Note foot-note 1a — Chapter V · THE LITERARY CRITICISM OF RHETORIC
Reading edition
[1a] For biography and bibliography of Dionysius see Roberts, W. Rhys, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Three Literary Letters, Cambridge, 1901, pages 1-50, 209-219. To the latter should be added: Egger, Max, Essai sur la critique littéraire et la rhétorique chez les grecs au siècle d’Auguste, Paris, 1902; Mætzke, Karl, De D. H. Isocratis imitatore, Wratislaw, 1906; Kremer, Emil, Ueber das rhetorische system des D. von H., Strassburg, 1907; Geigenmüller, Paul, Quæstiones Dionysianæ de vocabulis artis criticæ, Leipzig, 1908; Nassal, Franz, Æsthetisch-rhetorische Beziehungen zwischen D. von H. und Cicero, Tübingen, 1910; Hubbell, H. M., The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius, and Aristides, Yale University Press, 1914.
The best edition of the De compositione verborum is that by Roberts, W. Rhys, Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Literary Composition (text, introduction, translation, notes, glossary, appendices), London, 1910. A current summary of the De compositione will be found in Roberts, Three Literary Letters, pages 8-19; a more detailed summary, with a tabular analysis, in his edition, pages 1-10; a commented summary in Egger, pages 67-111.
The rhetorical system of Dionysius is tabulated from all his works by Ammon, George, De D. H. librorum rhetoricorum fontibus, Monachii, 1889. In English equivalents, the pertinent parts of his analysis are as follows:
A. subject-matter
I. investigation (inventio)
selection (iudicium)
II. arrangement (dispositio)
1. division
2. order
3. revision and elaboration
B. style
I. choice of words (electio)
1. precision
2. imagery
II. sentence movement (compositio)
1. nature
2. force
3. processes
a. in phrases
b. in clauses
c. in periods
4. charm and beauty
a. melody
b. rhythm
c. variety
d. aptness
5. kinds
a. strong
b. smooth
c. blended
6. verse and prose
Kremer (see above), whose analysis, though less detailed, is substantially the same, collates from all the writings of Dionysius his doctrine on the several topics and gives foot-note references to Aristotle, Cicero, and others.
Nassal (see above), pointing out that Dionysius and Cicero agree strikingly in many points, argues that they have for common source in these cases a Greek treatise written during the years between the time of the Lysias of Dionysius and of the De Oratore of Cicero and the time of the Demosthenes of Dionysius and of the Orator of Cicero, and that this common source is very probably Cæcilius of Calacte.
Geigenmueller (see above) supplies a collation of critical terms with valuable comparisons.
Nassal (page 11) quotes from Doxopater a definition of rhetoric ascribed to Dionysius: “Rhetoric is the artistic mastery of persuasive discourse in communal affairs, having as its end to speak well.” (Usener, Fragment I.) The definition is sound and striking, but for the lame and impotent concluding phrase. As reported by Maximus Planudes (quoted by Ammon, page 1), the definition is substantially the same, but has amplified this concluding phrase with a clumsy twist from Aristotle. Whether the definition belongs to Dionysius or not, the tradition shows his fame as a rhetorician.