Institutio Oratoria

Further with regard to the time-lengths, which are of such importance where rhythm is concerned, what standard is there by which they can be

Consider the following example: neminem vestrum ignorare arbitror, iudices, hunc per hosce dies sermonem vulgi atque hanc opinionem populi Romani fiisse. [*](Verr. I. i. 1. I think that none of you, gentlemen, are igroraint that during these days such has been the talk of the common folk and such the opinion of the Roman people. ) Why is hosce preferable to hos, although the latter presents no harshness? I am not sure that I can give the reason, but none the less I feel that hosce is better. Why is it not enough to say sermonem vulgifuisse, which would have satisfied the bare demands of rhythm? I cannot tell, and yet my ear tells me that the rhythm would have lacked fullness without the reduplication of the phrase.

The answer is that in such cases we must rely on feeling. It is possible to have an inadequate understanding of what it is precisely that makes for severity or charm, but yet to produce the required effect better by taking nature for our guide in place of art: none the less there will always be some principle of art underlying the promptings of nature.

It is, however, the special duty of the orator to realise when to employ the different kinds of rhythm. There are two points which call for consideration if he is to do this with success. The one is concerned with feet, the other with the general rhythm of the period which is produced by their combination. I will deal with the latter first. We speak of commata, cola and periods.

A comma, in my opinion, may be defined as the expression of a thought lacking rhythmical