Pro S. Roscio Amerino

PBO SEX. Roscio, §§ 39—45. 15
not mad and tlie son was not a villain, tlie father had no
motive for hatred, the son no motive for crime.
42. " I don't Imow," he says, " what the motive for the
hatred was : but I am sure that the hatred existed, because
formerly, when he had two sons, he always wanted the
other, wlio is now dead, to be with him, while he bauished
this one to his country estates." The same difficulty that
Erucius met with in his false and frivolous accusation I
have experienced in an excellent cause : he could not find
out in what manner he could establish his trumped-up
charge ; I cannot find out in what way I can disprove and
crumple up such baseless statements.
43. What do you mean, Erucius ? Did Sextus Eoscius
haud over to his son for him to cultivate and take care of
those many fine and productive estates in order to inflict
on him the punishment of exile ? What think you of this ?
Do not heads of households who have sons, particularly
gentlemen of Eoscius' rauk in country towns, think it most
desirable that their sons should pay as much attention as
possible to the family property, and spend a great deal of
care aud pains in cultivating their estates ?
44. What ? Did he send my clieut away thus that he
might be on the estate and only get his food at the farmhouse
? That he should be destitute of all advantages
accruing therefrom ? What ? Supposing it is a well-known
fact that my client not only superiutencled the cultivation
of the farms, but was even accustomed to enjoy the usufruct
of certain farms during his father's lifetime ? Despite
all this, are you going to call this life of his a banishment
and dismissal to the couutry ? You see, Erucius, how far
removed your argument is from the true facts of the case.
What fathers customarily do, you find fault with as an
innovation ; what is done out of kindness you allege to
have been done from hatred ;
the privilege the father gave
to his son to show his respect for him, you say was meant
to punish liim.
45. And you do not fail to understand this, no, but you
are so destitute of anything to allege in proof that you
consider you must speak not only against us but against
nature, and against the customs prevalent among men, and