<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:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.13.59</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.13.59</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="59" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I am consequently surprised that there should be a violent dispute
                            between the leaders of two opposite schools as to whether such
                            commonplaces should be applied to individual questions (which is the
                            view of Theodorus), or whether the judge should be instructed in the
                            facts before any appeal is made to his feelings (the latter being the
                            view of Apollodorus), as though no middle course were possible and no
                            regard were to be had to the exigencies of the case itself. Those who
                            lay down such rules have no experience of speaking in the actual courts,
                            the result being that text-books composed in the calm leisure of the
                            study are sadly upset by the necessities of forensic strife. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>