Chreia's, Maxim's and the Persuasive Essay

Refutation of Chico and The Crane

The Story goes that Chico, a cook, was cooking in the kitchen when a peasant convinced him to give her one of the bird's legs. Since the girl's eyes were like the glittering jewels that God had strung in the sky by strings of starlight, of course he consented. Later, he served the crane for his master, Mr. Corrado, who was most displeased with the disturbance of the crane. Upon questioning, Chico denied that cranes had more than one leg, angering the skilled huntsman. The next morning Chico saw a flock of cranes on one leg, sleeping, which he pointed out to Mr. Corrado. Mr. Corrado then shouted, and the birds revealed their other leg. This leads to Chico making a remark about how Corrado should have done that yesterday. Mr. Corrado laughs and they part as friends. This story is so ridiculous and insipid it is easy to refute.

Why would he give a piece of the crane to a stranger and risk his distinguished job? No ordinary man can be a head cook; he must have worked hard for his job, and no experienced and trustworthy employee would give food to a stranger before a feast. Some may say that the girl was a peasant and thus, due to lack of food, peaked. It is only natural that he felt bad for her. The story says the girl was beautiful, yet how can you be dehydrated, malnourished, and sunken of body, and yet be described as slim and beautiful? Not to mention, that if he were fired he would lose all ability to help her in the future. Either Chico did not want to help her in the long term, or he was trying to be fired.

Granting that Chico acted recklessly, would a lowly cook really try to outsmart an educated nobleman and experienced hunter? Chico may have been reckless, but he would have known that he would not have gotten away with intentionally deceiving his master. Who would be able to successfully trick one of the best huntsmen? You might say, "He was only stalling for time to come up with a plausible excuse." Who attempts to stall by blocking most of their escape routes? Either, he was trying to get himself into hot water, or he is a compulsive liar. You might argue in response, "Maybe he did have a problem with compulsive arguing, a mental condition that would endear him to the reader." So either he is like the boy who cried wolf, always howling new lies and stories, or he is truly unsure of what he should do to save his hide. It is impossible to believe that Chico would try to outsmart Corrado, he would not be trying to get in trouble, and a compulsive liar is a terrible thing in a children's story such as this. Therefore, this leaves only that he is not witty or smart enough to save himself; which is obviously contradicted later in the story.

Nevertheless, let us grant that Chico would have acted senselessly. Would a nobleman of a rich Italian estate, with fountains and well-stocked ponds, and game abundant in his forests, who maintains any level of respect, condescend so far as to allow a servant to lie outright to him without punishment? No self-respecting lord would allow a servant to lie to him. He would only have the highest level of excellence from his servants, like a true dignitary. Since Corrado is a nobleman, he would never have acted this way. Would not a master discipline his servants? A master is an authority who has to maintain respect. Moreover, in order to maintain respect would not an authority discipline his servants instead of allowing rebellion? Could a master even be called a master if he does not discipline an insurgent? Would an author really create a character who will rage and threaten, yet does not punish an insurrectionist among his servants, would the author even attempt to call him a master?

Why would Mr. Corrado refuse to punish Chico at first, but still threaten and rage, running through emotions like a shallow girl brushes through boyfriends? If Mr. Corrado would still be so angry that his eyes flash like the sun, like that blazing forge of Dante's narrations, then how could he just laugh at one of Chico's ridiculous remarks, and forgive him? Mr. Corrado has shown himself to be a very unforgiving man. How then could he allow Chico's wit and humor, so obviously aimed at distraction or some other sort of amnesic property? Either Corrado is a weak-willed master who would try his hardest not to punish his servants, or he is mentally unstable.

Why would Corrado continue to threaten and growl, unless he is plotting with murderous intentions, the idea of which is base and far below a nobleman? Noblemen are supposed to be controlled. If Corrado were a true nobleman, then he would be able to control the murderous Cain within him. Then, if Corrado could not control this beast within, then he could not have been a nobleman, because he is not unwilling to voice his rage.

Why would Mr. Corrado erase any shred of credibility he had left, by dismissing his servant without discipline? A master must not shy away from punishing a disobedient and disrespectful servant. How then could Mr. Corrado erase any slight shaving of authority he had left by just laughing and forgiving Chico? Seriously? Either Mr. Corrado is subject to mood swings (a disturbing concept in a story such as this) or he is not made for living a nobleman's life, but that of a peasant.

Who would write such a story to encourage sedition and insubordination? Down with foolish tales! Down with the author of this tale! Down with all the poets!