Iii
EDITIONS OF DIONYSIUS.
Sigismund Gelenius of Cologne made an entirely new and far
better translation, and it was not till after the publication of
this new translation, which may likewise serve as a MS., that
B. Stephens published the Greek text. In 1586, Frederik
Sylburg gave to the world a second edition of Dionysius,
which is the best that has appeared ; a more useful one cannot
be wished for. He availed himself of the translations of
Lapus and Gelenius ; but although he had a critical apparatus,
and collations from Venetian and Boman manuscripts, though
apparently not complete, yet he did not correct the text, which
is greatly to be lamented, considering the excellent power of
divination which he possessed. His notes are most masterly,
and no other editor ever did for his author, what Sylburg did
for Dionysius. The philological index added to this edition, is
unequalled, and the historical one is almost perfect. Sylburg
is a man of whom German philology may be proud, but his
merits are not yet sufficiently recognised. Whoever has made
himself acquainted with his works, must own that he is not
inferior to any philologer, not even to the great J. Fr. Grono-
vius. He contributed very much to the Greek Thesaurus of
Henry Stephens, but unfortunately we cannot ascertain which
parts of the work belong to him. He also distinguished
himself by what he did for the Etymologicum Magnum, Pau-
sanias, and Clemens of Alexandria. His edition and translation
of the Syntax of Apollonius are likewise very important.
LECTUBE VIL
After the edition of Sylburg, which was published by
Wechel at Frankfort, and is rare, a reprint was made at Leip-
zig in 1691, and more than a century passed before anything
further was done for Dionysius, until the new edition1 of Hudson
1 London, 2 vols. fol. Hudson, being the friend of DodweIl, was looked upon
in England as a great philologer, although England, at the time, possessed ɪn
Richard Bentley the greatest philologer that ever lived, but—ol>strepebant.
BentleywasaWhig and the Tories were bent upon keeping him down: the
whole Univeisity of Oxford conspired against him, but to no purpose. They
EDITIONS OF DIONYSIUS. Iiii
in 1704. Hudson had the excellent Vatican manuscript, and
gave a collation of it in his notes, but did not know what use
to make of it. The edition is beautifully printed; but the
notes of Sylburg are generally omitted, and sometimes given
in a mutilated form. Although the edition of Sylburg is
incomparably more useful to a scholar than that of Hudson,
still the latter gained great celebrity in Germany. Strange
prejudices were then afloat respecting editions of ancient
authors, and as Clarke’s Homer had been reprinted in Ger-
many, so now Hudson’s edition of Dionysius was thought
worthy of being reprinted at Leipzig.2 When the first volume
was nearly printed, the publisher requested Eeiske to correct the
proof sheets, but Eeiske was unable to do such a thing without
making emendations. He had a very active mind, and an
excellent talent for divination, but was too hasty.3 He had
read Dionysius only once before, and while he was correcting
the proofs, he put into the text the readings of the Vatican
manuscript as well as his own emendations, which are some-
times good, but sometimes very bad : an account of his emen-
dations is given at the end. In D. G. Grimm’s Synopsis nothing
has been done for the criticism of Dionysius, who is still waiting
for a competent editor; if I could obtain a collation of the
Codex Chiggianus, I should like some time or other to under-
take the office, and bring out a new edition.
The circumstance, that Dionysius in his rhetorical works
shews himself to be a man of sound judgment, is calculated
to win our confidence ; and this impression is greatly enhanced
by his stating that he spent twenty-two years upon his work,
during which period he learned the Latin language, read the
Roman annals and made himself acquainted with the Roman
constitution in Rome itself. The first eleven books carry down
the history only a little beyond the time of the decemvirs ; but
the whole work contained the history down to the first Punic
wanted to set up Hudson as a great philologer against him, though in reality he
was but a poor bungler. He did not do the least for hɪs Geogiaplii minores,
any more than Iteiz did for Lucian. Reiz and Hudson were men of the same
cast: they had the good fortune to hold eminent positions, and although stupid,
they were trumpeted forth as wise men and great scholars —N.
1 1774—1777, 6 vols. 8vo.
3 I honour Reiske as a friend of my father, and I cannot let an opportunity
pass without praising lιim; but I cannot on this account conceal his defects. -N.