XX

εἷς ἔτι καταλείπεταί μοι λόγος ὁ περὶ τοῦ πρέποντος.
καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις χρώμασιν ἅπασι παρεῖναι δεῖ τὸ πρέπον,
καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἔργον ἀτυχεῖ τούτου τοῦ μέρους, καὶ εἰ μὴ      15
τοῦ παντός, τοῦ κρατίστου γε ἀτυχεῖ. περὶ μὲν οὖν ὅλης τῆς
ἰδέας ταύτης οὐχ οὗτος ὁ καιρὸς ἀνασκοπεῖν· βαθεῖα γάρ τις
αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλῶν πάνυ δεομένη λόγων ἡ θεωρία. ὅσα δὲ εἰς
τοῦτο συντείνει τὸ μέρος ὑπὲρ οὗ τυγχάνω ποιούμενος τὸν
λόγον, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὰ πάντα, μηδὲ τὰ πλεῖστα, ὅσα γε οὖν      20
ἐγχωρεῖ, λεγέσθω.

ὁμολογουμένου δὴ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὅτι πρέπον ἐστὶ τὸ τοῖς
ὑποκειμένοις ἁρμόττον προσώποις τε καὶ πράγμασιν, ὥσπερ
ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων εἴη τις ἂν ἡ μὲν πρέπουσα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις
ἡ δὲ ἀπρεπής, οὕτω δήπου καὶ σύνθεσις. παράδειγμα      25
δὲ τούτου χρὴ λαμβάνειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὃ δὲ λέγω, τοιοῦτόν

[199]

the third in the practical work of forensic oratory. As for the methods of Isocrates and his followers, they are not to be compared with the styles of those writers. The Isocratic authors have composed much with charm and distinction; but in regard to change and diversity they are anything but happy. We find in them one continually recurring period, a monotonous order of figures, the invariable observance of vowel-blending, and many other similar things which fatigue the ear. I cannot approve that school on this side. In Isocrates himself, it may be conceded, many charms were displayed which helped to hide this blemish. But among his successors, by reason of their fewer redeeming excellences, the fault mentioned stands out more glaringly.