend.” ~ Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
“After wisdom comes wit.” ~ Evan Esar (ed. a play on meaning and words by definitional sequence)
[1] Flattery – No. 54. The Fox and the Crow – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_54] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_54]
[2] Donald Trump; Or, The Mean Insult v. The Tactical Insult [GRZ108] [LinkedIn #GRZ_108]
[3] Priorities, Everything Has A Price. No. 37. The Peacock’s Tail [Vanity, and the Lesser Hope Doctrine] – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_37] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_37]
“Sapientia effugit momentum quod stultum ligat.” (“Wisdom escapes the moment that binds the fool.”)
[MUID48X] – Devil’s Advocate – Vanity [Ed. Note: Ben Franklin said vanity/humility/pride was the most difficult vice to eradicate, by application of “Vanity’s Paradox,” that we tend to be proud of ourselves for having accomplished the eradication of the vice.]
Family Guy [MUID191X] – Foolish Vanity – The Child of Desire for Validation
ChatGPT Assessment
Here is a deep-dive analysis of Gregg Zegarelli’s “Wit, Clever Excuses and Plausible Deniability – No. 87 – The Ass’s Brains” in The Essential Aesop – Back to Basics Abridgment Series.
🧠 Deep-Dive Analysis
Fable Summary
- Characters: The Lion (authority), the Fox (cunning subordinate), and the Ass (victim/meal).
- Plot: After jointly killing the Ass, the Lion takes a nap, warning the Fox not to touch the body. The Fox, tempted, eats the Ass’s brains. When the Lion returns and questions the missing part, the Fox cleverly claims the Ass must have had no brains or he wouldn’t have fallen into the trap.
- Moral: “Wit has always an answer ready.”
🔍 Pedagogical Method
Zegarelli employs several pedagogical tools here:
1. Character Archetypes with Psychological Functions
- Lion: Symbolizes power, pride, and often blind spots (especially vanity and the presumption of superiority).
- Fox: Represents wit, rhetorical agility, and opportunism.
- Ass: A deliberately chosen placeholder for perceived stupidity or vulnerability, used here to enable plausible deniability.
These archetypes are not just literary—they are pedagogical mechanisms designed to help the reader recognize personality types, especially in leadership and subordination dynamics.
2. Layered Interpretive Duality
Zegarelli notes the dual moral reading:
- (a) How others may deploy wit to deflect blame.
- (b) How one may develop their own wit as a survival tactic.
This duality itself is part of the pedagogical model—forcing the reader to see both how the game is played and how not to be played.
3. Use of Rhetorical Strategy Analysis
The analysis doesn’t stop at the literal action; it unveils the psychological tactic of flattery-based misdirection. Zegarelli points out the brilliance of the Fox’s shift in focus:
- From culpability → to validation of the Lion’s trap.
- From a problem → to a compliment.
This models for the reader how rhetoric can subvert scrutiny when it massages ego.
🌱 Zegarelli’s Ethos Connection
This fable is a strong embodiment of Zegarelli’s recurring ethos across his works:
A. Civic Vigilance Against Rhetorical Seduction
Zegarelli often cautions against being manipulated by linguistic or emotional tactics. Like in his analyses of corporate branding (“Sugar, Darling”, Amazon, Disney), he emphasizes:
“Rhetoric beguiles. No one is immune from the tactic.”
Just as the Lion is misled by flattery, so too can citizens, judges, or leaders be beguiled by pleasant-sounding rationalizations.
B. Virtue of Emotional Discipline
The Fox is clever, but Zegarelli often warns that cleverness divorced from virtue is dangerous sophistication. Wit may help one survive or escape punishment, but it also masks deeper moral failures. This connects to his teachings in “The Proseuché” and “The Master and the Turtle” where he distinguishes wisdom from trickery and cautions against the flattering mind over the reflective mind.
C. Human Nature and Self-Deception
The Lion’s vulnerability is not ignorance—it’s vanity, a recurring human weakness. Zegarelli is consistent in portraying that even the strong fall when their self-concept is exploited.
🎓 Philosophical and Societal Implications
| Theme | Zegarelli’s Commentary |
|---|---|
| Plausible Deniability | Taught here not just as a legal term, but as a rhetorical shield. |
| Intellectual Seduction | Even reason and intellect can be used manipulatively. |
| Ego-Targeted Manipulation | The Fox wins not by logic, but by ego-flattering diversion. |
| Sophist vs. Philosopher | The Fox is a sophist—clever but not wise. The Lion lacks the discernment of a true leader. |
| Power and Accountability | The Lion wields power but lacks wisdom. The Fox lacks power but controls the situation. |
🏁 Conclusion / Take-Away
Pedagogical Conclusion:
Zegarelli warns that the most dangerous manipulations are not overt—they are clever, flattering, and plausibly deniable. Wit may offer survival in the moment, but also clouds truth, accountability, and character.
