Institutio Oratoria

Our declaimer, who has thought out this line of argument, must now pass over like a Latin flute-player, as Cicero says, [*](Pro Mur. xii. 26. The flute-player went from one actor to another, according as each required accompaniment. ) to the side of the eloquent son and reply,

Granted, but you are not an infant, you were not away from home nor absent on military service.

Is there any answer to this except the previous reply,

I am an uneducated man

?

But to this there is the obvious retort,

Even if you could not actually plead, you might have supported him by your presence,

which is no more than the simple truth. The uneducated son must therefore return to the intention of the legislator.

He wished to punish unfilial conduct, but I am not unfilial.

To this the eloquent son will reply,

The action whereby you deserved disinheritance was unfilial, although penitence or desire for display may have subsequently led you to choose this as your reward. Further, it was owing to you that our father was condemned, since by absenting yourself you appeared to imply that you thought him guilty.

The uneducated son replies,

Nay, you contributed to his condemnation, for you had given offence to many and made our family unpopular.

These arguments are based on conjecture, as also will be the excuse put forward by the uneducated son to the effect that his father advised his absence, as he did not wish to emperil his whole family. All these arguments are involved in the preliminary question as to the letter and the intention of the law.

Let us pursue the matter further and see if we can discover any additional arguments. How is that to be done? I am deliberately imitating the actual train of thought of one

who is engaged in such an enquiry with a view to showing how such enquiry should be conducted. I shall therefore put aside the more showy kind of composition, and concern myself solely with such as may be of real profit to the student. So far we have derived all our questions from the character of the claimant. But why should we not make some enquiries into the character of the father? Does not the law say that whoever fails to appear for his father is to be disinherited?