6706 
 D5P36 
 
 
PA 
 C70k 
 
 OTovucU IWwtsitg JibvavB 
 
 ■p^S^^^ 
 
ON THE lUTHORS^Jp 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DIALOGUS DE ORATOR1BUS. 
 
 7> /*. 
 
. Iji Cornell University 
 )Jg Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026528897 
 
[Extract from Transactions of American Philological Association, 1879.] 
 
 The Authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus. 
 By TRACY PECK, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN CORNEH, UNIVERSITY. 
 
 As far as our knowledge extends, it was Beatus Rlienanus 
 who, in his editions of Tacitus early in the sixteenth century, 
 started the discussion in regard to the authorship of the 
 Dialogus de Oratoribus. About fifty years later, Lipsius main- 
 tained with more force that Tacitus could not have written the 
 work, and his judgment— based mainly on the wide difference 
 between the style of the Dialogus and that of the admitted 
 writings of Tacitus — greatly influenced his contemporaries, 
 and is still not without adherents. But the broad question 
 whether the work is the composition of Tacitus, or of Quin- 
 tilian, or of the younger Pliny, or even of Suetonius or Maternus, 
 by the consent of modern scholars has been narrowed to this 
 question, — whether Tacitus was or was not the author. The 
 arguments once advanced' in favor of all others except Tacitus 
 are so easily overthrown by considerations of chronology, 
 literary style, judgments of men and things, and mental 
 characteristics, that, if I mistake not, these quasi-claimants 
 are now without champions. The current of criticism, so far 
 as it has been publicly expressed, is to-day setting strongly in 
 favor of Tacitus. It is hoped by this paper not so much to 
 add materially to this discussion — now nearly three hundred 
 and fifty years old — as to excite among us greater interest in a 
 work which singularly merits and rewards study as the outcome 
 of and protest against the literary condition of Rome in the first 
 century of the Empire, and because of its fertile suggestiveness 
 of thought, its exquisite Latinty, and the freshness of its style. 
 
 The Dialogus is nowhere distinctly mentioned in extant 
 classical Latin, but in a letter of the younger Pliny (ix. 10) to 
 Tacitus it is in all probability quoted from. Pliny's words are 
 these : Poeuiuta quiescunt, quae tu inter nemora et lucos com- 
 modissime perfici putas. Now, the exact idea and the essential 
 words appear in chapters 9 and 12 of the Dialogus, nor are 
 
 /lio 
 
6 T. Peck, 
 
 the words in such a use elsewhere found in Tacitus. This 
 contemporary evidence should seem conclusive : but it has been 
 urged that the quotation -is from some work or part of a work 
 of Tacitus now lost. It is hard to see how the thought could 
 have found pertinent expression in any of his historical com- 
 positions. Of course the passage might have been in the 
 vanished correspondence of Tacitus, but this explanation can 
 hardly appear probable to one who examines the question with 
 a judicial rather than a partisan frame of mind. 
 
 It seems like trifling to mention the other ground on which 
 the authority of this letter has been impugned. Heinrich 
 Gutmarnn maintains that the letter was written by Tacitus 
 himself in reply to Pliny's (i. 6) communication. But in the 
 earlier letter there is nothing to which this could serve as a 
 fit answer. The style of the letter is through and through that 
 of Pliny himself. There is no evidence that Tacitus wrote 
 poetry, and had he thus written, Pliny would in all probability 
 have added his name to the list of versifiers in Ep. v. 3. And 
 by what strange chance should this single letter of Tacitus 
 have alone been preserved, while all other epistles from Pliny's 
 many correspondents (save only those from the Emperor 
 Trajan) were excluded from the collection ? If Pliny had 
 thought to honor Tacitus by the insertion of one of his letters, 
 would he have chosen this exceedingly light specimen ? 
 
 The testimony of the manuscripts is in favor of Tacitus 
 alone. All existing mss. of the Dialogus have the important 
 lacuna between chapters 35 and 36, and other corrupt passages, 
 and are doubtless derived from the copy that was brought to 
 Rome in or very near the year 1457. In all mss. the title runs, 
 Qomelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus. Additions to this are 
 of late and known origin. Thus Gronovius in his edition 
 increases the codex-superscription with the words sive de causis 
 corruptae eloquentiae. This was the subject of an early work 
 of Quintilian (Inst. Or., vi. prooem. 3), but Spalding (1. c.) 
 has clearly proved that the Dialogus cannot be this treatise of 
 Quintilian. Furthermore, the Dialogus is not found with the 
 mss. of the Histories or Annals, so that it cannot thus by acci- 
 dent or blunder have'been identified with the works of Tacitus. 
 
