er that,
in pointing out the criminality of that other person, it will be
requisite to show how great the good will and zeal of the accused
person himself was. And that must be established by proofs of this
sort--by his diligence in all the rest of the affair, by his previous
actions, or by his previous expressions. And it may be well to show
that it would have been advantageous to the man himself to have done
this, and disadvantageous not to have done it, and that to have done
it would have been more in accordance with the rest of his life, than
the not having done it, which, was owing to the fault of the other
party.

XXX But if the criminality is not to be transferred to some particular
person, but to some circumstance, as in this very case--"If the
quaestor had been dead, and on that account the money had not been
given to the ambassadors," then, as the accusation of the other party,
and the denial of the fault is removed, it will be desirable to employ
the other topics in a similar manner, and to assume whatever is
suitable to one's purpose from the divisions of admitted facts. But
common topics are usually nearly the same to both parties, and then,
after the previous topics are taken for granted, will suit either to
the greatest certainty. The accuser will use the topic of indignation
at the fact, the defender, when the guilt belongs to another and does
not attach to himself, will urge that he does not deserve to have any
punishment inflicted on him.

But the removal of the criminality from oneself is effected when the
accused person declares, that what is attributed to him as a crime
did not affect him or his duty, and asserts that if there was any
criminality in it, it ought not to be attributed to him. That kind of
dispute is of this sort--"In the treaty which was formerly made with
the Samnites, a certain young man of noble birth held the pig which
was to be sacrificed, by the command of the general. But when the
treaty was disavowed by the senate, and the general surrendered to the
Samnites, one of the senators asserted that the man who held the pig
ought also to be given up." The charge is, "He ought to be given up."
The denial is, "He ought not." The question is, "Whether he ought or
not." The reason is, "For it was no particular duty of mine, nor did
it depend on my power, being as young as I was, and only a private
individual, and while the general was present with the supreme
authority and command, to