stion for the decision of
the judges: "As all the soldiers must have been lost unless they had
come into this covenant, whether it was better to lose the soldiers,
or to agree to these conditions?"

It will be proper to deal with this kind of cause by reference to
these topics, and to employ the principles of, and rules for the other
statements of cases also. And especially to employ conjectures for the
purpose of invalidating that which those who are accused will compare
with the act which is alleged against them as a crime. And that will
be done if either that result which the advocates for the defence say
would have happened unless that action had been performed which is now
brought before the court, be denied to have been likely to ensue; or
if it can be proved that it was done with a different object and in a
different manner from that stated by the man who is on his trial. The
confirmation of that statement, and also the argument used by the
opposite party to invalidate it, must both be derived from the
conjectural statement of the case. But if the accused person is
brought before the court, because of his action coming under the name
of some particular crime, (as is the case in this instance, for the
man is prosecuted for treason), it will be desirable to employ a
definition and the rules for a definition.

XXV. And this usually takes place in this kind of examination, so that
it is desirable to employ both conjecture and definition. But if
any other kind of inquiry arises, it will be allowable on similar
principles to transfer to it the rules for that kind of inquiry. For
the accuser must of all things take pains to invalidate, by as many
reasons as possible, the very fact on account of which the person on
his trial thinks that it is granted to him that he was right. And it
is easy to do so, if he attempts to overturn that argument by as many
statements of the case as he can employ.

But comparison itself, when separated from the other kinds of
discussion, will be considered according to its own intrinsic power,
if that which is mentioned in the comparison is shown, either not to
have been honourable, or not to have been useful, or not to have been
necessary, or not so greatly useful, or not so very honourable, or not
so exceedingly necessary.

In the next place it is desirable for the accuser to separate the
action which he himself is accusing, from that which the advocate for
the defence compares with it.