On the Authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus. 5 
 
 Diplomatic tradition thus speaks only in favor of Tacitus, and 
 if we ignore this, the door is opened wide for scepticism in 
 regard to the authorship of nearly all ancient literature. 
 
 Of no little weight is the testimony of Pomponio Leto of 
 Calabria, who died not later than 149& His words are: 
 C. Tacitus scripta Maecenatis appellat calamistros. The epi- 
 thet is found in the Dialogus, cap. 26, nor is it elsewhere in 
 extant Latin applied to this effeminate litterateur. Lipsius 
 endeavors to rebut this evidence for Tacitus with a contemptu- 
 ous-remark about the ignobleness of the witness. Of illegiti- 
 mate birth he certainly was : so, too, is he freighted in history 
 with many names ; but nothing is known of him that justifies 
 us in supposing him guilty of falsehood or of easy credulity 
 in regard to our present question. 
 
 In the chronology of the Dialogus there is nothing incon- 
 sistent with the theory that Tacitus was its author. The work 
 professes (cap. 1) to be an accurate reproduction of a discus- 
 sion held in the sixth year (cap. 17) ol Vespasian's reign. 
 The reporter was at that time juvenis admodum, — a tantaliz- 
 ingly elastic expression. Tacitus applies (Agr. 7) the words 
 to Domitian when he was eighteen years old, and to Vespasian 
 (H. ii. 78) and Helvidius Priscus (H. iv. 5) with much vague- 
 ness. The birth-year of Tacitus is not known, but it was 
 probably 54 a. d., so that in 74 or 75 a. d. he could properly 
 have been spoken of as juvenis admodum. The time of 
 composition of the Dialogus can only be conjectured. The 
 objective way in which the writer speaks of himself in the 
 first two chapters, implies, to my mind, a considerable interval 
 between the discussion and its report. Nor does it seem 
 natural that Justus Pabius, to whom the work is addressed, 
 should have 'frequently' (saepe ex me requiris, cap. 1) 
 requested a juvenis admodum to undertake the discussion of 
 so weighty a theme. But the fact of a youthful writer seems 
 unmistakable from the entire warp and woof of the piece 
 itself, and if Quintilian (Inst. Or., x. 3, 22), as is altogether 
 probable, alludes to the work, it must have been given to the 
 public some time before the death of Domitian in 96. The 
 Dialogus may thus have been published late in Vespasian's 
 
6 T. Peck, 
 
 reign, or under Titus. Nor do I see anything fatal to the 
 view that it came out in the first years of Domitian's rule. 
 Tacitus in the Agricola (3) certainly says that the fifteen 
 years of that monster's reign were passed in silence ; but he 
 is apparently characterizing the entire reign from its last terri- 
 ble years," and is referring to the capital danger of faithfully 
 writing history or the lives of outspoken, freedom-loving 
 individuals, rather than to the composition of such inoffensive 
 pieces as the Dialogus. Under Domitian Quintilian certainly 
 wrote, as did Statius, Silius Italicus, Martial, and many others 
 whose names are better known than their writings. I do not 
 think that the style or temperament of the piece will allow us 
 to place its composition after Domitian's death. Too late, 
 also, appears the mysterious absence of Tacitus from Rome 
 for four years (Agr. 45) just before Agricola's death in 93. 
 So late in Domitian's jealous and vindictive period Tacitus 
 would hardly have ventured to speak in such praise of Ves- 
 pasian (capp. 8, 17), nor could he then have spoken with such 
 buoyant cheerfulness of the imperial regime (41). Even the 
 work of the calm and impartial Quintilian (I. 0., x. 1, 91, 92) 
 is marred by the servile flattery of the times, but we need not- 
 suspect that the grave Tacitus — and that, too, gratuitously — 
 thus prostituted his powers. 
 
