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. [2] That it deals with this exclusively, not with composition in general, is clear from both the Greek title and the Latin. The terms σύνθεσις and _compositio_ are technically specific. They do not mean style in general, which in the classical treatises includes also choice of single words (ἐκλογή, _electio_). Much less do they mean _composition_ in our larger modern sense, for which the ancient term is _dispositio_, _collocatio_, or more generally οἰκονομία. Dionysius makes the distinction quite clear at the opening of his treatise, and holds to it throughout. In this sense is to be taken the title of the admirable translation of Rhys Roberts, _Literary Composition_, as is shown by his rendering elsewhere _The Arrangement of Words_ (page 8 of his edition of _Three Literary Letters_). [3] i. 66. The Roman numerals in these foot-notes refer to chapters; the Arabic, to the pages of the Rhys Roberts text. The Rhys Roberts translation is used with modifications. [4] i. 68-70. [5] iii. 74. [6] iii. 76-78 (Odyssey, xvi. 1-16). [7] iii. 84 (Herodotus i. 8-10). [8] iv. 84. [9] See, for example, my _Writing and Speaking_, pages 376-378; _College Composition_, pages 184-188. [10] That this sort of analysis may be carried even further is suggested by R. L. Stevenson’s _Some Technical Elements of Style in Literature_, which is partly along the lines followed by Dionysius. [11] That this is generally more important he explicitly affirms in his _Demosthenes_, chapter li. Reviewing the traditional five parts of rhetoric, he puts οἰκονομία (_dispositio_) above εὕρεσις (_inventio_), and σύνθεσις (_compositio_) above ἐκλογή (_electio_).