Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny (Routledge Revivals)

Lionel Jehuda Sanders, Concordia Univ

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415740272
• eBook ISBN: 9781317808305
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Professor Sanders' full-length study of Dionysius I, one of the most powerful figures of fourth-century BC Greece, is the first to appear in English, and marks an important reassessment of the 'tyrant' of Syracuse.

Dionysius I regularly appears in the surviving historical accounts as a tyrant in the worst – modern – sense of the word: cruelty, intransigence, arrogance are all part of this stereotype. Yet here is a ruler who, according to the ancient testimony, was deeply concerned with the establishment of a just regime and to whom Plato turned to found the ideal Republic. The hostile picture of Dionysius that has come down to us is basically Athenian, Sanders argues, deriving from political circles engaged in propaganda aimed at tarnishing the tyrant's reputation.

Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny will be of interest to those engaged with the history, historiography and political practice of the ancient world.

1
The Origins of the Hostile Tradition

I

The hostile tradition concerning Dionysius I which reached fruition with the testimony of Timaeus of Tauromenium in the third century BC, we shall demonstrate in this chapter, had its origins in the fourth century BC and during the tyrant's own lifetime, and initially constituted a response on the part of the tyrant's enemies, particularly concentrated at Athens, to Dionysius' manipulation of the cultural media for propagandist purposes. Consequently, in order to determine the validity of the material constituting the hostile tradition, the latter must initially be considered within the context of Dionysius' cultural aims.

The tyrant was certainly a man of no mean intellectual accomplishment. Well educated from youth, he was by profession a scribe (Cic. Tusc. V. 22. 63; Dem. XX. 161; Diod. Sic. XIII. 96. 4; XIV. 66. 5; Polyaen. V. 22) and his debut in politics reveals that he was possessed of considerable rhetorical powers (Diod. Sic. XIII. 91. 3). Whatever worth can be attributed anecdotes regarding the tyrant's use of the writing-desk of Aeschylus to gain inspiration or his purchase and dedication of the harp, pen and writing-tablets of Euripides in the temple of the Muses (Lucian Adv. Indoct. 15; Vit. Eurip. p. 9), at the very least, they testify to later tradition's acceptance of substantial aesthetic and poetic aspirations on the part of the tyrant.¹ Musical and medical pursuits are certainly attributed to Dionysius (Cic. Tusc. V. 22. 63; Aelian VH XI. 11). Among his acquaintances are to be included the philosopherhistorian Aristippus of Cyrene (Diog. Laert. II, 73, 83) who might well have acted as tutor for the young Dionysius II,² the historian Philistus (F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der grechischen Historiker (Leiden 1955), vol. 3b, no. 556. T. la, 17b, 3, 4, 5c), Plato (Plut. Dion IV. 4; Diod. Sic. XV. 7. 1; Nep. Dion II. 2; Diog. Laert. III. 18; Epist. VII. 327 a-b), the tragedian Antiphon (Philostrat. Vit. Soph. I. 15), the mime-composer Xenarchus, the son of Sophron (Photius and Suda s.v.

the dithyrambic poet Philoxenus of Cythera (Diod. Sic. XV. 6. 2ff; Athen. I. 6e; Suda s.v.

Lucian Adv. Indoct. 15; Paus. I. 2. 3; Cic. Ad Attic. IV. 6. 2; Ammian. XV. 5. 37; Plut. De Tran. An. 471 e-f; Plut. De Alex Fort. II. 334c; Aelian VH XII. 44); Isocrates (Nic. 23; Archid. 45; Ep. I; cf. Diod. Sic. XIV. 8. 5; Aelian VH IV. 8), Aeschines the Socratic (Diog. Laert. II. 63) and possibly Lysias (Pseudo-Lys. VI. 6-7), the historian Xenophon,³ the tragedian Carcinus⁴ (Suda s.v.

cf. Diod. Sic. V. 5. 1), Isocrates' pupil Eunomus,⁵ the orator Andocides (Pseudo-Lys. VI. 6), the Sicilian rhetorician Aristoteles (Diog. Laert. V. 35) and the historian Hermias of Methymna.⁶

