said to be entirely alien to such conduct, and unimpeachable. Lastly,
whatever arguments we allow a man on his trial to use in his defence,
the very same the prosecutor will employ in delivering others from
blame. But that must be done with brevity, and many arguments must be
compressed into one, in order that he may not appear to be accusing
the man on his trial for the sake of defending some one else, but to
be defending some one else with a view to strengthen his accusation
against him.

VIII. And these are for the most part the things which must be done
and considered by an accuser. But the advocate for the defence will
say, on the other hand, either that there was no motive at all, or, if
he admits that there was, he will make light of it, and show that it
was a very slight one, or that such conduct does not often proceed
from such a motive. And with reference to this topic it will be
necessary to point out what is the power and character of that motive,
by which the person on his trial is said to have been induced to
commit any action; and in doing this it is requisite to adduce
instances and examples of similar cases, and the actual nature of
such a motive is to be explained as gently as possible, so that the
circumstance which is the subject of the discussion may be explained
away, and instead of being considered as a cruel and disorderly act,
may be represented as something more mild and considerate, and still
the speech itself may be adapted to the mind of the hearer, and to a
sort of inner feeling, as it were, in his mind.

But the orator will weaken the suspicions arising from the
ratiocination, if he shall say either that the advantage intimated had
no existence, or a very slight one, or that it was a greater one to
others, or that it was no greater advantage to himself than to others,
or that it was a greater disadvantage than advantage to himself.
So that the magnitude of the advantage which is said to have been
desired, was not to be compared with the disadvantage which was really
sustained, or with the danger which was incurred. And all those topics
will be handled in the same manner in speaking of the avoiding of
disadvantage.

But if the prosecutor has said that the man on his trial was pursuing
what appeared to him to be an advantage, or was avoiding that which
appeared to him to be a disadvantage, even though he was mistaken in
that opinion, then the advocate for the defence must show that no on