[88]
deny that there are controversial themes of this kind where figures may
legitimately be employed, as, for example, the
following: “A man was accused of unnatural
murder on the ground that he had killed his brother,
and it seemed probable that he would be condemned.
His father gave evidence in his defence, stating
that the murder had been committed on his orders.
The son was acquitted, but disinherited by the
[p. 431]
father.” For in this case he does not pardon his son
entirely, but cannot openly withdraw the evidence
that he gave in the first trial, and while he does not
inflict any worse penalty than disinheritance, he does
not shrink from that. Further, the employment of
the figure tells more heavily against the father than
is fair and less against the son.1
1 The sense is quite uncertain. The simplest interpretation is perhaps that the father's action and the figura by which he defends himself show that his evidence in the previous trial was false. The son has been acquitted on the father's evidence, and the father by punishing him has put himself in a hopelessly false position.
Quintilian. With An English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1922.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.