Edmiston, of Cornell University. To both these scholars I here extend, both in behalf of myself and of my readers, my warm thanks for the arduous labor which they have devoted to the interests of this book. PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 20, 1893. ALFRED GUDEMAN. g. Stylistic Character of the Dialogus h. Summary of Arguments in Favor of Tacitus lxiv-lxxxvii PROLEGOMENA. I. THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP. 1. HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. BEFORE entering upon a detailed discussion concerning the disputed authorship of the Dialogus, a brief historical outline of the various phases through which the controversy, now more than 300 years old, has passed, will be appropriate.1 The first to cast any doubt upon the authenticity of our treatise was Beatus Rhenanus (Bilde von Rheinau 1485-1547), in a short Beatus note to his edition of the works of Tacitus published in Basle in Rhenanus. 1519. Naturally no attention was paid to objections based upon incredibly slender grounds, and scholars continued to regard the Dialogus as Tacitean, until the appearance of Lipsius' famous edition, pub- Iustus lished for the first time in 1574. After pointing out some palpable Lipsius. differences between the style of the Dialogus and the other works of the historian, Lipsius concluded as follows: 'Superest ut de scriptore huius libri verbo admoneam; quem Tacitum non esse tam certum apud me est quam si Apollo respondisset. Inclino ut Quintiliano tribuam.' True to this conviction, he issued the Dialogus under Quintilian's name (Fabii Quintiliani ut videtur dialogus an sui saeculi oratores antiquis et quare concedant, Cornelio Tacito falso inscriptus). In later editions, Lipsius began to lose faith in the infallibility of the oracle, 'falso' was replaced by 1 Cp. Eckstein, Proleg. pp. 41 ff. Weinkauff pp. XI-XLV. 2. Hunc dialogum vix crediderim esse Taciti, quamquam auctor, quisquis fuit eius eruditissimi saeculi, testatur se disertissimorum hominum sermonem repetere, quem iuvenis admodum audiverit "iisdem nunc numeris iisdemque rationibus," ut potius loqui illos ipsos lector debeat imaginari quam eum qui conscripsit. Sane fit hic anni sexti' mentio Vespasiani principatus,' quo tempore iuvenis fuit admodum Tacitus. Fit et mentio "Mutiani, senatorumque eloquentium Eprii Marcelli ac Crispi Vibii quorum quoque meminit Tacitus in libris Annalium. Nec Justus Fabius. . . ex Plinii epistolis ignotus est. Sed haud me latet etiam apud veteres tam apte conscripta quaedam esse ut antiquiora videri queant quam sunt.' |
