_Father._ It might be a sufficient answer to state that it seems better to address princes in plural than in singular terms for the reason that well-bred people have found it so from the beginning; and it has since become a custom among all discreet and courteous men, and is done in honor of those who are addressed and are entitled to a deferential mode of address. But this is the thought which they had in mind who originated these expressions, that men of power are not like all others who have only themselves and their households to care for and are responsible for a few men only. For chieftains are responsible for all those who are subject to them in service or authority, and they have not only one man’s answer on the tongue but have indeed to answer for many. And when a good chief departs this life, it is not as if one man is lost, but it is a great loss to all those who received support and honors from him; and they seem to be of less consequence after they have lost their chief than before while he was living, unless one shall come into his stead who will be as gracious to them as the departed one was. Now since great lords both maintain the honor of many and have great cares and liabilities on their account, it is surely proper to honor them by using the plural forms of address in all speech that those who are humbler and of less consequence may have to address to them. But there remain those things which were learned or thought of when this custom was first ordained: that kings and other powerful men are not alone in their deliberations but are associated with many other wise and distinguished men; and therefore, when a chief is addressed in plural terms, it may be thought that the words are not addressed to the king alone, but also to all those who sit in his councils as his advisers.