Let us return again to
 the same point, and ask what vices existed in this his only son of such importance as to
 make him incur the displeasure of his father. But it is notorious he had no vices. His
 father then was mad to bate him whom he had begotten, without any cause. But he was the
 most reasonable and sensible of men. This, then, is evident, that, if the father was not
 crazy, nor his son profligate, the father had no cause for displeasure, nor the son for
 crime. I know not, says he, what cause for displeasure there was; but I know that displeasure
 existed; because formerly, when he had two sons, he chose that other one, who is dead; to
 be at all times with himself, but sent this other one to his farms in the country. The
 same thing which happened to Erucius in supporting this wicked and trifling charge, has
 happened to me in advocating a most righteous cause. He could find no means of supporting
 this trumped-up charge; I can hardly find out by what arguments I am to invalidate and get
 rid of such trifling circumstances. What do you say,
 Erucius? Did Sextus Roscius entrust so many farms, and such fine and productive ones to
 his son to cultivate and manage, for the sake of getting rid of and punishing him? What
 can this mean? Do not fathers of families who have children, particularly men of that
 class of municipalities in the country, do they not think it a most desirable thing for
 them that their sons should attend in a great degree to their domestic affairs, and should
 devote much of their labour and attention to cultivating their farms? Did he send him off to those farms that he might remain on the land and
 merely have life kept in him at this country seat? that he might be deprived of all
 conveniences? What? if it is proved that he not only managed the cultivation of the farms,
 but was accustomed himself to have certain of the farms for his own, even during the
 lifetime of his father? Will his industrious and rural life still be called removal and
 banishment? You see, O Erucius, how far removed your line of argument is from the fact
 itself, and from truth. That which fathers usually do, you find fault with as an
 unprecedented thing; that which is done out of kindness, that you accuse as having been
 done from dislike; that which a father granted his son as an honour, that you say he did
 with the object of punishing him. Not that you are not
 aware of all this, but you are so wholly without any arguments to bring forward, that you
 think it necessary to plead not only against us, but even against the very nature of
 things, and against the customs of men, and the opinion of every one.
 
 Oh but, when he had two sons, he never let one be away from him, and he allowed the other
 to remain in the country. I beg you, O Erucius, to take what I am going to say in good
 part; for I am going to say it, not for the sake of finding fault, but to warn you.