<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-eng2:7.4.39-7.4.44</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:7.4.39-7.4.44</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="7" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="39" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Further there are cases where a senator sets forth to the senate the <hi rend="italic">reasons which determine him to commit
                                suicide,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Based on a
                                law of Massilia, where the state provided poison for the would-be
                                suicide, provided he could justify himself before the senate.
                            </note> in which there is one <hi rend="italic">legal</hi> question,
                            namely, whether a man who desires to kill himself in order to escape the
                            clutches of the law ought to be prevented from so doing, while the
                            remaining questions are all concerned with <hi rend="italic">quality.</hi> There are also fictitious cases concerned with <hi rend="italic">wills,</hi> in which the only question raised is one
                            of <hi rend="italic">quality,</hi> as, for instance, in the
                            controversial theme quoted above, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">VII. i. 38.</note> where the philosopher,
                            physician and orator all claim the fourth share which their father had
                            left to the most worthy of his sons. The same is true of cases where
                            suitors of equal rank claim the hand of an orphan and the question
                            confronting her relatives is which is the most suitable. </p></div><div n="40" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I do not, however, intend to discuss every possible theme, <pb n="v7-9 p.131"/> since fresh ones can always be invented, nor yet to
                            deal with all the questions to which they give rise, since these vary
                            with circumstances. But I cannot help expressing my astonishment that
                            Flavus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> Verginius mentioned in § 24. </note> for whose
                            authority I have the highest respect, restricted the range of <hi rend="italic">quality</hi> to such an extent in the text-book which
                            he composed for the special guidance of the schools. </p></div><div n="41" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p><hi rend="italic">Quantity</hi> also, as I have already stated, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">§ 16.</note> falls as a rule,
                            though not always, under the head of <hi rend="italic">quality,</hi>
                            whether it is concerned with measure or number. Measure, however,
                            sometimes consists in the valuation of a deed with a view to determining
                            the amount of guilt or the amount of benefit involved, while, on the
                            other hand, it sometimes turns on a point of law, when the dispute is
                            under what law a man is to be punished or rewarded. </p></div><div n="42" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For example is a ravisher to pay 10,000 sesterces <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">cp.</hi> IV. ii. 69. </note>
                            because that is the penalty appointed by law, or is he liable to capital
                            punishment as a murderer because his victim hanged himself? In such
                            cases those who plead as if there were a question between two laws, are
                            wrong: for there is no dispute about the fine of 10,000, since it is not
                            claimed by the prosecution. </p></div><div n="43" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The point on which judgment has to be delivered is whether the accused
                            is guilty of causing his victim's death. The same type of case will also
                            bring <hi rend="italic">conjecture</hi> into play, when, for example,
                            the question in dispute is whether the accused shall be punished with
                            banishment for life or for five years. For the question then is whether
                            he caused his death willingly or not. </p></div><div n="44" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Again, there are questions concerned with numerical quantity which turn
                            on a point of law, such as the questions whether thirty <pb n="v7-9 p.133"/> rewards are due to Thrasybulus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> for
                                his overthrow of the thirty tyrants; <hi rend="italic">cp.</hi> II.
                                vi. 26. </note> or whether, when two thieves have stolen a sum of
                            money, they are each to be required to refund fourfold or twofold. But
                            in these cases, too, valuation of the act is necessary, and yet the
                            point of law also turns on <hi rend="italic">quality.</hi> </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>