The lacuna after c. 35.

ancients is, in perfect keeping with the cautious nature of the man, brought out in a negative way by his contention that the moderns did not enjoy the essential conditions which made the oratory of the past what it was. The prerequisite element of a direct and irreconcilable antagonism between the two eminent teachers of Tacitus is therefore wholly and significantly wanting, and hence there existed no motive for including Secundus in the 'criminatio,' with which Maternus and Messalla on the one side, and Aper, their equally fervent opponent, on the other, good-naturedly threaten one another in parting.

Summing up the previous discussion, we conclude that, after Messalla had finished, Secundus followed in a speech, and that he in turn was succeeded by Maternus, who brings the entire debate to a close. But the beginning and end of Secundus' speech, the end of Messalla's, and the beginning of that of Maternus are lost in the two lacunae (c. 35 ext. 40 7) which unfortunately disfigure the closing portions of the treatise.

There remains the vexed question as to the probable extent and contents of the lacuna after c. 35, the text breaking off and beginning in the middle of a sentence.

Of our MSS., only the X class (A and B) seem at first sight to furnish a definite clue to the exact size of the gap, both stating that six pages were missing. But unfortunately the Dialogus takes up 16 pages in A and 29 in B, which proves that the words 'sex pagellae' were simply copied from their common source, 169 now lost, so that we are still ignorant as to the actual dimensions of the page in the original archetypon. Egger 170 maintained that nine pages had been omitted, basing his calculation upon the worthless cod. Parisiensis 7773, but his premise is a pure fancy, and has justly been rejected by Habbe 171 (p. 8). His own attempt, however, though ingenious, rests upon no firmer foundation, as he operates with two undemonstrable assumptions. He tacitly takes it for granted: (1) That the number six was found in the margin of the cod. Hersfeldensis (2) That the codd. Med. 47, 36 and 68, 1, containing respectively the letters of Pliny and Tac. Ann. V (VI), and written by the same hand, were copied from a codex miscellaneus, comprising also the Dialogus, the Germania and the Suetonian

169 See also E (pp. 9b-19b): hic deest multum : in exemplari dicitur deesse sex paginas.

170 Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. III (1836) p. 338. 171 Cf. op. cit. pp. 7–10.

fragment. If so, he argues, we can ascertain with mathematical accuracy the size of the page of the archetypon by a simple comparison with the known extent of the omissions in Pliny's letters, these lacunae not being found in all MSS. of Pliny. Habbe thus calculates the gap in the Dialogus at one-seventh of the entire treatise.172 With those who, like myself, are unable to attach any argumentative validity to his premises, the result reached by means of them will not carry conviction, and I am inclined to think that no satisfactory answer can be given to the question under notice without the accession of new MS. material.

In the determination of the contents of the lacuna, scholars were of course influenced by the views which they held regarding the degree of prominence given by the author to Secundus. Those who maintained that he did not speak at all were unable to invent anything else that might have been spoken by Maternus; of others who believed that Secundus' entire speech was lost in the lacuna, only Brotier has ventured to reconstruct in detail the topics discussed in the missing portions. His restoration, though written in fluent Latin, would scarcely deserve mention, save as a jeu d'esprit, did not Habbe, after giving a short synopsis of it (p. 10 f.), express his conviction that this supplement is in every way worthy of being rescued from oblivion. Atque Broterium,' he continues, 'melius meritum esse puto de aureolo illo libello recte percipiendo quam nonnullos illorum . . . partis amissae imaginem non multum a veritate abhorrentem ante oculos legentium exposuit.' 178

This favorable comment is, in my judgment, a deplorable aberration, for Brotier's supplement is based upon a complete misunderstanding, not only of the scope and the plan of the Dialogue, but also of the attitude and the character of the interlocutors. The utterances put into the mouth of Messalla, of Secundus (six long chapters are devoted to him) and of Maternus are a kind of conglomeration or potpourri of criticisms, anecdotes and the like, culled from Seneca Rhetor, Velleius, Seneca the philosopher,

172 I append the conclusion (p. 10): "2 chartae = 4 pag. cod. archet. 6 66

3

=

66

66

=

=

fere cod. Med. 47, 36 (Pliny). " 33 + 128 (Dial.). Dialogi autem quod reliquum est ad hunc codicem Mediceum ut 1 ad 6. Ergo pars Dialogi amissa

=

f="! Q. E. D.

178 The same favorable view is taken by Krauss, who incorporated the Broterian supplement into his German translation, Stuttgart 1882.

Quintilian, Pliny, Juvenal and Tacitus. Only a few selections from Brotier's restoration (?) can here be given, by way of illustration. Thus the over-cautious Secundus is made to fulminate 'ingentibus verbis' against the vices of his time!? Seneca, who is dealt with at length, represents in his eyes the very incarnation of everything that is loathsome and corrupt in morals, oratory and literature. Even Largus Licinius - save the mark! comes in for a good deal of scathing denunciation; an elaborate eulogy is pronounced upon Vespasian; Maternus is congratulated on his resolution to quit the forum amid conditions so hopelessly corrupt; 174 the poet again gives his reasons for his determination, and then suddenly comes to the rescue of the too much abused rhetoricians (!), Quintilian being lauded to the skies, as a kind of prospective 'vagae moderator summe iuventae, gloria Romanae togae.' 175 Human affairs are then compared with the human body, which passes from youth to maturity, and then to decay, and we learn with regret that nature is not prodigal of genius, and that every field of human activity has but one golden age, so to speak. The language of men is a mirror of the times in which they live, of which truth direct application is made. Maternus ends his epigrammatic philosophy by a characterisation of the eloquence of Demosthenes, and then proceeds as in the MSS. Some of Maternus' utterances are not unworthy of the contemporary of the French Revolution, and we actually hear of the powerful effect of eloquence in allaying internal dissensions or terrifying into retreat an invading army of foreign enemies! There is, in fact, scarcely a single thought in the entire supplement which is in keeping with the context or relevant to the design of the treatise or possible in the mouths of the interlocutors as Tacitus has drawn them! So far as I can see, there is but one topic that can, without fear of contradiction, be put down as having been dealt with in the portions now lost. It is, as already intimated,176 a more or less detailed treatment of Attic eloquence, introduced to show that the same causes that led to the development of a superior type of

