<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi008.perseus-eng2:37-40</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi008.perseus-eng2:37-40</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi008.perseus-eng2" subtype="translation"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="37" resp="perseus"><p> I am driven out, say you, if any one of my slaves is driven out. Now you are
    right, for you are altering your language, and appealing, to justice. For if we choose to adhere
    to the words themselves, how are you driven out when your servant is driven out? But it is as
    you say—I ought to consider you yourself as driven out, even if you were never touched. Is it
    not so? Come now, suppose not even one of your slaves was driven from his place, if they were
    all kept and retained in the house; if you alone were prevented from entering, and frightened
    away from your house by violence and arms; will you in that case have this right of action which
    we have adopted, or some other form, or will you have no action at all? It neither becomes your
    prudence nor your character to say that, in so notable and so atrocious a case, there is no
    right of action. If there be any other kind of action which has escaped our notice, tell us what
    it is. I wish to learn. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="38" resp="perseus"><p> If this be the proper form, which we
    have employed, then, if you are the judge, we must gain our cause. For I have no fear of your
    saying in the same cause, and with the same interdict, that you ought to be restored, but that
    Caecina ought not. In truth, who is there to whom it is not clear, that the property, and
    possessions, and fortunes of all men will be again brought back into a state of uncertainty if
    the effect of this interdict is made in any particular more obscure, or less vigorous? if, under
    the authority of such men as these judges, the violence of armed men should appear to be
    approved by a judicial decision? in a trial in which it can be said that there was no question
    at issue about arms, but that inquiry was only made into the language of the interdict. Shall
    that man gain his cause before your tribunal, who defends himself in this manner, “I drove you
    away with armed men, I did not drive you out,” so that the fact is not to depend on the equity
    of the defence, but on the correctness of a single expression? </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="39" resp="perseus"><p> Will you lay it down that there is no right of action in such a case as this? that there is
    no method established for inquiring who has opposed a person with armed men, who has collected a
    multitude, and so prevented a man not only from effecting an entrance, but even from all access
    to a property? <milestone n="14" unit="chapter" resp="yonge"/>
   <milestone unit="para"/>What, then, shall we say? What force is there in this, or what difference is there between the
    cases?—whether, when I have got my foot within the boundaries, and taken possession as it were
    by planting a footstep on the ground, I am then expelled and driven out; or whether I am met
    with the same violence, and the same weapons, not only before I can enter on the land, but
    before I can see it, or breathe its atmosphere? What is the difference between one case and the
    other? Can there be such a difference, that he, who has expelled a man who has once entered, can
    be compelled to make restitution, but that he who has driven a person back when seeking to
    enter, cannot be compelled? </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="40" resp="perseus"><p> See, I entreat you in the name of
    the immortal gods, what a law you are proceeding to establish for us,—what a condition for
    yourselves, and what a code for the whole state. In injuries of this kind there is one form of
    proceeding established, the one which we have adopted, that by interdict. If that is of no
    avail, or has no reference to this matter, what can be imagined more careless or more stupid
    than our ancestors, who either omitted to institute any form of proceeding, in so atrocious a
    business, or else did institute one which fails to embrace in proper language either the fact,
    or the principle of law applicable to the case. It is a dangerous thing for this interdict to be
    dissolved. It is a perilous thing for all men, that there should be any case of such a nature
    that, when deeds of violence have been committed in it, the injustice should not be able to be
    repaired by law. But this is the most disgraceful thing of all, that most prudent men should be
    convicted of such egregious folly, as they would be if you were to decide that such a case as
    this, and such a form of legal proceeding as is requisite, never once occurred to the minds of
    our ancestors. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>