The father should have challenged the king about his success. He should have demanded another shot so the king could prove on the father's own body that his hand was even steadier than when he killed the son. What a brutal king! What a perfect target for all his followers' arrows! We curse him for ending his feast with cruelty and death. But it was worse to praise that arrow shot than to shoot it. We'll discuss later how a father should act when standing over his son's corpse — a murder he both caused and witnessed. For now, I've proven my point: anger can be controlled.
He ought to have raised a dispute with him about his success, and have called for another shot, that the king might be pleased to prove upon the person of the father that his hand was even steadier than when he shot the son. What a savage king! what a worthy mark for all his follower’s arrows! Yet though we curse him for making his banquet end in cruelty and death, still it was worse to praise that arrow-shot than to shoot it. We shall see hereafter how a father ought to bear himself when standing over the corpse of his son, whose murder he had both caused and witnessed: the matter which we are now discussing, has been proved, I mean, that anger can be suppressed.