The first problem involves a syllogism: are those sons who have been cast out from their own family to be regarded as though they had never been born? The second is concerned with the letter of the law and intention. For it is admitted that he was not born before any legitimate son, but he will defend his claim by appealing to the intention of the law, which he will maintain to imply that the bastard, born when there was no legitimate son in the family, should rank as legitimate.

He will dismiss the letter of the law, pointing out that in any case the position of a bastard is not prejudiced by the fact that no legitimate son was born after him, and arguing as follows:— Suppose that the only son is a bastard, what will his position be? Merely that of a citizen? and yet he was not born after any legitimate son. Or will he rank as a son in all respects? But he was not born before the legitimate sons. As it is impossible to stand by the letter of the law we must stand by its intentions.

It need disturb no one that one law should originate two bases. The law is twofold, and therefore has the force of two laws. 101 To the son who desires to re-enter the family, the disinherited's first reply is, Even though you are allowed to re-enter the family, I am still the heir. The basis will be the same as in the claim put forward by the disinherited son, since the question at issue is whether a disinherited son can inherit.