ehind in the cause. In this way, in order
that for the sake of explaining myself more clearly, I may content
myself with an easy and often quoted instance. If Orestes be accused
of matricide, unless he says this, "I did it rightfully, for she had
murdered my father," he has no defence at all. And if his defence be
taken away, then all dispute is taken away also. The principle of his
argument then is that she murdered Agamemnon. The examination of
this defence is then a dispute which arises out of the attempts to
invalidate or to establish this argument. For the argument itself may
be considered sufficiently explained, since we dwelt upon it a little
while ago. "For she," says he, "had murdered my father." "But," says
the adversary, "for all that it was not right for your mother to be
put to death by you who were her son; for her act might have been
punished without your being guilty of wickedness."

XIV. From this mode of bringing forward evidence, arises that last
kind of dispute which we call the judication, or examination of the
excuses alleged. And that is of this kind: whether it was right that
his mother should be put to death by Orestes, because she had put to
death Orestes's father?

Now proof by testimony is the firmest sort of reasoning that can be
used by an advocate in defence, and it is also the best adapted for
the examination of any excuse which may be alleged. For instance, if
Orestes were inclined to say that the disposition of his mother had
been such towards his father, towards himself and his sisters, towards
the kingdom, and towards the reputation of his race and family, that
her children were of all people in the world the most bound to
inflict punishment upon her. And in all other statements or cases,
examinations of excuses alleged are found to be carried on in this
manner. But in a conjectural statement of a case, because there is no
express evidence, for the fact is not admitted at all, the examination
of the defence put forward cannot arise from the bringing forward of
evidence. Wherefore, it is inevitable that in this case the question
and the judication must be the same thing. As "it was done," "it was
not done." The question is whether it was done.

But it must invariably happen that there will be the same number of
questions, and arguments, and examinations, and evidences employed
in a cause, as there are statements of the case or divisions of such
statements. When all these things are