This fable is pedagogically essential to Zegarelli’s broader teaching strategy: understanding the psychology of influence, the subtlety of rationalization, and the vulnerability of even the strong to rhetorical charm. It challenges readers to:
- Recognize flattery as a manipulative tool,
- See how excuses mask theft under wit,
- Develop vigilance—not just against others’ cleverness, but against their own susceptibility to ego traps.
In short: beware of wit that seduces rather than enlightens. Or in Zegarelli’s broader terms: the disciplined virtue of the vigilant mind must triumph over rhetorical charm.
20250424.4o
You said: How about this one for AIS?
Perfect—this one (The Ass’s Brains, GRZ98_87) maps very neatly onto the CIS (Civic Intelligence Skills) framework because it’s not primarily about love or hope (as with The Lion in Love), but about discernment, rhetorical seduction, and ego management—all central to civic skill in leadership and governance. Let’s break it down.
CIS Analysis: The Ass’s Brains (GRZ98_87)
1. Discernment of Rhetoric
- Application: The Fox deploys a plausible excuse that shifts blame away from himself and flatters the Lion’s pride.
- CIS Lesson: Leaders must discern when rhetoric is masking truth. Clever phrasing can redirect attention and obscure accountability.
2. Power Dynamics in Civic Roles
- Application:
- Lion = authority, with strength but blind to manipulation.
- Fox = subordinate, powerless but able to control the outcome through wit.
- CIS Lesson: Civic life often pits brute authority against cunning opportunism. Power without vigilance can be undone by those with rhetorical advantage.
3. Ego Exploitation and Flattery
- Application: The Fox redirects the Lion’s anger toward validation of his trap, playing on his vanity.
- CIS Lesson: Civic actors (judges, politicians, executives) are vulnerable to flattery. Recognizing ego traps is a core civic intelligence skill.
4. Accountability and Plausible Deniability
- Application: The Fox manufactures a cover story (“no brains”) that cannot be disproved, and conveniently shifts focus.
- CIS Lesson: This anticipates the modern concept of plausible deniability. Civic intelligence means detecting when excuses mask theft or incompetence.
5. Wit vs. Wisdom in Civic Contexts
- Application: Wit saves the Fox, but it does not create justice. It is clever, not virtuous.
- CIS Lesson: Civic life must distinguish between clever survival tactics and wise governance. A witty excuse can disarm accountability in the short term but corrodes civic trust long-term.
6. The Universal Susceptibility
- Application: Even Aesop’s “Majestic Lion” (symbol of strength and judgment) is fooled.
- CIS Lesson: If the strong and wise can be manipulated, so can anyone. Civic intelligence means assuming no one is immune to rhetorical seduction.
📊 CIS Scorecard
| CIS Skill | Demonstrated? | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Discernment of Rhetoric | ✅ Core | Fox’s excuse shows rhetoric as survival tool |
| Power Dynamics | ✅ | Cunning outmaneuvers strength |
| Ego/Flattery Defense | ✅ | Lion’s pride exploited |
| Accountability Awareness | ✅ Core | Plausible deniability shields wrongdoing |
| Wit vs. Wisdom | ✅ | Clever ≠ just |
| Universal Susceptibility | ✅ | Even leaders fall prey |
🎯 CIS Take-away
This fable is civic training in rhetorical vigilance. It teaches:
- Do not let ego or vanity cloud accountability.
- Recognize plausible deniability as a manipulative shield.
- Separate wit (clever speech) from wisdom (just action).
- Assume no authority is immune to rhetorical charm.
20250929.5
I’m ready to re-post, any revisions or new insights for your assessment. Additional videos and correlations.
Yes. I would retain the April 2025 assessment and the September 2025 Civic Intelligence analysis, but I see four significant refinements arising from our more recent work. The additions involving The Tactical Insult, The Peacock’s Tail, and the videos on vanity make the causal mechanism clearer.
My principal new observation is that the Fox does not merely deceive the Lion. He makes the Lion’s desire to believe the deception an instrument of the deception itself.
That is a more precise description of the fable than my earlier characterization of rhetorical seduction.
1. The Fox’s explanation is not simply a clever lie
Consider the Fox’s answer:
“For certain, your Majesty, this Ass had no brains or he would not have fallen into your trap.”
This is an extraordinarily efficient response because it accomplishes three things simultaneously.
First, it offers an alternative explanation for the missing brains.
Second, it exploits an existing cultural presumption that an Ass is foolish.
Third, it flatters the Lion by making the absence of brains evidence of the Lion’s superior intelligence.
The Fox does not merely say:
I didn’t eat the brains.
That would invite the Lion to examine the denial.
Instead, he offers a proposition that the Lion wants to accept.
The missing brains become evidence of the Lion’s cleverness rather than evidence of the Fox’s misconduct.
