ve enjoined when speaking of comparison, that that
which is mentioned in comparison should be disparaged by the accuser
as much as possible, so, too, in this kind of argument, it will be
advantageous to compare the fault of the party on whom the accusation
is retorted with the crime of the accused person who justified his
action as having been lawfully done. And after that it is necessary to
point out that that is not an action of such a sort, that on account
of it this other crime ought to have been committed. The last point,
as in the case of comparison, is the assumption of a judicial
decision, and the dilating upon it in the way of amplification, in
accordance with the rules given respecting deliberation.

XXVIII But the advocate for the defence will invalidate what is urged
by means of other statements from those topics which have already been
given. But the demurrer itself he will prove first of all, by dwelling
on the guilt and audacity of the man to whom he imputes the crime, and
by bringing it before the eyes of the judges with as much indignation
as possible if the case admits of it, and also with vehement
complaint, and afterwards by proving that the accused person chastised
the offence more lightly than the offender deserved, by comparing the
punishment inflicted with the injury done. In the next place, it will
be desirable to invalidate by opposite arguments those topics which
are handled by the prosecutor in such a way that they are capable of
being refuted and retorted, of which kind are the three last topics
which I have mentioned. But that most vehement attack of the
prosecutors, by which they attempt to prove that irregularity will be
introduced into all the courts of justice if power is given to any man
of inflicting punishment on a person who has not been convicted, will
have its force much weakened, first of all, if the injury be shown to
be such as appears intolerable not only to a good man but absolutely
to any freeman, and in the next place to be so manifest that it could
not have been denied even by the person who had done it, and moreover,
of such a kind that the person who did chastise it was the person
who above all others was bound to chastise it. So that it was not so
proper nor so honourable for that matter to be brought before a court
of justice as for it to be chastised in that manner in which, and by
that person by whom it was chastised, and lastly, that the case was
so notorious that t