With respect, however, to the dissolution of crimes objected by the opponent, one mode is derived from those things through which the ill opinion of the audience may be removed; for it makes no difference whether this opinion arises from what is said, or not; so that this mode is universal. Another mode consists in obviating such particulars as are dubious, either by showing that the thing which is the subject of doubt does not exist, or that it is not noxious, or that it is not noxious to this person, or that it is not so pernicious as the opponent contends it to be, or that it is not unjust, or that it is not greatly so, or that it is not disgraceful, or that it is a thing of small consequence. For things of this kind are the subjects of contention. And this mode was adopted by Iphicrates against Nausicrates. For he confessed that he did what he was accused by Nausicrates of having done, and that he did harm to the person, but did not act unjustly. Or he that has injured another, may say that he has made him a compensation; so that if what he did was noxious, yet it was beautifully done; if painful, yet it was beneficial; or something else of the like kind may be said. Another mode consists in showing that the deed which is objected to as a crime was an error, or happened from misfortune, or from necessity. Thus Sophocles said, “That he trembled, not as his accuser said, that he might seem to be an old man, but from necessity; for he was not willingly eighty years of age.” An excuse also may be made by asserting that the deed was not done with a view to that end it is said to have been done by the opponent. Thus he who is accused of having injured another person may say, “That it was not his intention to injure him, but that the injury was accidental. And that it would be just to hate him, if the injury had been done by him voluntarily. Another mode consists in considering whether the opponent himself, or some of his kindred have now, or formerly, been involved in the crime which he objects to the defendant. Another mode consists in showing that those also are involved in the crime, whom the opponent confesses not to be obnoxious to the accusation; as if the opponent should confess, that this man though he is an adulterer is pure in his conduct, then this and this man also will be pure. Another mode consists in showing that if the opponent has accused others falsely before, it is probable that he now falsely accuses the defendant. Or if it is shown that those who are now accused, have been at another time falsely accused; for then it is probable that now also they are falsely accused. In order, likewise, to remove a bad opinion it may be said, that the same persons, who at another time have been suspected of a crime, though no one has accused them, have been found to be innocent. Another mode consists in reciprocally criminating the accuser; for if the accuser is unworthy of belief, it is absurd that his assertions should be credible. Another mode consists in showing that the present cause has been decided before; as Euripides does in the action against Hygiænontes, which is called antidosis, who accused him as an impious person. For when he objected to Euripides, that in that verse of his,
” The tongue has sworn, but unsworn is the mind.” he persuaded men to perjure themselves, Euripides replied, “That his accuser acted unjustly, in bringing decisions into a court of justice, which had formerly been made in the contest pertaining to Bacchus; for in that tribunal, he had defended the verse, and would again defend it, if he was willing to accuse him in that place.” Another mode consists in reprobating false accusations, and in showing how great an evil calumny is, and that it is also attended with the evil of producing other judicial processes. The place, however, which is derived from symbols is common to both i.e. to him who accuses, and to the crimination. Thus Ulysses in the tragedy called Teucer, “accuses Teucer as the friend of the Trojans, because he was allied to Priam.” For Hesione the mother of Teucer, was the sister of Priam. But Teucer replied, “That his father Telamon was an enemy to Priam; and that he (Teucer) did not discover to the Trojans the spies which the Greeks sent to Troy.” Another place pertains to the accuser, and consists in praising in a small degree, in order to blame afterwards more copiously; and if the opponent has performed any great deed, to mention it concisely; or having enumerated many of his good deeds, which do not pertain to the cause, to blame one of his actions, which does pertain to it. But accusers of this kind, are most artificial and unjust; for they endeavour to injure by good deeds, mingling them with one evil deed. It is common, however, to the accuser, and to him who dissolves the crime, since it is possible that the same thing may have been done for the sake of many things,—it is common to the accuser indeed, to represent the affair in the worst, but to him who dissolves the crime, to represent it in the best point of view. Thus it may be said, “That Diomed preferred Ulysses as his associate in the night adventure in Iliad. 10, because he thought Ulysses to be the best of the Greeks.” Or it may be said, “That he did not prefer him for this reason, but because he alone was not his antagonist, as being a man of no consequence.” And thus much concerning accusation.
The lessons published on this site are freely available to read. If you wish to move from reading to formal study — with graded assessments, academic records, and the support of the Academy — you may enroll at any time. Enrollment is open year round, to students of all ages.
