and on what account it was done.  And this topic is so common, that if it is well handled in this cause it is likely to be of great weight in convincing the hearers.  And there is another topic, by means of which the magnitude of the service done is demonstrated with very great amplification, by reference to the usefulness, or honourableness, or necessity of the action.  And there is a third topic, by means of which the matter which is expressed in words is placed before the eyes of those men who are the hearers, so that they think that they themselves also would have done the same things, if the same circumstances and the same cause for doing so had happened to them at the same time.

The retorting of a charge takes place, when the accused person, having confessed that of which he is accused, says that he did it justifiably, being induced by the sin committed against him by the other party.  As in this case—­“Horatius, when he had slain the three Curiatii and lost his two brothers, returned home victorious.  He saw his sister not troubled about the death of her brothers, but at the same time calling on the name of Curiatius, who had been betrothed to her, with groans and lamentation.  Being indignant, he slew the maid”.  He is prosecuted.

The charge is, “You slew your sister wrongfully”.  The refutation is “I slew her lawfully”.  The question is, “Whether he slew her lawfully”.  The reason is, “Yes, for she was lamenting the death of enemies, and was indifferent to that of her brothers, she was grieved that I and the Roman people were victorious”.  The argument to invalidate this reason is, “Still she ought not to have been put to death by her brother without being convicted”.  On this the question for the decision of the judges is, “Whether when Horatia was showing her indifference to the death of her brothers, and lamenting that of the enemy, and not rejoicing at the victory of her brother and of the Roman people, she deserved to be put to death by her brother without being condemned”.

XXVII For this kind of cause, in the first place, whatever is given out of the other statements of cases ought to be taken, as has been already enjoined when speaking of comparison.  After that, if there is any opportunity of doing so, some statement of the case ought to be employed by which he to whom the crime is imputed may be defended.  In the next place, we ought to argue that the fault which the accused person is imputing to another, is a lighter one than that which he himself committed; in the next place, we ought to employ some portion of a demurrer, and to show by whom, and through whose agency, and how, and when that matter ought to have been tried, or adjudged, or decided.  And at the same time, we ought to show that it was not proper that punishment should have been inflicted before any judgment was pronounced.  Then we must also point out the laws and the course of judicial proceeding by which that offence which the accused person punished of his own accord, might