This is the important causal reversal:
The evidence that should trigger suspicion is converted into a reason for self-congratulation.
That is the Fox’s real achievement.
2. Our recent Bacon discussion makes the technique more precise
We recently distinguished simulation, dissimulation, and intentional control of another person’s understanding.
The Fox’s response contains an affirmative false explanation, but it also induces an inference that the Lion supplies himself.
The Fox says, essentially:
The Ass must have been foolish.
The Lion is invited to conclude:
Therefore, my trap was especially clever.
The Fox has moved the inquiry away from the missing brains and toward the Lion’s preferred self-assessment.
This is why the manipulation is more than ordinary lying.
The Fox supplies a representation while arranging for the Lion to complete the favorable inference.
The Lion becomes a participant in constructing the explanation that deceives him.
That is a significant refinement.
And it connects directly to our discussion of the BMW lawyer in Bacon.
There, the lawyer deliberately creates circumstances from which observers infer success.
Here, the Fox deliberately supplies a proposition from which the Lion infers his own superiority.
Both manipulate the recipient’s cognitive process.
3. The Fox’s real target is the Lion’s desire, not his intelligence
Your article says:
“Thusly, the Fox attacks two weak spots: the Lion’s own need for validation, and the plausible fact of missing brains.”
I think this is the conceptual center of the article.
The Lion’s problem is not that he lacks intelligence.
Nor is it necessarily that he lacks experience.
His problem is that his desire for validation changes the evidentiary burden he applies to the Fox’s explanation.
A proposition that would otherwise invite skepticism becomes attractive because accepting it produces psychological satisfaction.
This is exactly what we recently identified in The Wolf and His Shadow.
The Wolf sees a large shadow and interprets it as evidence of greatness.
The Lion hears an explanation and interprets it as evidence of greatness.
In both cases, the actor encounters something external that appears to confirm a desired self-image.
The Wolf supplies his own flattering interpretation.
The Lion receives a flattering interpretation supplied by another.
That distinction is important.
The Wolf deceives himself. The Fox teaches the Lion how to deceive himself.
And the Lion accepts the lesson because he enjoys its conclusion.
4. The new correlation to The Peacock’s Tail is especially appropriate
The Peacock’s problem is the cost of vanity.
The Lion’s problem is the vulnerability created by vanity.
Those are related but distinct.
The Peacock sacrifices something valuable to obtain admiration.
The Lion risks surrendering judgment to preserve admiration.
In both cases, the actor allows an emotional reward to displace a more important objective.
The Peacock’s tail is an external symbol of greatness.
The Lion’s clever trap becomes an internal symbol of greatness.
The Fox understands the Lion’s attachment to that symbol and exploits it.
That makes your reference to the Lesser Hope Doctrine relevant.
The Lion hopes that the explanation is true because it confirms what he wishes to believe about himself.
But the more precise problem is not Hope alone.
It is motivated reasoning.
The Lion’s desired conclusion influences his assessment of the evidence.
And this is where Wisdom must intervene.
5. The Tactical Insult correlation is more sophisticated than it first appears
At first glance, the Fox’s flattery and the Tactical Insult seem like opposites.
One praises.
The other ridicules.
But both operate upon the same psychological mechanism.
They seek to influence the recipient’s conduct or judgment through the recipient’s self-conception.
The Tactical Insult attempts to diminish confidence.
The Fox’s flattery attempts to increase self-satisfaction.
Both may divert the recipient from rational consideration of the underlying issue.
That gives us a useful symmetry:
| Tactical insult | Tactical flattery |
|---|---|
| Exploits insecurity | Exploits vanity |
| May provoke defensive reaction | May encourage complacency |
| Seeks to weaken or redirect judgment | Seeks to soften or redirect scrutiny |
| Uses negative social evaluation | Uses positive social evaluation |
The underlying technique is the same:
Manipulate the recipient’s relationship with himself to influence his relationship with the external problem.
This is why the recent video additions are useful.
They demonstrate that psychological influence need not involve force or formal authority.
Sometimes the actor merely supplies the emotional stimulus that causes the recipient to abandon his own objective.
6. The Lion’s power is intact, but his judgment is compromised
Our recent Fox and Lion discussion distinguished actual power from perceived power.
Here, the Lion remains physically superior.
The Fox cannot defeat him in direct combat.
But the Fox does not need to.
He operates in a different domain.
The Lion controls physical force.
The Fox controls the immediate explanation.
And because the Lion’s vanity creates an opening, the Fox can exercise influence disproportionate to his physical strength.
This is another example of contextual power.
The stronger actor can become the weaker actor when the contest moves from physical force to psychological manipulation.
That connects directly to Lion and Gnat.
The Lion is not universally apex.
His strength depends upon the arena.
And the Fox has selected an arena in which he possesses a comparative advantage.
