DIONY'SIUS, the son of Alexander, an historian and critic, born at Halicarnassue in the first century Lc. We know nothing of his history beyond what ho has told us of himself. lie states (' Antiq.,' p. 20.24) that he came to Italy at the termination of the civil war between Augustus and Antony (n.o. 29), and that ho spent the fol lowing two-and-twenty years at Rome in learning the Latin language and in collecting materials for his history. (Phot. Biblietlee cod. Lexxvie He also says Antiq.,' p. 1725) that he lived in the time of the great civil war. The principal work of Dionysius is his 'Roman Antiquities,' which commenced with the early history of the people of Italy, and terminated with the beginning of the Brat Punic war, D.C. 265. ('Anticie L, p. 22.) It originally consisted of twenty books, of which the first ten remain entire. The eleventh breaks off in the year as 312, but several fragments of the latter half of the history are preserved in the collection of Constentinua Porphyroge netua, and to these a valuable addition was made in 1816 by Mai, from an old manuscript. Besides, the first three books of Appian were founded entirely upon Dionysius; and Plutarch'., biography of Camillus must also be considered as a compilation mostly taken from the Roman Antiquities, so that perhaps upon the whole we have not lost much of this work. With regard to the trustworthiness and general value of Dionysius'e history, considerable doubts may be justly entertained; for though he has evidently written with much greater care than Livy, end has studied Cato and the old annalists more diligently than his Roman contemporary, yet he wrote with an object which at once invalidates his claim to be considered a veracious and impartial historian. Dionyeius wrote for the Greeks ; aud his object was to relieve them from the mortification which they felt at being conquered by a race of barbarian; as they considered the Romans to be ; and this he endeavoured to effect by twisting and forging testi monies and botching up the old legends, so as to make out a primd facie proof of the Greek origin of the city of Rome, and he inserts arbitrarily a great number of set speeches, evidently composed for the same purpose. He indulges in a miuntenees of detail which, though it might be some proof of veracity in a contemporary history, is a palpable indication of want of faith iu the case of an ancient history so obscure end uncertain as that of Rome. With all his
study and research, Diooysius was so imperfectly acquainted with the Roman constitution that he often misrepresents the plainest statements about it. (Niebuhr, Hist. Rome,' vol. ii., p.13, Engl. tr.) For instance, he imagines that the patricians had all the influence in the centuries, and that the plebeians and equites bad nothing to do with the first class. (` vii. 82.87, x. 17. See Niebuhr, ' Hist. Rome,' ii , p. 178, Hog]. tr.) Ho thought the original constitution of Rome was a monarchical democracy, aud calls the curies the 'demos' Weems). He believed when he wrote his second book that the decrees of the people were enacted by the curies and confirmed by the senate (' Antic'? ii. 14), and not, as be afterwards discovered, the converse. (' Antiqe vii. 38.) In a word, though the critical historian may be able to extract much that is of great importance for the early history of Rome from the garbled narrative and the dull trifling of Dionysius, he cannot be regarded as a meritorious writer, or recommended to the student of ancient history as a faithful guide. Dionyelus also wrote a treatise on rhetoric; criticisms on the style of Thucydides, Lysias, Isocrates, leases, Dinarchus, Plato, and Demosthenes; a treatise on the arrangement of words, and some other short essays. liis critical works are much more valuable than his history, and are indeed written with considerable power. The criticism on Dinarchus (Dievencitus) displays gond rinse and judgment., and shows the great pains which the author took to separate the genuine writings of the Attic orators from the fabrications which passed under their name.
The best edition of Diouyeius is that of Retake, ' 1774.1777, 6 vole., in 8vo. Mare fragments were first published at Milan in 1816, and reprinted the following year at Frankfurt. They also appear in the second volume of 31aPe Nova Collectio,' Rome, 1827. His rhetoric has been published eepamtely by Schott, Lips., 8vo, 1804; and his remarks on Thooydides by Kruger, Hal. Sax., 8vo, 1823.