mandabat, deceptus est.  Tractavit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam; In philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator.  Multa in eo claraeque sententiae; multa etiam morum gratia legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundat dulcibus vitiis.  Velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno judicio.  Nam si aliqua contempsisset; si parum concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset; si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum, quam puerorum amore comprobaretur.  Verum sic quoque jam robustis, et severiore genere satis firmatis, legendus, vel ideo, quod exercere potest utrimque judicium.  Multa enim (ut dixi) probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere modo curae sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. Quintil. lib. x. cap. 1.  From this it is evident, that Seneca, even in the meridian of his fame and power, was considered as the grand corrupter of eloquence.  The charge is, therefore, renewed in this Dialogue, with strict propriety.  Rollin, who had nourished his mind with ancient literature, and was, in his time, the Quintilian of France, has given the same opinion of Seneca, who, he says, knew how to play the critic on the works of others, and to condemn the strained metaphor, the forced conceit, the tinsel sentence, and all the blemishes of a corrupt style, without desiring to weed them out of his own productions.  In a letter to his friend (epist. 114), which has been mentioned section xxvi. note [c], Seneca admits a general depravity of taste, and with great acuteness, and, indeed, elegance, traces it to its source, to the luxury and effeminate manners of the age; he compares the florid orators of his time to a set of young fops, well powdered and perfumed, just issuing from their toilette:  Barba et coma nitidos, de capsula totos; he adds, that such affected finery is not the true ornament of a man. Non est ornamentum virile, concinnitas. And yet, says Rollin, he did not know that he was sitting to himself for the picture.  He aimed for ever at something new, far fetched, ingenious, and pointed.  He preferred wit to truth and dignified simplicity.  The marvellous was with him better than the natural; and he chose to surprise and dazzle, rather than merit the approbation of sober judgement.  His talents placed him at the head of the fashion, and with those enchanting vices which Quintilian ascribes to him, he was, no doubt, the person who contributed most to the corruption of taste and eloquence.  See Rollin’s Belles Lettres, vol. i. sur le Gout.  Another eminent critic, L’ABBE GEDOYN, who has given an elegant translation of Quintilian, has, in the preface to that work, entered fully into the question concerning the decline of eloquence.  He admits that Seneca did great mischief, but he takes the matter up much higher.  He traces it to OVID, and imputes the taste for wit and spurious ornament, which prevailed under the emperors, to the false,