length, and a speech ought to be impressed on the mind, not by a short,
sharp shock, but by measured blows, just as a sword should be used in
dealing with the body of an opponent. Thereupon he plies me with
authorities, and flourishes before me the speeches of Lysias among the
Greeks, and those of the Gracchi and Cato from among Roman orators. The
majority of these are certainly characterised by conciseness and
brevity, but I quote against Lysias the examples of Demosthenes,
Aeschines, Hyperides, and a multitude of others, while against the
Gracchi and Cato I set Pollio, Caesar, Caelius, and, above all, Marcus
Tullius, whose longest speech is generally considered to be his best.
And upon my word, as with all other good things, the more there is of a
good book, the better it is. You know how it is with statues, images,
pictures, and the outlines of many animals and even trees, that if they
are at all graceful nothing gives them a greater charm than size. It is
just the same with speeches,--even the mere volumes themselves acquire a
certain additional dignity and beauty from mere bulk.

These are but a few of the many arguments I usually employ to establish
my point; but there is no pinning my friend down in an argument. He is
such a slippery fellow that he wriggles off the pin and declares that
these same orators, whose speeches I instance, spoke at less length than
their published addresses seem to show. I hold the contrary to be the
case, and there are many speeches of many orators in favour of my
opinion, as, for example, the Pro Murena and the Pro Vareno of Cicero,
in which he indicates by side-heads alone, and quite barely and briefly,
how he dealt with certain charges against his clients. From these it is
clear that he actually spoke at much greater length and left out a
considerable number of passages when he published the addresses. Cicero
indeed says that in his defence of Cluentius "he had simply followed the
ancient custom and compressed his whole case into a peroration," and