 Leaving these external considerations, we are now prepared 
 to question the personal motive, the sentiments, and the literary 
 style of the Dialogus. Reading between the lines, I think we 
 may find that Tacitus intended the work as a kind of pro 
 domo sua, a vindication of his withdrawal from the career of 
 a forensic orator and devotion to literature.. As Cicero in his 
 de Oratore speaks his own views through Crassus, so here 
 Tacitus probably puts forth Maternus as his representative. 
 Maternus is certainly the leading character: the discussion 
 takes place at his house ; he is introduced as a well-known 
 person ; his tragedies give rise to the debate ; he directs and 
 closes the argument, and twice recalls the disputants from 
 digressions. In early life Maternus had gained prominence 
 as a lawyer, but was now absorbed in the writing of plays ; 
 Tacitus, too, was educated as a lawyer and entered upon the 
 
On the Authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus. 7 
 
 practice of the law, but abandoned this career for that of a 
 historian. That the writer of the Dialogus had had a legal 
 training like that of Tacitus is beyond a doubt : the discussion 
 is introduced as an actual trial, in which we have plaintiff, 
 defendant, advocate, and judge ; the closing speech of Mater- 
 niis bears the character of a judicial verdict ; in the body of 
 the work are many legal terms, as cui bono ? formula, inter- 
 dictum, and frequent reference is made to speeches that deal 
 largely with legal technicalities and processes. 
 
 The Dialogus and the acknowledged writings of Tacitus 
 show a quite remarkable consistency of views of men and 
 events, and a like conception of life. In all we see a regret 
 for the grander life and opportunities of the republic, but at 
 the same time a philosophic acquiescence in the empire as the 
 inevitable, and thus a strong tendency to fatalism. Here as 
 there we find a cordial recognition of woman's influence in 
 the prudent training of her children ; a rich vein of satire — 
 the genuine Roman satire — worked against the present, but 
 with an earnest desire for its improvement ; a disposition to 
 concede greatness in men of the times, provided they are not 
 measured by the superior standards of the past ; a keen insight 
 into human nature and motives, and a portrayal of character 
 and action with real dramatic effect ; pregnant, epigrammatic 
 utterances — not accumulated and paraded, as in Seneca, as 
 sheer rhetorical tinsel, but naturally suggested by the course 
 of thought. Here as there we see that Cicero — particularly 
 his rhetorical writings — and Vergil had been sympathetically 
 studied, and have left their stamp upon thought and expression. 
 
 In the youth of Tacitus there were two antagonistic schools 
 of style, whose chiefs were Quintilian and Seneca. There 
 seems no doubt that Tacitus was first drawn to the former — 
 a modified type of Ciceronianism. The younger Pliny (Ep. 
 vn. 20) clearly implies this, and the' Dialogus is the best extant 
 specimen of this literary renaissance. The prevailing fulness 
 of expression, the rhythmical periodic structure, the thoughts 
 brocaded with an almost gaudy rhetoric, and at the same time 
 frequent instances of tautology and an almost cloying richness 
 of language, show both the author's success and failure in this 
 
8 . T. Peek, 
 
 tour de force. But Tacitus Whs not one to wear long the garb 
 of any school or model, and from the Dialogus on through the 
 Agricola, and the Germany, and the Histories, and the Annals, 
 we can trace the steady development of thafrnarvelous method 
 of expression which finally puts Tacitus apart from all who 
 have ever written. The difference between the styles of the 
 extremes in this series is certainly very great. But style 
 naturally varies with the subject, changes with the times, 
 and is modified by maturer years and wider experience. The 
 historical studies of Tacitus, and his observation of the whim- 
 sical and brutal use of power, and of the apparently inevitable 
 decline of his country, had profoundly affected his -whole soul, 
 and his style could not have remained stationary. Tacitus 
 had not always been the austere, almost gloomy man that 
 might be inferred from his latest wjftings: from the letters of 
 Pliny he appears to have been a very genial and companionable 
 friend ; there is even a tradition that he once wrote a book of 
 wittici8ms (liber facetiarum) , and certainly the Dialogus shows 
 in its author a cheery and hopeful disposition. 
 
 The Latinity of the Dialogus, though base'd upon a close 
 study of Cicero, reveals in all its texture the traits of the 
 " Silver Age," and has many of the peculiarities of the later 
 writings of Tacitus. Among these peculiarities may be men- 
 tioned a fondness for using pairs of words of like meaning — 
 especially nouns and adjectives ; a decided poetic coloring - , 
 as in the free use of metaphor and of personification; the 
 reversal of the traditional order of the nomen gentile and 
 cognomen ; and the reckoning of the reign of Augustus from 
 his first consulship, instead of from the battle of Actiuin or 
 from the time of receiving the title of Augustus. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PA 6706.D5P36 
 
 Authorship of the Dialogus de oratoribus 
 
 3 1924 026 528 897 
 
UA 
 
 7ttf<* , ''£3r. 
 
 "■ "'' v'> 
 
 Mi 
 
 *£»