<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-eng2:85-88</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi008.perseus-eng2:85-88</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="85" resp="perseus"><p> I wish, O judges, if all this appears to you to be a
    more cunning system of defence than I usually adopt, that you would consider, first of all, that
    another originally devised it, and not I; in the next place, that not only I was not the
    originator of the system, but that I do not even approve of it, and that I did not bring it
    forward for the purposes of my own defence, but that I used it as a reply to their defence; that
    I can speak in behalf of my own rights, and that in this matter which I have brought forward,
    what ought to be inquired into is not, in what terms the praetor framed his interdict, but what
    was the place intended when he framed it, and that in a case of violence offered by armed: men,
    the thing to he inquired into is not, where the violence was offered, but whether it was offered
    or not; and that you cannot possibly urge in your defence, that where you wish it to be done,
    the words of the interdict ought to be regarded but that where you do not wish it, they ought
    not to be considered. </p></div><milestone n="30" unit="chapter" resp="yonge"/><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="86" resp="perseus"><p><milestone unit="para"/>But is any answer given to me with reference to that which I have already mentioned, that this
    interdict was so framed, not only as to facts, and as to its meaning, but also as to its
    expressions, that nothing appeared to require any alteration? Listen carefully, O judges, I
    beseech you, for it becomes your wisdom to recognise, not my prudence, but that of our
    ancestors; for I am not going to mention what I myself have discovered, but a thing which did
    not escape their notice. When an interdict is issued respecting acts of violence, they were
    aware that there are two descriptions of causes to which the interdict had reference: one, if a
    man had been driven by violence from the place in which he was; the other, if he was driven from
    the place to which he was coming; and either of these may take place, and nothing else can, O
    judges. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="87" resp="perseus"><p> Consider this then, if you please. If any one has
    driven my household away from my farm, he has driven me too from that place. If any one came up
    to me with armed men, outside my farm, and prevented me from entering, then he has driven me,
    not out of that place, but from that place. For these two classes of actions they invented one
    phrase which sufficiently expressed them both; so that, whether I had been driven out of my
    farm, or from my farm, still I should be replaced by one and the same interdict, containing the
    words “from which you . . . ” these words “from which” comprehend either case: both out of which
    place, and from which place. Whence was Cinna driven? Out of the city. Whence was
      <persName><surname>Carbo</surname></persName> driven? From the city. Whence were the Gauls
     driven?</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="88" resp="perseus"><p> From the Capitol. Whence were they driven who were
    with Gracchus? Out of the Capitol. You see, therefore, that by this one phrase two things are
    signified, both out of what place, and from what place; and when the praetor orders me to be
    replaced in that place, he orders me to be so on this understanding, just as if the Gauls had
    demanded of our ancestors to be replaced in the situation from which they had been driven, and
    if by any force they had been able to obtain it, it would not, I imagine, have been right for
    them to be replaced in the mine, by which they had attacked the Capitol, but in the Capitol
    itself. For this is understood—“Replace him in the place from which you drove him away,” whether
    you drove him out of the place, or from the place. This now is plain enough; replace him in that
    place; if you drove him out of this place, replace him in it; if you drove him from this place,
    replace him in that place, not out of which, but from which he was driven. Just as if a person
    at sea, when he had come near to his own country, were on a sudden driven off by a storm, and
    were to wish, as he had been driven off from his country, to be restored to his former position.
    What he would wish, I imagine, would be this,—that fortune would restore him to the place from
    which he had been driven; not so as to replace him in the sea, but in the city which he was on
    his way to. So too, (since now we are necessarily hunting out the meaning of words from the
    similarity of the circumstances,) he who demands to be restored to the place from which he was
    driven,—that is to say, whence he was driven, —demands to be restored to that very place itself.
     </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>