asy, flowing, and elegant;
but, as he advanced in years, it became stiff, abrupt, and harsh.
Tacitus relates a conversation on a literary subject; and in such a
piece, who can 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 d