DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
likewise Dionysius, for what is attributed there to Caecilius
is nothing else than what we find in Dionysius.20 However, I
am well aware that this is not a sufficient criterion, since the
same things may have been said in books of different writers;
but at all events it seems probable to me, that Dionysius was
frequently called by his Boman name, as Josephus was often
called Flavius.
He wrote his work in twenty books, comprising the history
from the earliest times down to the beginning of the first
Punic war. He did not proceed further, either because Poly-
bius (whom he however disliked) began at that point, or
because the much read history of Fabius formed a suitable
continuation. The first ten books are complete ; the eleventh
is much mutilated, as several leaves have been torn away ; but
we possess extracts from the latter half of the work which
were made by Constantinus Porphyrogenitus in his collections
“ De Vitiis et Virtutibus," and “ De Legationibus." Besides
these extracts, we have a collection of curious fragments which,
under the title of eκ∖oyal Λιovυσlov τov ’AXucapva<rσeω<;,
exist in several libraries, but are very much mutilated, and
sometimes quite unintelligible21. Their existence had been
mentioned by Montfaucon long before their publication by
Mai.22 They contain much valuable matter, but are in an
awful condition, consisting mostly of unconnected sentences;
they are perhaps remnants from lost books of Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus. Dionysius himself made an abridgment of
his work in five books, to which Mai erroneously refers those
fragments. Of the first ten books there are more manuscripts
than of any other ancient work, and some of them are very
old : the Codex Chiggianus which belongs to the tenth century,
and the Vatican manuscript of the eleventh century, are
excellent. The eleventh book exists only in very few manu-
20 This supposition" of Niebuhr’s seems to be contradicted by Quinctiiian
(iɪi. 1.16), who mentions Caccilius and Dionysius together as two distinct rheto-
ricians. 2' Compare vol. ii. note 916 ; vol. ill. note 934.
22 Mai has published them from a Milan MS. He has great merits, and I
readily admit them; but he also has an unfortunate vanity, and in the present
instance he never mentioned that the existence of these fragments had been
noticed by Montfaucon, who had shown him the way. One of Mai’s own country-
men, Ciampi (Biblioth. Ital. tom. viii. p.225, foil.), has censured him for this
want of candour ; this, however, must not prevent our acknowledging our great
obligations to him.—N.
EDITIONS OF DIONYSIUS.
Ii
scripts, and these are of recent origin, not older than the
fifteenth century. The division into books is observed in all
of them, as it was in the ancient manuscripts which were
made when works were no longer written on rolls, but in
codices, and when several books of a voluminous work together
formed one volume.23 It is highly probable that the work of
Dionysius, like that of Livys4, was originally divided into
decads. Hence the first volume of Dionysius which contains
the first decad, is preserved, and of the second there seems to
have existed a copy for a long time, for Photius still knew it ;
but only a few torn leaves were extant when pope Nicholas V.
began to collect libraries. Hence the text of the extant portion
of the eleventh book is far more corrupt than that of the prece-
ding ten.
The Greek text of Dionysius was first published by Eobert
Stephens (Paris, 1546. fol.), but unfortunately from a very bad
manuscript. Previously to that time Dionysius had been very
generally read in a Latin translation which had been made by
a Florentine, Lapus25 Biragus (Treviso 1480), in the time of
Sixtus IV26 from a very excellent, probably a Eoman manu-
script. Lapus, however, was like so many others an unskilful
translator27, and very indifferently acquainted with Greek, like
Petrus Candidus, Raphael Volatcrranus, and Leonardus
Aretinus ; still the works of these men were received and read
with great interest, until people discovered how very deficient
and incorrect they were. H. Glarcanus then corrected it and
published a new edition of it at Basle (1532). He also made
use of a MS., and he himself says that he corrected Lapus in
six thousand places. This improved edition was likewise used
very much; but as Glareanus had merely corrected Lapus,
2j In this manner, the Digestum Vetus comprised in one volume twenty-five
hooks, and the Digestum No rum formed a second volume, beginning with the
twenty-sixth book; so also the Theodosian code.—N.
24 It is an unfounded remark of Petrarch’s, that the division into decads was
not made by Livy himself—N.
25 Ltrpus is a Florentine corruption of Jacobus.—N.
2δ This pope did a great deal for literature; he arranged and collected in his
Vatican library all that could be gathered of ancient literature. — N.
27 The translation of Herodian by Angelus Politianus is really excellent; but,
generally speaking, the men of that age were not able to translate. Their works
were nevertheless much read and often printed. To us they are of importance,
in so far as they represent the manuscripts from whi"h they translated; and
Lapus’ translation agrees almost throughout with the Vatican MS.—N.
e 2