What did Priam do in the Iliad? He hid his anger and begged at Achilles' knees. He kissed the hand that had killed his son — that same blood-stained hand — and ate dinner with his son's killer. True! But there were no fancy perfumes or flower garlands at that meal. And his fierce enemy spoke kindly to him, gently encouraging him to eat. No one forced him to drain huge cups while a guard watched to make sure he drank. If Priam had only been worried about himself, he would have scorned the tyrant. But his love for his son crushed his anger. He deserved permission to leave the feast and collect his son's bones. But meanwhile, that 'kind and polite' young emperor wouldn't even allow him to do this. Instead, he tortured the old man by constantly inviting him to drink more, telling him it would ease his grief. The emperor acted cheerful and seemed to have forgotten what he had done that day. If Priam had been a poor dinner guest to his eldest son's murderer, he would have lost his second son too.
What did Priam do in the Iliad? Did he not conceal his wrath and embrace the knees of Achilles? did he not raise to his lips that death-dealing hand, stained with the blood of his son, and sup with his slayer? True! but there were no perfumes and garlands, and his fierce enemy encouraged him with many soothing words to eat, not to drain huge goblets with a guard standing over him to see that he did it. Had he only feared for himself, the father would have treated the tyrant with scorn: but love for his son quenched his anger: he deserved the emperor's permission to leave the banquet and gather up the bones of his son: but, meanwhile, that kindly and polite youth the emperor would not even permit him to do this, but tormented the old man with frequent invitations to drink, advising him thereby to lighten his sorrows. He, on the other hand, appeared to be in good spirits, and to have forgotten what had been done that day: he would have lost his second son had he proved an unacceptable guest to the murderer of his eldest.