§7.1.45excusatum esse rusticum, quod non interfuerit iudicio nihil collaturus patri; sed ne disertum quidem habere, quod imputet reo, cum is damnatus sit; dignum esse hereditate restitutorem; avarum, impium, ingratum, qui dividere nolit cum fratre eoque sic merito; quaestionem quoque illam primam scripti et voluntatis, qua non expugnata non sit sequentibus locus.
that the rustic is to be excused because he would have contributed nothing to his father by being present at the trial; but that not even the eloquent son has anything to charge the accused with, since he was convicted; that the restorer is worthy of the inheritance; that he is avaricious, impious, and ungrateful who refuses to divide with a brother, and one who has deserved so well; and also that first question of the letter and the intention, which, if not overcome, leaves no room for the subsequent ones.
§7.1.46at qui naturam sequetur illa cogitabit profecto, primo hoc dicturum rusticum: pater intestatus duos nos filios reliquit, partem iure gentium peto. quis tam imperitus, quis tam procul a litteris, quin sic incipiat, etiamsi nescierit, quid sit propositio?
But he who follows nature will surely think of these things: first, that the rustic will say: "Our father died intestate leaving us two sons; I claim a share by the law of nations." Who is so unskilled, who so far from learning, that he would not begin thus, even if he did not know what a proposition is?
§7.1.47hanc communem omnium legem leviter adornabit ut iustam.
This common law of all men he will lightly adorn as just.
nempe sequetur, ut quaeramus, quid huic tam aequae postulationi respondeatur? at id manifestum est.
Naturally, it will follow that we inquire what is answered to so equitable a demand.
lex est, quae iubet exheredem esse eum qui patri proditionis reo non adfuerit; tu autem non adfuisti. hanc propositionem necessaria sequitur legis laudatio et eius, qui non adfuerit, vituperatio.
But that is obvious: "There is a law which commands that he who has not assisted his father when accused of treason be disinherited; but you did not assist him." This proposition is necessarily followed by praise of the law and condemnation of him who did not assist.
§7.1.48adhuc versamur ex confessis; redeat animus ad petitorem;
So far we are engaged in admitted facts; let the mind return to the claimant.
numquid non hoc cogitet necesse est, nisi qui sit plane hebes? si lex obstat, nulla lis est, inane iudicium est. atqui et legem esse et hoc, quod ea puniat, a rustico factum extra dubitationem est.
Must he not think of this, unless he is completely dull? "If the law stands in the way, there is no lawsuit, the trial is useless." Yet both that the law exists and that the rustic did what it punishes is beyond doubt.
quid ergo dicimus? rusticus eram. §7.1.49si lex omnes complectitur, nihil proderit.
What then do we say? "I was a rustic." If the law embraces everyone, it will be of no avail.
quaeramus ergo num infirmari ex aliquam partem lex possit.
Let us therefore inquire whether the law can be invalidated in some part.
quid aliud (saepius dicam) natura permittit quam ut, cum verba contra sint, de voluntate quaeratur? generalis igitur quaestio, verbis an voluntate sit standum.
What else (I shall say it more often) does nature permit than that, when the words are against us, we inquire about the intention? The general question, then, is whether we should stand by the words or the intention.
sed hoc ex commune de iure omni disputandum semper nec unquam satis iudicatum est.
But this is always to be debated as common to all law, and has never been sufficiently decided.
quaerendum igitur ex hac ipsa, qua consistimus, an aliquid inveniri possit quod scripto adversetur.
We must therefore inquire from this very law on which we stand, whether anything can be found that is contrary to the writing.
§7.1.50ergo, quisquis non adfuerit, exheres erit? quisquis sine exceptione? iam se illa vel ultro offerent argumenta: et infans? filius enim est et non adfuit;
Therefore, shall whoever has not assisted be disinherited? Whoever, without exception? Already those arguments will offer themselves even voluntarily: what of an infant? For he is a son and did not assist.
et qui aberat et qui militabat et qui ex legatione erat? iam multum acti est: potest aliquis non adfuisse et heres esse.
What of him who was absent, or who was on military service, or who was on an embassy? Already much has been achieved: someone can have not assisted and yet be an heir.
transeat nunc idem ille, §7.1.51qui hoc cogitavit, ut ait Cicero, tibicinis Latini modo ad disertum.
Now let that same person, who thought of this, pass over, as Cicero says, in the manner of a Latin flute-player, to the eloquent son.
ut ista concedam, tu nec infans es nec abfuisti nec militasti. num aliud occurrit quam illud, sed rusticus sum? contra, quod palam est dici:
"Granted those things: you are neither an infant, nor were you absent, nor did you serve in the army." Does anything else occur than that, "But I am a rustic"?
§7.1.52ut agere non potueris, adsidere potuisti; et verum est.
On the other hand, what is obviously to be said: "Though you could not plead, you could have sat by him"; and that is true.
quare redeundum rustico ad animum legumlatoris: impietatem punire voluit, ego autem impius non sum. §7.1.53contra quod disertus, tu impie fecisti, inquit, cum exheredationem meruisti, licet te postea vel paenitentia vel ambitus ad hoc genus optionis adduxerit.
Therefore, the rustic must return to the mind of the lawgiver: "He wished to punish impiety, but I am not impious." To this the eloquent son says: "You acted impiously when you deserved disinheritance, even if afterwards either repentance or ambition brought you to this kind of choice.
praeterea propter te damnatus est pater, videbaris enim de causa pronuntiasse. ad haec rusticus: tu vero ex causa damnationis fuisti, multos offenderas, inimicitias domui contraxeras. haec coniecturalia; illud quoque, quod coloris loco rusticus dicit, patris fuisse tale consilium, ne universam domum periculo subiiceret.
Moreover, the father was convicted because of you, for you seemed to have pronounced judgment on the case beforehand." To this the rustic: "Nay, you were the cause of his conviction; you had offended many and brought enmities upon the house." These are conjectural; and so is that which the rustic says by way of coloring, that such was the father's plan, lest he should subject the whole house to danger.
haec prima quaestione scripti et voluntatis continentur.
These are contained in the first question of the letter and the intention.
§7.1.54intendamus ultra animum videamusque, an aliquid inveniri praeterea possit.
Let us direct our mind further and see whether anything besides can be found.
quo id modo fiet? sedulo imitor quaerentem, ut quaerere doceam, et omisso speciosiore stili genere ad utilitatem me summitto discentium.
In what way will this be done? I diligently imitate one who is seeking, so that I may teach how to seek, and having omitted the more showy style, I submit myself to the utility of the learners.
omnes adhuc quaestiones ex persona petitoris ipsius duximus; cur non aliquid circa patrem quaerimus? dictum non est, quisquis non adfuerit, exheres erit.
All questions so far we have drawn from the person of the claimant himself; why do we not inquire something about the father? It is not said: "Whoever has not assisted shall be disinherited."