174 One is sorely tempted to enquire why Secundus did not, under the circumstances, also retire.

175 The savage criticism of Seneca (a bombastic amplification of Quintilian X 1, 125 ff.), as well as the eulogy of Quintilian himself, supposed to have been uttered in 74/75, is of course an amusing anachronism!

176 See above p. lxxxii.

oratory in republican Rome were operative in producing a similar phenomenon in democratic Athens. To attempt to go beyond this is to leave the terra firma of fact for the limitless regions of conjectural fancy.

III. THE LITERARY SOURCES OF THE DIALOGUS.

The Dialogus de oratoribus purports to be, as we have seen, the The Dialogue faithful reproduction from memory of a debate which the young fictitious. Tacitus had been privileged to listen to, and which, about seven years later, after the death of the noted interlocutors, still seemed to him of sufficient interest and positive value to merit the attention of posterity.

The great majority of editors and critics, with the solitary exception of Kleiber and Rausch," tacitly assume that the author's explanation of the origin of the treatise was given in good faith, a few only venturing far enough to concede at least the bare possibility that the debate in question may be in reality essentially unhistorical. The above-mentioned scholars dealt with this subject only incidentally, and neglected many clear indications of the correctness of their view. The following remarks will therefore not be out of place.

The Dialogus, we contend, is a treatise cast into the dramatic form of a debate by its author for the same reasons that prompted Plato or Cicero to choose this particular species of literary composition. For it, and it alone, enabled them thoroughly to discuss a subject from all points of view, without ex cathedra utterances or dogmatic exposition. The grounds which compel me to look upon the Dialogue in this light are briefly as follows:

(1) There is no instance of a similar work in any literature which can be regarded as strictly historical. In all dialogical composition the author invariably exercises the right of the creative artist to invent his characters and to place them in such situations, as may be best conducive to the accomplishment of his object, but, being an artist, he also endeavors to impart an air of verisimilitude to his creation by giving a kind of pictorial reality to the scenery

177 Kleiber pp. 19-21 Rausch pp. 5-7.

and by investing his dramatis personae with the requisite historical coloring. The letters of Cicero may be cited as accurately representing his own method of procedure no less than that of the ancients in general.178

(2) The artistic structure and unity of plan which our treatise reveals is in itself sufficient to refute the supposition that the debate represents an accurate and faithful reproduction of an informal and improvised discussion between intimate friends.179

(3) The language put into the mouths of the interlocutors is unmistakably Ciceronian in thought and phraseology.

(4) In the structure of the Dialogus the author has repeatedly appropriated dramatic devices and motives from Cicero:

178 Cp. esp. the dedicatory epistle to Varro (ad fam. IX 8): Feci igitur sermonem (viz. Acad. Post.) inter nos habitum in Cumano, cum esset una Pomponius. Tibi dedi partes Antiochinas quas a te probari intellexisse mihi videbar, mihi sumpsi Philonis. Puto fore ut, cum legeris, mirere nos id locutos esse inter nos quod numquam locuti sumus sed NOSTI MOREM DIALOGORUM ad Att. XIII 19, 3 . sic enim constitueram neminem includere in dialogos eorum qui viverent . . . si Cottam et Varronem fecissem inter se disputantes. . . meum кwдòν πрóσ wπOV esset. hoc in antiquis suaviter fit ut et Heracleides in multis et nos sex de republica libris fecimus . . . sunt etiam de oratore nostri tres. . . puero me hic sermo inducitur ut nullae esse possent partes meae... haec Academica, ut scis, cum Catulo, Lucullo Hortensio contuleram. Sane in personas non cadebant, erant enim Xoyikwтepa quam ut illi de iis somniasse umquam viderentur . . . acumen habent Antiochi, NITOREM ORATIONIS NOSTRUM. ad Quint. frat. III 5 (concerning the plan of the de republica), ad fam. I 9, 23 scripsi igitur Aristotelio more quemadmodum quidem volui, tres libros in disputatione ac dialogo de oratore. See also the introduction of the de oratore and of the Laelius (1, 4): Catonem induxi senem disputantem quia nulla videbatur aptior persona quae de illa aetate loqueretur. . . idonea mihi Laeli persona visa est quae de amicitia ea ipsa dissereret. Genus autem hoc sermonum positum in hominum veterum auctoritate et eorum illustrium plus nescio quo pacto videtur habere gravitatis.

179 Cp. the previous chapter and the set speeches throughout the Dialogue, with their careful announcement and subsequent recapitulation of the topics discussed, as well as the elaborate perorations (c. 5 15 f. 16 16 17 1 221 23 ext. 251 28 5 f. 11 32 ext. 33 3 ff. 14 f. 34 1 ff. 26 f. 38 1). The following expressions are also out of place in an impromptu conversation: c. 14 19 iucundissimum oblectamentum cum vobis qui ista disputatis adferunt, tum etiam iis ad quorum aures pervenerint 27 8 nec vos offendi decebit si quid forte aures vestras perstringat cum sciatis hanc esse eius modi sermonum legem iudicium animi citra damnum adfectus proferre (see above 'nosti morem dialogorum ') 32 32 quos si forte haec audierint.