Institutio Oratoria

For how can an exile hold any property? The uneducated son raises a doubt as to the interpretation both of the letter and the spirit of the law. Tile eloquent son will cling to the strict letter of tile law, which makes no exception, and will argue that the reason for enacting a penalty against those who fail to appear for their fathers was to prevent their being deterred from the defence of their fathers by the risk of banishment, and he will assert that his brother failed to appear in defence of his innocent father. It may therefore be worth while pointing out that two general questions may arise out of one basis — [*]( III. vi. 1 sqq. The basis or main point on which the case turns is that of the intention of the law ( voluntas ). ) for we may ask,

Is everyone who fails to appear liable to disinheritance?

or

Is he bound to appear irrespective of the character of his father?

So far all our questions have been derived from two of the persons involved. [*](i. e. the father and the uneducated son. ) With regard to the third, this can give rise to no question, as there is no dispute about his portion of the inheritance. Still the time is not yet come to relax our efforts: for so far all the arguments might have been used even if the father had not been recalled from exile. But we must not betake ourselves at once to the obvious point that he was recalled by the agency of the uneducated son. A little ingenuity will lead us to look further a field: for as species comes after genus, so genus precedes species. Let us therefore assume that the father was recalled by someone else. This will give rise

to a question of the ratiocinative or syllogistic type, [*](cp. III. vi. 15, 43, 46, 51; vii. viii. 1. ) namely whether recall from exile cancels the sentence of the court and is tantamount to the trial never having taken place at all. The uneducated son will therefore attempt to argue that, being entitled to not more than one reward, there was no means by which he could have secured the recall of his kin save by the restoration of his father on the same terms as if he had never been accused, and that this fact carries with it the cancellation of the penalty incurred by his advocate, as though he had never defended his father at all. [*]( The reward to be chosen, it is argued, covered the recall of one person only. The only means by which both father and son could be recalled was by the restoration of the father, whose amnesty would ipso facto extend to the son as well. )