LI.  But it looks like envy when what we call “number,” and the Greeks [Greek:  ruthmos] is said to be employed in judicial and forensic oratory.  For it appears like laying too many plots for the charming of people’s ears if rhythm is also aimed at by the orator in his speeches.  And relying on this argument those critics themselves utter broken and abrupt sentences, and blame those men who deliver well rounded and neatly turned discourses.  If they blame them because their words are ill adapted and their sentiments are trifling, they are right; but if their arguments are sound, their language well chosen, then why should they prefer a lame and halting oration to one which keeps pace with the sentiments contained in it?  For this rhythm which they attack so has no other effect except to cause the speaker to clothe his ideas in appropriate language; and that was done by the ancients also, not unusually by accident, and often by nature; and those speeches of theirs which are exceedingly praised, are so generally because they are concisely expressed.  And it is now near four hundred years since this doctrine has been established among the Greeks; we have only lately recognised it.  Therefore was it allowable for Ennius, despising the ancient examples, to say:—­

  “In verses such as once the Fauns
  And ancient poets sang:” 

and shall it not be allowed me to speak of the ancients in the same manner? especially as I am not going to say, “Before this man ...” as he did; nor to proceed as he did, “We have ventured to open ...”  For I have read and heard of some speakers whose orations were rounded off in an almost perfect manner.  And those who cannot do this are not content with not being despised; they wish even to be praised for their inability.  But I do praise those men, and deservedly too, whose imitators they profess to be; although I see something is wanting in them.  But these men I do not praise at all, who imitate nothing of the others except their defects, and are as far removed as possible from their good qualities.

But if their own ears are so uncivilised and barbarous, will not the authority of even the most learned men influence them?  I say nothing of Isocrates, and his pupils Ephorus and Naucrates; although those men who are themselves consummate orators ought also to be the highest authorities on making and ornamenting a speech.  But who of all men was ever more learned, or more acute, or a more accurate judge of the discovery of, or decision respecting all things than Aristotle?  Moreover, who ever took more pains to oppose Isocrates?  Aristotle then, while he warns us against letting verses occur in our speeches, enjoins us to attend to rhythm.  His pupil Theodectes, one of the most polished of writers, (as Aristotle often intimates,) and a great artist, both felt and enjoined the same thing.  And Theophrastus is more distinct still in laying down the same rule.