cular days within which he was to proceed on his
embassy, did not set out because the quaestor did not furnish him with
money for his expenses." Then comes the admission of the fact by way
of purgation, and also by the excuse of ignorance; as "in the case of
the sacrificing a calf;" and with reference to compulsion, as "in the
case of the beaked ship;" and with reference to accident, as "in the
case of the sudden rise of the river Eurotas." Wherefore, it is best
that the meaning should be introduced in such a way, as that the
framer of the law should be proved to have intended some one definite
thing; else in such a way that he should be proved to have meant this
particular thing, under these circumstances, and at this time.

XLIII. He, therefore, who is defending the exact language of the law,
will generally be able to use all these topics; and will always be
able to use the greater part of them. First of all, he will employ a
panegyric of the framer of it, and the common topic that those who
are the judges have no business to consider anything except what
is expressly stated in the law; and so much the more if any legal
document be brought forward, that is to say, either the law itself,
or some portion of the law. Afterwards--and this is a point of the
greatest importance--he will employ a comparison of the action or of
the charge brought by the opposite party with the actual words of the
law; he will show what is contained in the law, what has been done,
what the judge has sworn. And it will be well to vary this topic in
many ways, sometimes professing to wonder in his own mind what can be
said against this argument; sometimes recurring to the duty of the
judge, and asking of him what more he can think it requisite to
hear, or what further he expects; sometimes by bringing forward
the adversary himself, as if in the position of a person making an
accusation; that is to say, by asking him whether he denies that the
law is drawn up in that manner, or whether he denies that he himself
has contravened it, or disputed it. If he denies either of these
points, then one must avow that one will say no more; if he denies
neither of them, and yet continues to urge his arguments in opposition
to one, then one must say that it is impossible for any one ever to
expect to see a more impudent man. And it will be well to dwell on
this point as if nothing besides were to be said, as if nothing could
be said in contradiction, by reciti