Scanned text contains errors.
tades was said to have invented, were used to or nament the pediments of temples. (See Diet, of Ant. s. v. Fastigium.} [P. S.]
DICAEARCHUS (AiKa'iapxos}, an Aetolian, who played a conspicuous part in the Aetolian war against the Romans. He was employed on several embassies, and afterwards engaged in the service of Philip of Macedonia, who sent him out to con quer the Cyclades, and employed him with a fleet of twenty sail to carry on piracy. He appears to have been a most audacious and insolent person, for on his expedition against the Cyclades he erected altars to 'AcrejSeia and Tlapa.i'ofjila, wherever he landed. (Polyb. xvii. 10, xviii. 37, xx. 10, xxii. 14; Liv. xxxv. 12; Diod. Excerpt, de Virt. et Vit. p. 572 ; Brandstater, Die GeschicJit. des Aetol. Landes, p. 273.) [L. S.]
DICAEARCHUS (AucaiapX0*)- *• A celebrated Peripatetic philosopher, geographer, and historian, and a contemporary of Aristotle and Theophrastus. He was the son of one Pheidias, and born at Messana in Sicily, though he passed the greater part of his life in Greece Proper, and especially in Peloponnesus. He was a disciple of Aristotle (Cic. de Leg. iii. 6), and a friend of Theophrastus, to whom he dedicated some of his writings. Most of Aristotle's disciples are mentioned also among those of Plato, but as this is not the case with Dicaearchus, Osann (Beitr'dge zur Griech. u. Rom. Lit. ii. p. 1, &c.) justly infers that Dicae-arclitts was one of Aristotle's younger disciples, From some allusions which we meet with in the fragments of his works, we must conclude that he survived the year b. c. 296, and that he died about b. c. 285. Dicaearchus was highly esteemed by the ancients as a philosopher and as a man of most extensive information upon a great variety of things. (Cic. Tusc. i. 18, de Off. ii. 5; Varro, de Re Rust. i. 2.) His works, which were very numerous, are frequently referred to, and many fragments of them are still extant, which, shew that their loss is one of the most severe in Greek literature. His works were partly geographical, partly political or historical, and partly philosophical; but it is difficult to draw up an accurate list of them, since many which are quoted as distinct works appear to have been only sections of greater ones. The fragments extant, moreover, do not always enable us to form a clear notion of the works to which they once belonged. Among his geographical works may be mentioned—1. On the heights of mountains. (Plin. PI. N. ii. 65 ; Geminus, Elem. Astron. 14.) Sui-.das (s. v. AiKatapxos) mentions KaTa/JLerp^cre zv IleAoTrowTjo-w op&v, but the quotations in Pliny and Geminus shew that Dicaearchus's measurements of heights were not confined to Peloponnesus, and Suidas therefore probably quotes only a section of the whole work. 2. Tijs irepiofios (Lydus, deMens. p. 98. 17, ed. Bekker). This work was probably the text written in explanation of the geographical maps which Dicaearchus had constructed and given to Theophrastus, and which seem to .have comprised the whole world, as far as it was then known. (Cic. ad Ait. vi. 2; comp. Diog. Lae'rt. v. 51.) 3. 'Avaypatyrf rijs 'EAAaSos. A work of this title dedicated to Theophrastus, and consisting of 150 iambic verses, is still extant under the name of Dicaearchus; but its form and spirit are both unworthy of Dicaearchus., and it is in all probability the production of a much later writer, who made a metrical paraphrase of that portion of the Yijs
os which referred to Greece. Buttmann is the only modern critic who has endeavoured to claim the •work for Dicaearchus in his " de Dicaearcho jjusque operibus quae inscribuntur Bios 'EAAaSos et 'Avaypatyrj ttjs 'EAAaSos," Naumburg, 1832,4to. But his attempt is not very successful, and has been ably refuted by Osann. (Allgem. Sclmlzeitung for 1833, No. 140, &c.) 4. Bios rrjs 'EAAa5os, was the most important among the works of Dieae-archus, and contained an account of the geographical position, the history, and the moral and religious condition of Greece. It contained, in short, all the information necessary to obtain a full knowledge of the Greeks, their life, and their manners. It was probably subdivided into sections ; so that when we read of works of Dicaearchus irepl fj.ov~ o"JK?7S, Trept fJLOVffiK&v dywvwv, irepl AiovvcriaKoSv dywvcw., and the like, we have probably to consider them only as portions of the great work, Bios ttjs 'EAAdSos. It is impossible to make out the plan of the work in detail with any accuracy : the attempt, however, has been made by Marx. (Creu-zer's Meletem. iii. 4, p. 173, &c.) We know that the work consisted of three books, of which the first contained the history and a geographical description of Greece, so as to form a sort of introduction to the whole work. The second gave an account of the condition of the several Greek states; and the third, of the private and domestic life, the theatres, games, religion, &c. of the Greeks. Of the second book a considerable fragment is still extant; but in its present form it cannot be considered the work of Dicaearchus himself, but it is a portion of an abridgment which some one made of the bios ttjs 'EAAaSos. To this class of writings we may also refer—5. 'H els Tpofytoviov KardSacris^ a work which consisted of several books, and, as we may infer from the fragments quoted from it, contained an account of the degenerate and licentious proceedings of the priests in the cave of Tro-phonius. (Cic. ad Ait. vi. 2, xiii. 31; Athen. xiii. p. 594, xiv. p. 641.) The geographical works of Dicaearchus were, according to Strabo (ii. p. 104), censured in many respects by Polybius; and Strabo himself (iii. p. 170) is dissatisfied with his descriptions of western and northern Europe, which countries Dicaearchus had never visited. Of a political nature was—6. TpiiroXiriKos (Athen. iv. p. 141; Cic. ad Att. xiii. 32), a work which has been the subject of much dispute. Passow, in a programme (Breslau, 1829), endeavoured to establish the opinion that it was a reply to Anaximenes's Tpucdpavos or TpiTToAirucos, in which the Lacedaemonians, Athenians, and Thebans, had been calumniated. Buttmann thought it to have been a comparison of the constitutions of Pellene (Pallene), Corinth, and Athens (comp. Cic. ad Att. ii. 2)j and that Dicaearchus inflicted severe censure upon, those states for their corrupt morals and their vicious constitutions. A third opinion is maintained by Osann (I. c. p. 8, &c.), who taking his stand on a passage in Photius (Bill. Cod. 37) where an elSos AiKaiap-xlkov of a state is mentioned as a combination of the three forms of government, the democratical, aristocratical, and monarchical, infers that Dicaearchus in his TpnroAmKo's, explained the nature of that mixed constitution, and illustrated it by the example of Sparta. This opinion is greatly supported by the contents of the fragments. Osann goes even so far as to think that the discussion on politics in the sixth book of Polybius is based upon