1040 DIONYSIUS 24. A Greek grammarian, who instructed Plato when a boy in the elements of grammar- (Diog. Laert iii. 5 ; Appuleius, de Dogmat. Plat. i. 2 ; Olympiod. Vit. Plat. p. 6, ed. Fischer.) He is probably the same person as the Dionysius who is mentioned in the beginning of Plato's dialogue 'Epao-raf. 25. Of Halicarnassus, the most celebrated among the ancient writers of the name of Diony- sius. He was the sou of one Alexander of Hali- carnassus, and was bom, according to the calcula- tion of Dodwell, between B. c. 78 and 54. Strabo (xiv. p. GbQ) calls him his own contemporary. His death took place soon after B. c. 7, the year in which he completed and published his great work on the history of Rome. Respecting his parents and education we know nothing, nor any thing about his position in his native pLice before he emigrated to Rome ; though some have inferred from his work on rhetoric, that he enjoyed a great reputation at Halicarnassus. All that we know for certain is, the information which he himself gives us in the introduction to his history of Rome (i. 7), and a few more particulars which we may glean from his other works. Accord- ing to his own account, he went to Italy im- mediately after the termination of the civil wars, about the middle of 01. 1 87, that is, B. c. 29. Henceforth he remained at Rome, and the twenty- two years which followed his arrival at Rome were mainly spent by him in making himself ac- quainted with the Latin language and literature, and in collecting materials for his great work on Roman history, called Archaeologia, We may assume that, like other rhetoricians of the time, he had commenced his career as a teacher of rhetoric at Halicarnassus; and his works bear strong evidence of his having been similarly occupied at Rome. {De Conip. Vei-b. 20, RJietor. 10.) There he lived on terms of friendship with many distinguished men, such as Q. Aelius Tu- bero, and the rhetorician Caecilius ; and it is not improbable that he may have received the Roman franchise, but his Roman name is not mentioned anywhere. Respecting the little we know about Dionysius, see F. Matthii, de Dionysui Halic., Wittenberg, 1779, 4to.; DodweW, de Aetate Dioni/s. in Reiske's edition of Dionysius, vol. i. p. xlvi. &c.; and more especially C. J. Weismann, de Dionysii Hidic. Vita et Script.^ Rinteln, 1837, 4to., and Busse, de Dionys. Hal. Vita et Inyenio, Berlin, 1841, 4to. All the works of Dionysius, some of which are completely lost, must be divided into two classes : the first contains his rhetorical and critical treatises, all of which probably belong to an earlier period of his life — perhaps to the first years of his residence at Rome — than his historical works, which consti- tute the second class. a. Rhetorical and Critical Works. — All the pro- ductions of this class shew that Dionysius was not only a rhetorician of the first order, but also a most excellent critic in the highest and best sense of the term. They abound in the most exquisite remarks and criticisms on the works of the classical writers of Greece, although, at the same time, they are not without their faults, among which we may notice his hypercritical severity. But we have to remem- ber that they were the productions of an early age, in which the want of a sound philosophy and of a comprehensive knowledge, and a partiality for or DIONYSIUS. j against certain writers led him to express opinions which at a maturer age he undoubtedly regretted. Still, however this may be. he always evinces a well-founded contempt for the shallow sophistries of ordinary rhetoricians, and strives instead to make rhetoric something practically useful, and by his criticisms to contribute towards elevating and ennobling the minds of his readers. The fol- lowing works of this class are still extant :' 1. Tex? p-qTOfjiKri^ addressed to one Echecrates. The pre- sent condition of this work is by no means calcu- lated to give us a correct idea of his merits and of his views on the subject of rhetoric. It consists of twelve, or according to another division, of ele- ven chapters, which have no internal coimexion whatever, and have the appearance of being put together merely by accident. The treatise is there- fore generally looked upon as a collection of rheto- rical essays by dilferent authors, some of which are genuine productions of Dionysius, who is ex- pressly stated by Quintilian (iii. 1. § 16) to have written a manual of rhetoric. Schott, the last learned editor of this work, divides it into four sections. Chap. 1 to 7, with the exclusion of the 6th, which is certainly spurious, may be entitled iTfpi Train)yvpLKciy, and contains some incoherent comments upon epideictic oratory, which are any- thing but in accordance with the known views of Dionysius as developed in other treatises ; in addi- tion to which, Nicostratus, a rhetorician of the age of Aelius Aristeides, is mentioned in chap. 2. Chap- ters 8 and 9, Trepl e(rx'7MaTitr/tie'i'«i/, treat on the same subject, and chap. 8 may be the production . of Dionysius; whereas the 9th certainly belongs to J a late rhetorician. Chapter 10, irepl ruv 4p yueAe'- ^ rais irKtuxixiXovjxkvwv^ is a very valuable treatise, and probably the work of Dionysius. The 1 1 th chapter is only a further development of the 10th, just as the 9th chapter is of the 8th. The rex^n prfTopiici^ is edited separately with very valuable prolegomena and notes by H. A. Schott, Leipzig, 1804, 8vo. 2. Ufpl (TvvOfa^ws dvofidrup, ad- dressed to Rufus Melitius, the son of a friend of Dionysius, was probably written in the first year or years of his residence at Rome, and at all events previous to any of the other works still extant. It is, however, notwithstanding this, one of high ex- cellence. In it the author treats of oratorical power, and on the combination of words according to the diflferent species and styles of oratory. There are two verj-^ good separate editions of this treatise, one by G. H. Schaefer (Leipzig, 1809, 8vo), and the o-Jier by F. G oiler (Jena, 1815, 8vo), in which the text is considerably improved from MSS. 3. Ufpl fiifiri<T€ws, addressed to a Greek of the name of Demetrius. Its proper title appears to have been virouP7iiJ.aTi(riJ.ol irtpl ttjs fjnix-qatus, (Dionys. Jud. de Thucyd. 1, Efid. ad Pomp. 3.) The work as a whole is lost, and what we possess under the title of ru'V apxaiav Kpiais is probably nothing but a sort of epitome containing charac- teristics of poets, from Homer down to Euripides, of some historians, such as Herodotus, Thucy- dides, Philistus, Xenophon, and Theopompus, and lastly, of some philosophers and orators. This epitome is printed separately in Frotscher's edi- tion of the tenth book of Quintilian (Leipzig, 1826, p. 271, &c. ), who mainly follows the opinions of Dionysius. 4. ITepi tuv apx^'dtjov prfTO' pwv viroiJ.vr]ixaTi(TiJ.oi, addressed to Ammaeus, con* tains criticisms on the most eminent Greek orators
