resisting it; thus, the meeting was the occasion for the king’s power over him to become manifest in this way.” In response, it is said: It is well known that when kings wish to torment someone and punish him severely, they generally keep him away from their presence rather than summon him before them. Conversely, those whom they wish to favor they more often bring into their presence than keep away. This is known from observing customary practices. Moreover, the association of honor with being brought into the royal presence is more frequent than people’s drawing near. How, then, can the word “meeting” be taken to signify the coercive power of kings rather than the favor they show, which accompanies meeting them?

The fifteenth point: People do not call the severity of kings and the punishment they inflict a “meeting” with them, either literally or figuratively. Rather, the word “meeting” denotes a meeting in its familiar sense. If punishment accompanies it, they give that punishment another name; they do not call it a “meeting.” Thus, the statement he has cited is evidence against him, not in his favor.

The sixteenth point: When kings display their power, coercive authority, and severity toward those who are not in their presence, this is not called a “meeting,” either literally or figuratively. Nor does a king say of someone whose punishment he has ordered, while that person is