for the sake of the republic; because all men believe that the republic is best managed by means of laws.  It is desirable, therefore, to interpret all written laws with reference to that cause for the sake of which it is desirable that the laws should be preserved.  That is to say, since we are servants of the republic, let us interpret the laws with reference to the advantage and benefit of the republic.  For as it is not right to think that anything results from medicine except what has reference to the advantage of the body, since it is for the sake of the body that the science of medicine has been established; so it is desirable to think that nothing proceeds from the laws except what is for the advantage of the republic, since it is for the sake of the republic that laws were instituted.

Therefore, while deciding on this point, cease to inquire about the strict letter of the law, and consider the law (as it is reasonable to do) with reference to the advantage of the republic.  For what was more advantageous for the Thebans than for the Lacedaemonians to be put down?  What object was Epaminondas, the Theban general, more bound to aim at than the victory of the Thebans?  What had he any right to consider more precious or more dear to him, than the great glory then acquired by the Thebans, than such an illustrious and magnificent trophy?  Surely, disregarding the letter of the law, it became him to consider the intention of the framer of the law.  And this now has been sufficiently insisted on, namely, that no law has ever been drawn up by any one, that had not for its object the benefit of the commonwealth.  He then thought that it was the very extremity of madness, not to interpret with reference to the advantage of the republic, that which had been framed for the sake of the safety of the republic.  And it is right to interpret all laws with reference to the safety of the republic; and if he was a great instrument of the safety of the republic, certainly it is quite impossible that he by one and the same action should have consulted the general welfare, and yet should have violated the laws.

XXXIX.  But argumentation consists of four parts, when we either advance a proposition, or claim an assumption without proof.  That it is proper to do when either the proposition is understood by its own merits, or when the assumption is self-evident and is in need of no proof.  If we pass over the proof of the proposition, the argumentation then consists of four parts, and is conducted in this manner:—­“O judges, you who are deciding on your oaths, in accordance with the law, ought to obey the laws; but you cannot obey the laws unless you follow that which is written in the law.  For what more certain evidence of his intention could the framer of a law leave behind him, than that which he himself wrote with great care and diligence?  But if there were no written documents, then we should be very anxious for them, in order that the intention of the framer of the law might be