indeed it is on account of the two speeches of Lucian which are named after Phalaris: but these seem to me to have nothing in common with the Epistles—the defence put forward by Phalaris is different, the style is dissimilar, and the story is diverse. Both in the Epistles and the Speeches Phalaris complains (as might be expected) that fame is unjust to him and pleads, for his crimes, the excuse of necessity. In the Speeches we have timid confession of guilt, cautious dissimulation, a bid for favour; in the Epistles a bold and spirited avowal, complaints of fame, combined with contempt of it, a justification to himself, not to others. The Speeches are colourless, gentle, clear, even; the Epistles vivid, headstrong, obscure, rugged. Moreover, if the same author wrote both, why in the Speeches should the embassy of Taurus to Delphi be of such particular importance, while in the Epistles there is no mention of it at all? Why in the Speeches should it be said that no one except Perilaus was shut up in the brazen bull, and that he was taken out alive and still breathing, while in the Epistles it is said that both he and thirty-seven other persons were put to death in that contrivance? Why, finally, in the Speeches, are
