ns of justice and piety," we should then be
digressing to the subject of retorting an accusation, of which we will
speak hereafter. But it is manifest that both kinds of question are
incidental to this controversy. And arguments must be derived for
it from the same topics as those which are applicable to the cause
depending on matters of fact, which has been all ready treated of.
But to take many weighty common topics both from the cause itself, if
there is any opportunity for employing the language of indignation or
complaint, and also from the advantage and general character of the
law, will be not only allowable, but proper, if the dignity of the
cause appears to require such expedients.

XXIV. At present let us consider the assumptive portion of the
juridical inquiry. But it is then called assumptive, when the fact
cannot be proved by its own intrinsic evidence, but is defended by
some argument brought from extraneous circumstances. Its divisions
are four in number: comparison, the retort of the accusation, the
refutation of it as far as regards oneself, and concession.

Comparison is when any action which intrinsically cannot be approved,
is defended by reference to that for the sake of which it was done. It
is something of this sort:--"A certain general, when he was blockaded
by the enemy and could not escape by any possible means, made a
covenant with them to leave behind his arms and his baggage, on
condition of being allowed to lead away his soldiers in safety. And he
did so. Having lost his arms and his baggage, he saved his men, beyond
the hopes of any one. He is prosecuted for treason." Then comes the
definition of treason. But let us consider the topic which we are at
present discussing.

The charge is, "He had no business to leave behind the arms and
baggage." The denial is, "Yes, he had." The question is, "Whether he
had any right to do so?" The reason for doing so is, "For else he
would have lost all his soldiers." The argument brought to invalidate
this is either the conjectural one, "They would not have been lost,"
or the other conjectural one, "That was not your reason for doing so."
And from this arise the questions for decision: "Whether they would
have been lost?" and, "Whether that was the reason why he did so?" Or
else, this comparative reason which we want at this minute: "But it
was better to lose his soldiers than to surrender the arms and baggage
to the enemy." And from this arises the que