Will you Flatter me?

A rigid elder and a cunning elder were talking together.

“I have a hundred ounces of gold,” said the rigid elder. “If I give you twenty, will you flatter me?”

“It would not be fairly shared, so how could I flatter you?” answered the cunning elder.

“Suppose I give you half, would you flatter me then?”

“We would be equal. I would not flatter you.”

“And if I give you all the gold, how then?”

“If I had all the gold, I would have no need to flatter you.”

Allegorical Meaning

This minimalist dialogue deconstructs the illusion of transactional relationships and the paradox of power, revealing various layers of existential truth about autonomy and control:

The Futility of Purchased Allegiance

• The rigid elder operates on capitalist logic: wealth = control over others
• His incremental offers (20% > 50% > 100%) reflect belief in quantifiable human subservience
• The cunning elder’s rejections systematically dismantle this worldview

False Pretenses of Fairness

His rejection of partial shares (“unequal, so no flattery”) and equal splits (“equal, so not to flatter”) shows how people mask self-interest with moral rhetoric.

When offered everything, his blunt “no need to flatter” confirms that deference is purely profit-driven — once power shifts completely, pretenses collapse.

Satire on Human Nature

The story mocks both characters: the pedantic man for expecting loyalty through bribes, and the slippery man for cynically dismissing all generosity as either unfair or unnecessary.

This tale strips human interactions to their transactional core, warning against mistaking calculated compliance for genuine respect. The slippery man’s logic mirrors real-world hypocrisy — those who demand fairness often reject it when achieved.