[49]
Now, then, you cannot deny that violence was
offered. The question now is, how he was driven away who was prevented from approaching. For a
man who is driven away must manifestly be removed and thrust down from the place which he is
occupying. And how can that happen to a man who absolutely never was in the place at all from
which he says that he was driven? What shall we say? If he had been there, and if under the
influence of fear, he had fled from the place when he saw the armed men, would you then say
that he had been driven away? I think so. Will you then, who decide disputes with such care
and such subtlety, by expressions and not by equity,—you who interpret laws, not by
the common advantage of the citizen, but by their letter,—will you be able to say
that a man has been driven away who has never been touched? What! Will you say that he has
been thrust down from his place? For that was the word which the praetors used formerly to use
in their interdicts. What do you say? Can any one be thrust down who is not touched? Must we
not, if we will stick to the strict letter, understand that that man only is thrust down on
whom hands are laid? It is quite inevitable, I say, if we wish to make words and facts tally
exactly with each other, that no one should be decided to have been thrust down, unless he be
understood to have had hands laid on him, and so to have been removed and pushed headlong down
by personal violence. But how can any one have been treated so, unless he has been removed
from a higher place to a lower one?
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.