Institutio Oratoria

He, however, who follows the guidance of nature will assuredly reflect as follows: the first argument of the uneducated son will be,

My father died intestate and left two sons, my brother and myself; I claim a share in his estate by the law of nations.

He will then proceed to extol, though with due moderation, the justice of this common law of nations. The next point for our consideration is what reply can be made to so equitable a demand? The answer is clear:—

There is a law which disinherits the man who fails to appear in his father's defence when the latter is accused of treason, and you failed to appear.

So far we have been dealing entirely with

If the law bars the way, there is no ground for action and the trial becomes a farce. But it is beyond question that the law exists and that the uneducated son did commit the offence for which it enacts a punishment.

I had no education.

But if the law applies to all men, it will be of no avail to plead lack of education. We must therefore try to discover whether there be not some point on which the law can be invalidated. We turn for guidance to nature (a point on which I cannot insist too often); what does she suggest save that when the letter of the law is against us, we should discuss its intention? This introduces the general question whether we are to stand by the letter or the spirit. But if we argue this question on general grounds with reference to law in the abstract, we shall go on for ever; it is a question that has never been decided. We must therefore restrict our enquiry to the particular law on which our case turns and try to find some argument against adhesion to the strict letter.

Well, then, is everyone who fails to appear in defence of his father to be disinherited? Are there no exceptions to the rule? At this point the following arguments will spontaneously suggest themselves.

Is an infant liable to the law?

does the law apply to a man who was away from home or absent on military service or on an embassy?

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.

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,

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.

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

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

Why should we not try asking whether this means that he is to be disinherited, whatever the character of the father for whom he failed to appear? Such a course is often adopted in those controversial themes in which we demand that sons who fail to maintain their parents should be cast into prison: take for example the case of the mother who gave evidence against her son when accused of being an alien, or of the father who sold his son to a procurer. What, then, is there in the present case that we lay hold of as regards the character of the father?