But far from being content simply to befriend men of learning, Dionysius himself undertook the composition of tragedy and perhaps— if we accept the Suda's testimony (Jacoby, FGH, vol. 3b, no. 557) — of comedy and history as well. We certainly know that he wrote an Adonis, Alcmene, Leda, Limos, a Ransom of Hector, possibly a Medea and we have one reference to a play in which Dionysius attacked Plato (Tzetzes Chil. V. 182-185).⁷

Given Dionysius' broad, cultural relationships and interests, we should not be surprised to note how Dionysius kept fully abreast of contemporary political theorising about one-man rule and sought to depict his regime as one of justice and moderation, of nomos as opposed to physis, so that it might be rendered compatible with the ideals of contemporary theorists. Hence he named his daughters Dikaiosyne, Sophrosyne and Arete (Plut. De Alex. Fort. V. 338c), possibly under the inspiration of Aristippus who also had a daughter named Arete (Diog. Laert. II. 72, 86). In his tragedies — which a reference to the death of Doris, Dionysius' Locrian wife (F. 9./Lucian Adv. Indoct. 15), in a play whose title is unknown, suggests contained allusions to contemporary events — Dionysius stated that 'tyranny is naturally the mother of injustice' (F. 4) and referred to the 'gazing eye of justice, regarding all equally' (F. 5). The recognition of the impermanence of despotic power is further suggested by two fragments from the Alcmene and Leda where we read that 'anxiety is for every man', 'that only the gods are completely happy' (F. 2) and that 'no mortals can ever judge themselves happy until they have seen their happy end' and that 'the dead man alone is secure and happy' (F. 3) — sentiments certainly not unique to Greek tragedy but significant within the context of Dionysius' theoretical aims with respect to his tyranny. Finally, when Dionysius writes that 'tyranny is naturally the mother of injustice' and we read that the tyrant told his mother that he could harm the city's laws but not those of nature (Plut. Solon XX. 4; Reg. Apophth. Dionys. Mai. VI, p. 175), we are aware that we are dealing with a man well-versed in contemporary political vocabulary regarding the respective claims of nomos and physis, and it is clear that it was Dionysius' aim to depict his rule as one of law and morality as opposed to one based on physis. It is furthermore highly probable that the culminating point of the Alcmene was the birth of the son of Zeus and Alcmene, Heracles, the benefactor of mankind, upon whom Dionysius might have attempted to model himself. Finally, given, as we shall demonstrate below, the significance of the appeal of Aeschylus to Dionysius, and Apollo's reproaching of Achilles for the hero's lack of justice in Iliad XXIV. 39-40, the theme of the establishment of justice and harmony in true Aeschylean fashion might well have permeated Dionysius' Ransom of Hector.⁸

Poetry accordingly served as an instrument ol propaganda for the tyrant. This is further suggested by the fact that Dionysius is said to have written a play in which he attacked Plato. Moreover, other literati were employed as instruments of propaganda: Xenarchus who attacked the tyrant's Rhegine opponents, probably before the capture of Rhegium in 387 BC (Diod. Sic. XIV. 1ll ff);⁹ Aristippus, whose On the Daughter of Dionysius (Diog. Laert. II. 84) might have portrayed positively, as an exemplar of the virtue which Dionysius depicted in his plays, Arete who was probably named after the philosopher's own daughter (Diog. Laert. II. 72, 86); and possibly the Sicilian rhetorician Aristoteles, whose reply to Isocrates' Panegyricus (Diog. Laert. V. 35) might well have contained a response to the Athenian orator's criticism of Dionysius (Paneg. 126; 169);¹⁰ the historian Hermias, who might have been Dionysius' court historian;¹¹ and the historian Philistus, who justified Dionysius' rule — though admittedly after his exile in 384 BC — as far as we can tell in a thoroughly Thucydidean and Machiavellian manner rather than in the ethical mould preferred by Dionysius (Jacoby, FGH, vol. Ill b. no. 556. T. 17a, b, 21, 24, 16b, 15c).

