only modern whom Aper has ventured to name), if we compare him with the race that followed, may be fairly pronounced a legitimate orator, though it must be acknowledged, that in what remains of his compositing, he is clumsy without strength, and violent without spirit.  He was the first that deviated from the great masters of his art.  He despised all method and regular arrangement; indelicate in his choice of words, he paid no regard to decency; eager to attack, he left himself unguarded; he brandished his weapons without skill or address; and, to speak plainly, he wrangled, but did not argue.  And yet, notwithstanding these defects, he was, as I have already said, superior to all that came after him, whether we regard the variety of his learning, the urbanity of his wit, or the vigour of his mind.  I expected that Aper, after naming this orator, would have drawn up the rest of his forces in regular order.  He has fallen, indeed, upon Asinius, Caelius, and Calvus; but where are his champions to enter the lists with them?  I imagined that he had a phalanx in reserve, and that we should have seen them man by man giving battle to Cicero, Caesar, and the rest in succession.  He has singled out some of the ancients, but has brought none of his moderns into the field.  He thought it enough to give them a good character in their absence.  In this, perhaps, he acted with prudence:  he was afraid, if he selected a few, that the rest of the tribe would take offence.  For among the rhetoricians of the present day, is there one to be found, who does not, in his own opinion, tower above Cicero, though he has the modesty to yield to Gabinianus [g]?

XXVII.  What Aper has omitted, I intend to perform.  I shall produce his moderns by name, to the end that, by placing the example before our eyes, we may be able, more distinctly, to trace the steps by which the vigour of ancient eloquence has fallen to decay.  Maternus interrupted him.  I wish, he said, that you would come at once to the point:  we claim your promise.  The superiority of the ancients is not in question.  We want no proof of it.  Upon that point my opinion is decided.  But the causes of our rapid decline from ancient excellence remain to be unfolded.  We know that you have turned your thoughts to this subject, and we expected from you a calm disquisition, had not the violent attack which Aper made upon your favourite orators, roused your spirit, and, perhaps, given you some offence.  Far from it, replied Messala; he has given me no offence; nor must you, my friends, take umbrage, if at any time a word should fall from me, not quite agreeable to your way of thinking.  We are engaged in a free enquiry, and you know, that, in this kind of debate, the established law allows every man to speak his mind without reserve.  That is the law, replied Maternus; you may proceed in perfect security.  When you speak of the ancients, speak of them with ancient freedom, which, I fear, is at a lower ebb than even the genius of those eminent men.