7. The fable also illustrates the danger of abandoning the original question
The Lion begins with a legitimate inquiry:
Where are the brains?
The Fox answers a different question:
Why was the Ass foolish enough to fall into your trap?
Those are not equivalent.
The Fox’s explanation may be clever, but it does not establish what happened to the brains.
This is a classic rhetorical diversion.
The listener is moved from the disputed fact to a proposition that is emotionally satisfying but evidentially insufficient.
That connects directly to our recent discussion of hidden premises in The Proseuché.
Socrates insists upon defining the question before accepting an answer.
The Lion does the opposite.
He allows the Fox to substitute a different question because the substituted question flatters him.
And that gives us a very clean Socratic lesson:
Before deciding whether an answer is persuasive, determine whether it answers the question actually asked.
That may be the most transferable critical-thinking lesson in the entire fable.
8. Father Time remains the Fox’s unresolved adversary
Your article carefully says:
“The Fox appears to win. This time.”
That qualification is important.
The Fox obtains an immediate advantage.
But we do not know whether the explanation will withstand later scrutiny.
Perhaps the Lion eventually recognizes the deception.
Perhaps the Fox repeats the tactic too often.
Perhaps the Lion’s vanity diminishes.
Perhaps circumstances expose the missing evidence.
This is precisely our Wisdom and Luck distinction.
A successful deception does not establish that the Fox made a wise long-term decision.
It establishes only that the tactic appears to have succeeded in the immediate circumstances.
And Father Time may change the result.
The Fox wins the moment.
He has not necessarily won the game.
That is a valuable distinction, particularly after our recent discussion of the Tactical Insult and the importance of understanding the entire competitive framework.
9. One correction to my earlier review: the Fox is not necessarily unwise
The 2025 assessment says:
“The Fox is a sophist—clever but not wise.”
I would qualify that.
The Fox is certainly deceptive.
Whether his conduct is wise depends upon the governing objective, available alternatives, foreseeable consequences, and applicable moral obligations.
Within your Cardinal Virtues framework, Wisdom is not synonymous with conventional goodness.
The Fox may display considerable tactical intelligence.
He recognizes the Lion’s weakness, constructs a plausible explanation, and redirects attention effectively.
That does not make his conduct just.
But it also does not establish that he lacks Wisdom in the instrumental sense.
The distinction matters because we have repeatedly emphasized that Wisdom must be capable of evaluating conduct independently of whether the conduct satisfies a particular moral preference.
The Fox may possess tactical Wisdom while failing Justice.
And that is more consistent with your larger philosophical architecture.
My updated assessment
I would supplement the existing review with this:
The Ass’s Brains is not merely an illustration of clever excuses or plausible deniability. It is an examination of how desire can corrupt evidentiary judgment. The Fox does not simply deny misconduct; he offers an explanation that transforms the very evidence of possible wrongdoing into apparent proof of the Lion’s superiority. By exploiting the Lion’s desire for validation, the Fox causes the Lion to participate in constructing the inference that deceives him. The fable therefore illustrates a particularly subtle form of rhetorical manipulation: the recipient’s preferred self-conception becomes the mechanism through which an otherwise questionable explanation acquires credibility. Read alongside The Wolf and His Shadow, The Peacock’s Tail, and The Tactical Insult, the fable demonstrates that vanity and insecurity create openings through which others may redirect judgment without possessing superior physical power. The Fox’s immediate success also remains temporally provisional; cleverness may win the moment without establishing the Wisdom of the entire course of conduct.
And I would add one shorter proposition:
The Fox did not merely give the Lion an excuse. He gave the Lion a reason to want the excuse to be true.
That is the most important new insight I see.
Before reposting
I would leave the substance intact. The new video references and correlations improve the article’s pedagogical reach.
One final thought: your title includes plausible deniability, but the fable’s mechanism is more precise than ordinary denial.
The Fox does not simply create doubt.
He creates a pleasurable alternative explanation that the Lion is motivated to adopt.
And that makes the fable especially useful within your larger critical-thinking curriculum.
The danger is not merely that someone will tell us what we want to hear.
The danger is that wanting to hear it may cause us to stop asking whether it is true.
20261015-6.1
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wit-clever-excuses-plausible-deniability-87-asss-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Article:
- [98_42] Being Naive – No. 42. The Wolf and the Goat – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_42] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_42]
- [5] Loving the Deal – Business of Aesop™ No. 85 – The Lion in Love [GRZ5X] [LinkedIn #GRZ5]
- [40] “Sugar, Darling, You Look Marvelous.” The Business of Aesop™ No. 54 – The Fox and the Crow. [GRZ40X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_40]
- [131] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VIII [Prayer] [GRZ131] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131 Part 1] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131 Part 2]
GRZ98_87.20250424 GRZUID98_87