Many doubt the desirability of this kind of defense: "If I had killed
him, I should have done well; but I did not kill him." Where is the
occasion, say they, for the first proposition if the second be true?
They run counter to each other, and whoever advances both, will be
credited in neither. This is partly true, for if the last proposition be
unquestionable, it is the only one that should be used. But if we are
apprehensive of anything in the stronger, we may use both. On these
occasions persons seem to be differently affected; one will believe the
fact, and exculpate the right; another will condemn the right, and
perhaps not credit the fact. So, one dart may be enough for an unerring
hand to hit the mark, but chance and many darts must effect the same
result for an uncertain aim. Cicero clears up this matter in his defense
of Milo. He first shows Clodius to be the aggressor, and then, by a
superabundance of right, adds that tho he might not be the aggressor, it
was brave and glorious in Milo to have delivered Rome of so bad a
citizen.
Tho division may not always be necessary, yet when properly used it
gives great light and beauty to a discourse. This it effects not only by
adding more perspicuity to what is said, but also by refreshing the
minds of the hearers by a view of each part circumscribed within its
bounds; just so milestones ease in some measure the fatigue of
travelers, it being a pleasure to know the extent of the labor they have
undergone, and to know what remains encourages them to persevere, as a
thing does not necessarily seem long when there is a certainty of coming
to the end.