<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.10.122-5.10.125</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.10.122-5.10.125</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="122" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I would also have students of oratory consider that all the forms of
                            argument which I have just set forth cannot be found in every case, and
                            that when the subject on which we have to speak has been propounded, it
                            is no use considering each separate type of argument and knocking at the
                            door of each with a view to discovering whether they may chance to serve
                            to prove our point, except while we are in the position of mere learners
                            without any knowledge of actual practice. </p></div><div n="123" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Such a proceeding merely retards the process of speaking to an
                            incalculable extent, if it is always necessary for us to try each single
                                <pb n="v4-6 p.271"/> argument and thus learn by experiment what is
                            apt and suitable to our case. In fact I am not sure that it will not be
                            an actual obstacle to progress unless a certain innate penetration and a
                            power of rapid divination seconded by study lead us straight to the
                            arguments which suit our case. </p></div><div n="124" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For just as the melody of the voice is most pleasing when accompanied by
                            the lyre, yet if the musician's hand be slow and, unless he first look
                            at the strings and take their measure, hesitate as to which strings
                            match the several notes of the voice, it would be better that he should
                            content himself with the natural music of the voice unaccompanied by any
                            instrument; even so our theory of speaking must be adapted and, like the
                            lyre, attuned to such rules as these. </p></div><div n="125" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But it is only by constant practice that we can secure that, just as the
                            hands of the musician, even though his eyes be turned elsewhere, produce
                            bass, treble or intermediate notes by force of habit, so the thought of
                            the orator should suffer no delay owing to the variety and number of
                            possible arguments, but that the latter should present themselves
                            uncalled and, just as letters and syllables require no thought on the
                            part of a writer, so arguments should spontaneously follow the thought
                            of the orator. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>