II. To the Initial Arguments

270. To the first argument [n.248] the answer is plain from the third article [n.261].

271. To the second [n.249], if the argument is about him who has, without preservation of the order of right, been accused in public and denied it, I concede that he is not bound to restore reputation to the accuser; rather the accuser is imputing his own infamy to himself, because he acted impudently and unjustly by making a private accusation in public.

272. But if this argument is being made about a lying accuser of the innocent who cannot return reputation to the accused unless he defame himself, the response is plain from the first article of the question [nn.256-257], that, after such a public lie, he is not deserving of reputation; but the other is deserving, and therefore his reputation should be given back to him.