And he will do that if he shows that it
is not usually done in such a manner, and that it ought not to be done
so, and that there is no reason why this thing should be done on this
account; for instance, that those things which have been provided for
the sake of safety, should be surrendered to the enemy for the sake of
safety. Afterwards it will be desirable to compare the injury with the
benefit, and altogether to compare the action which is impeached with
that which is praised by the advocate for the defence or which is
attempted to be proved as what must inevitably have ensued, and then,
by disparaging the one at the same time to exaggerate the importance
of the mischief caused by the other. That will be effected if it
be shown that that which the person on his trial avoided was more
honourable, more advantageous, and more necessary than that which
he did. But the influence and character of what is honourable, and
useful, and necessary, will be ascertained in the rules given for
deliberation.

In the next place, it will be desirable to explain that comparative
kind of judicial decision as if it were a deliberative cause and
then afterwards to discuss it by the light thrown on it by rules for
deliberation. For let this be the question for judicial decision which
we have already mentioned--"As all the soldiers would have been lost
if they had not come to this agreement, was it better for the soldiers
to be lost, or to come to this agreement?" It will be desirable that
this should be dealt with with reference to the topics concerning
deliberation, as if the matter were to come to some consultation.

XXVI. But the advocate for the defence will take the topics in
accordance with which other statements of the case are made by the
accuser, and will prepare his own defence from those topics with
reference to the same statements. But all other topics which belong to
the comparison, he will deal with in the contrary manner.

The common topics will be these,--the accuser will press his charges
against the man who confesses some discreditable or pernicious action,
or both, but still seeks to make some defence, and will allege
the mischievous or discreditable nature of his conduct with great
indignation. The advocate for the defence will insist upon it, that no
action ought to be considered pernicious or discreditable, or, on the
other hand, advantageous or creditable, unless it is ascertained with
what intention, at what ti