Preface. Lucian among the ancients, and among the moderns Fenelon, Arch-bishop of Cambray, and Monsieur Fontenelle, have written Dialogues of the Dead with applause. But in our language nothing of that kind has been published worthy of notice: for the very ingenious and learned dialogues written by Mr. Hurde are all supposed to have past between living persons. The plan I have followed takes in a much greater compass: it brings before us the history of all times and all nations, presents to the choice of the writer all characters of remarkable persons, which may best be opposed to or compared with each other; and is, perhaps, one of the most agreeable methods, that can be employed, of conveying to the mind any critical, moral, or political observations; because the dramatic spirit, which may be thrown into them, gives them more life, than they could have in dissertations, however well written. And sometimes a new dress may make an old truth more pleasing to those, whom the mere love of novelty betrays into error, as it frequently does not only the wits but the sages of these days. If the author of these dialogues has in any degree accomplished his purpose, this little work will be of some use. If he has failed, he may at least induce abler pens to execute better what he has attempted. It will be proper to observe to the reader, that in the above-mentioned authors the dead are supposed to know what has past, in subsequent times, and other nations, as well as their own: without which supposition no conversations between persons who lived in different ages and different countries could be well carried on. Thus in Fenelon's dialogue between Plato and Aristotle, the former speaks as having read the works of the latter, which were not composed till after his death. In another by the same author Gelon finds fault with the conduct of Dion: and in that between Solon and Justinian the Athenian censures the government of the Roman legislator, and talks of the history of Procopius, as if he had read it. More instances might be given; but these are sufficient. Elysium, Minos, Mercury, Charon, and Styx, are also necessary allegories in this way of writing. If they should offend any pious or critical ears, I shall defend myself by the solemn declaration, which is always annexed, by the Italian writers to works, where they are obliged to use such expressions: ÒSe havessi nominato Fato, Fortuna, Destino, Elysio, Siyge, &c. sono scherzi di penna poetica, non sentimenti di animo Catolico.Ó* I have likewise taken the liberty that others have used, to give my dialogues different dates, as suited best with the purpose to which they were written, supposing some of them to have past in this present year, and others immediately after the death of one of the speakers there introduced. The three last dialogues are written by a different hand; as I am afraid would have appeared but too plainly to the reader without my having told it. If the friend who favoured me with them should write any more, I shall think the public owes me a great obligation, for having excited a genius so capable of uniting delight with instruction, and giving to knowledge and virtue those graces, which the wit of the age has too often employed all its skill to bestow upon folly and vice.

[Footnote for pg. vii, marked by asterisk] *If I have named Fate, Fortune, Destiny, Elysium, Styx, &c. they are only the sports of a poetical pen, not the sentiments of a Catholic mind.