expect to find the style of an historian or an annalist?  For these reasons Brotier thinks that this Dialogue may, with good reason, be ascribed to Tacitus.  The translator enters no farther into the controversy, than to say, that in a case where certainty cannot be obtained, we must rest satisfied with the best evidence the nature of the thing will admit.  The dispute is of no importance; for, as Lipsius says, whether we give the Dialogue to Quintilian or to Tacitus, no inconvenience can arise.  Whoever was the author, it is a performance of uncommon beauty.

Before we close this introduction, it will not be improper to say a word or two about Brotier’s Supplement.  In the wreck of ancient literature a considerable part of this Dialogue has perished, and, by consequence, a chasm is left, much to be lamented by every reader of taste.  To avoid the inconvenience of a broken context, Brotier has endeavoured to compensate for the loss.  What he has added, will be found in the progress of the work; and as it is executed by the learned editor with great elegance, and equal probability, it is hoped that the insertion of it will be more agreeable to the reader, than a dull pause of melancholy regret.

Section I.

[a] Justus Fabius was consul A.U.C. 864, A.D. 111.  But as he did not begin the year, his name does not appear in the FASTI CONSULARES.  There are two letters to him from his friend Pliny; the first, lib. i. epist. 11; the other, lib. vii. ep. 2. it is remarkable, that in the last, the author talks of sending some of his writings for his friend’s perusal; quaeram quid potissimum ex nugis meis tibi exhibeam; but not a word is said about the decline of eloquence.

Section ii.

[a] Concerning Maternus nothing is known with any kind of certainty.  Dio relates that a sophist, of that name, was put to death by Domitian, for a school declamation against tyrants:  but not one of the commentators ventures to assert that he was the Curiatius Maternus, who makes so conspicuous a figure in the Dialogue before us.

[b] No mention is made of Marcus Aper, either by Quintilian or Pliny.  It is supposed that he was father of Marcus Flavius Aper, who was substituted consul A.U.C. 883, A.D. 130.  His oratorical character, and that of Secundus, as we find them drawn in this section, are not unlike what we are told by Cicero of Crassus and Antonius.  Crassus, he says, was not willing to be thought destitute of literature, but he wished to have it said of him, that he despised it, and preferred the good sense of the Romans to the refinements of Greece.  Antonius, on the other hand, was of opinion that his fame would rise to greater magnitude, if he was considered as a man wholly illiterate, and void of education.  In this manner they both expected to increase their popularity; the former by despising the Greeks, and the latter by not knowing them. Fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum hominum in omni genere prudentiam Graecis anteferre.  Antonius autem probabiliorem populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omnino didicisse nunquam putaretur; atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Graecos videretur. Cicero De Orat. lib. ii. cap. 1.