When we proceed to determine for whom such propaganda was initially intended, we inevitably associate it with the Sicilian community who we surmise was encouraged to subscribe to the view of Dionysius' regime as an enlightened one, established in accord with the dictates of nomos rather than physis. Certainly the connection of Adonis with Persephone is likely to have given Dionysius' Adonis a Sicilian flavour.¹² Further, since we are cognisant of the monarchic antecedents of Dionysius' ideology which one encounters in the works of all three Athenian dramatists,¹³ of the intimate ties which linked Aeschylus and Euripides and their works to Sicily, of Dionysius' supposed acquisition of Aeschylean and Euripidean memorabilia (Lucian Adv. Indoct. 15; Vit. Eurip. p. 9), of the likelihood that Dionysius' Alcmene was influenced somewhat by the plays of that name written by Aeschylus and Euripides, and of a possible Aeschylean theme in the Ransom of Hector as well as of the prevalence of a possible Aeschylean style in the works of Dionysius' court poets, Antiphon and Carcinus,¹⁴ it would appear that Dionysius fully appreciated the great popularity enjoyed by the two dramatic poets in Sicily — a popularity, moreover, which he proceeded to utilise advantageously for propagandist purposes. At the same time, we may deduce from Dionysius' consistently frustrated attempts to achieve theatrical success in the Greek world and from his dramatic and colourful intervention during the Olympics of 388 BC (Diod. Sic. XIV. 109; Lys. XXXIII) that Dionysius' cultural propagandist policies were aimed at an audience whose location was not prescribed by Sicilian boundaries. That such propaganda was, moreover, directed particularly at Athens is suggested by the ultimate triumph at the Lenaean games of the tyrant's last play, the Ransom of Hector which, with its Aeschylean theme of reconciliation, is not inappropriately dated to the 370s — a period indeed which we shall see witnessed the growth of a political rapprochement between Dionysius and Athens. The considerable body of support, moreover, which accrued to the pro-Dionysius faction at Athens is suggested both by the very vigour of Lysias' assault on Dionysius at the Olympics of 388 BC (Lys. XXXIII; Diod. Sic. XIV. 109. 1; cf. XV. 7. 1) and by the equally marked hostility of an unknown play by Polyzelus (F. 11/Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 550) attacking the Syracusan-Athenian entente of Dionysius' last years, and of Ephippus' play, the Geryon (F. 18a), directed towards Athens' attempts in the early 370s to make alliances with Macedon and Syracuse and raise revolts among the Lycians against Persia.¹⁵ The precise political aims of the pro-Dionysius faction are clearly revealed in its attempt in 393 BC, at the height of Dionysius' entente with Sparta, two years after Dionysius' settlement of the Messenians at Tyndaris to win over the despot with an honorary decree (G. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn (1915-24) vol. 1. 128/M.N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions (2 vols. Oxford, 1946-48) vol. 2, no. 108), the purpose of which according to Lysias (XIX. 20) was to isolate Sparta by the creation of an alliance between Athens, Cyprus and Syracuse, Dionysius in the process agreeing not to send warships which he had already prepared to dispatch to the Lacedaemonians.

Given Dionysius' monarchical position and the nature of the monarchical propaganda which Dionysius attempted to disseminate, we should not be surprised to note that the pro-Dionysius faction at Athens, courted by Dionysius, was characterised by distinct leanings towards despotism. Thus one of its central figures, Isocrates, who indeed sent a letter to Dionysius after Leuctra, calling upon the tyrant to save Greece,¹⁶ throughout his career afforded democracy merely a second place to Panhellenic union, hegemony and monarchy. Hence as Momigliano showed long ago,¹⁷ even in the Panegyricus, Isocrates' appreciation of Athens and its league stems above all from his admiration for Timotheus whom he eulogised in the later Antidosis of 353 BC (101-41). Nor should we be surprised to note how, with the dissolution of Isocrates' dream for Athenian hegemony, the orator turned towards monarchic indivi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• 1. The Origins of the Hostile Tradition
• 2. The Pre-Diodorus Historiographical Tradition
• 3. Diodorus and Dionysius
• Conclusion
• Select Bibliography
• Index Nominum et Locorum