[90]
But in order, O judges, that there should be no doubt on your part, whether you choose to
regard the fact, or the words, that you ought to decide in our favour, there arises now, when
every one of their expedients has been defeated and rendered useless, another argument in
defence, that a man can be driven away, who is at the time in possession, but that a man who
is not in possession cannot possibly be. Therefore, if I have been driven away from your
house, I ought not to be replaced there; but, if you yourself have, you ought. Just count up
how many false arguments there are in that defence, O Piso. And first of all, notice this, that you are by this driven from that
assertion which you made, that no one could be driven away from a place, unless he was in the
place previously; now you allow that a man who is the owner of a place can be driven away from
it, even if he is not actually in it at the moment, but you say that a man who is not the
owner cannot be driven away.
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.