The Legend of Dion

By Lionel Jehuda Sanders

This extraordinary study examines how the accounts of a historical figure, the so-called democrat and liberal Dion, have been distorted and reworked by ancient and modern writers alike.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dundurn
• Release date: Mar 15, 2008
• ISBN: 9781459710948

Book preview

Index

Preface

This monograph was conceived as a reaction to traditional studies on Dion and the Syracusan revolution, which have, to a considerable extent, concerned themselves with the issue of authenticity of the Platonic Epistles. The overall record about Dion and the issue of the influence exerted by the Letters upon the tradition about Dion have been largely ignored. This study seeks to broaden the parameters of study by viewing the Epistles in a wider historiographical and biographical context and concentrating upon the effect which the Epistles and other sources had upon the evolution of the tradition about Dion.

I recognize that, by adopting such an approach, I risk being perceived as one deliberately evading the issue of whether or not the Epistles are forgeries – the evasion of repeated references to the Platonic Epistles or simply Epistles rather than to Plato as author of the Epistles, whenever the Letters are cited. By adopting such a seemingly ambiguous stance, I might appear to be lazily letting readers reach their own conclusions as to whether or not Plato was the author of the Epistles rather than providing my own assessment of the issue. In response to this charge, I feel obliged to emphasize that powerful and convincing arguments on both sides of the scholarly spectrum have reinforced my reluctance to enter the fray and declare my allegiance to either of the two camps. At the same time, I should state openly that despite this reticence to declare myself decisively in this matter I am convinced, in line with others, that, whether or not Plato did write these documents, their creation – especially that of the 7th and 8th Epistles – is to be dated firmly and decisively to the 4th century BC. Indeed, these convictions are crucial to the central argument of this monograph, which maintains that the Epistles, especially the all important 7th, were created as a response to criticism of Dion, Plato and the Academy for the Sicilian fiasco.

My endeavours could not have reached fruition without the unstinting support of the library staff of Concordia University. I should, accordingly, like to pay particular tribute to the Inter-Library Loan team of Paule Tascherau, Irene Fernandez, Wendy Knechtel and Ursula Hakien as well as to Nikki Celucci, recently deceased. All responded with alacrity to any request which I submitted to them, on occasion obtaining materials well beyond the boundaries of North America. Thanks are also due to serial librarians, Marvin Orbach and Chris Bobber for conducting searches in areas far beyond my technical expertise. I should like to express my gratitude to M. Foucart of the Louvre for sending me a photograph from a Sotheby’s Monte Carlo catalogue of a sketch of a painting by the salon artist Jean-Charles Nicaise Perrin, depicting Arete and the birth of Dion’s posthumous son in prison. I have used this reproduction as the illustration for the cover of this book and acknowledge with gratitude Sotheby’s permission to do so. I should like to acknowledge with deep appreciation the technological assistance of David Nesri and Josh Wallace. The support of two deceased colleagues, Pierre Brind’ Amour of the University of Ottawa and Simon C. Bakhuizen of McGill University is also gratefully acknowledged. I am greatly indebted to my good friend and former Concordia colleague, Andrew Sherwood, now at the University of Guelph, for reading the whole MS and detecting with his eagle eye weaknesses in content and style, which would otherwise have escaped notice. The footnotes pay tribute to the endeavours of the many scholars whose interpretations, whether in accord with my own views or not, have stimulated my own efforts. If I single out the contributions of Helmut Berve, Ludwig Edelstein and Marta Sordi, it is simply because I believe that their influence upon the issue of the Dion tradition and, indeed, upon my own research has been major. To Alan Samuel, I should like to express my appreciation for supporting publication of this manuscript and for his support throughout the editorial process. Finally, last but not least, while I must acknowledge my gratitude to my wife Janet for her editorial contribution, her role in bringing to fruition this project in difficult times far transcends her editorial expertise. The dedication tells it all. She will understand.

Abbreviations

Chronological Table

Introduction: The Legend of Dion

Although the title describes the main theme of this study – an examination of the origins and development of the Dion legend – historical issues are by no means peripheral to my aim. After all, to comprehend the historical Dion, we must understand the degree to which legend has distorted the historical record. The importance of this point, I believe, has been underestimated by most modern scholars, for the bulk of modern scholarship has treated the legendary as historical and indeed, has added its own hypothetical material to the realm of the legendary, as we shall demonstrate in the final chapter of this study. By absorbing the legendary Dion, as we shall also demonstrate, Wissenschaft has proven to be far more gullible than the Classical Tradition, which has the less lofty aims.

The specific sources of the Dion legend in classical antiquity are threefold. The mid- fourth century BC testimony of the historian Timonides of Leucas; the Platonic Epistles, also allegedly written in the mid-fourth century BC; and a Roman imperial tradition, which flourished in the Greek East. The most significant representative of the latter tradition is the biography of Dion, written in the early second century AD, included in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.

The Timonidean Dion legend is a substantial portion of Plutarch’s later biography, and can be said to constitute the heart of that work. To ascertain the legendary character of the Timonidean depiction of Dion in Plutarch, requires two tasks, first delineating the contradictions encountered in the text itself that negate the apologetic eulogy which it is presenting. Secondly, the seriously flawed Timonidean interpretation must be compared with the historically sounder contemporary antithetical anti-Dion traditions of Philistus and Athanis.

Of the Platonic Epistles that pertain to Dion and the Syracusan Revolution, Epistles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 13, the most significant are the lengthy seventh Epistle, the prototype of the later Epistles, and, to a lesser extent, the eighth Epistle. Both require more substantial comment than the Timonidean History since they have been regarded with more favour than the other Epistles as documents furnishing sound historical data for two reasons. In the first place, scholarly debate focused on the issue of authenticity has sided with authenticity,¹ which has, in turn, produced the conviction that the facts which the Letters present are true.² Secondly, belief in the Epistles’ authenticity has fostered the impression that they are contemporary documents, written shortly after Dion’s demise, and this, moreover, has fed the view that their contents are fundamentally accurate.³ None of these conclusions is sustainable. After all, even authentic and contemporary documentation can contain false information; on a priori grounds, even if Plato wrote these Epistles, there is no proof that distortion and falsification are absent. Conversely, if these Letters are forgeries, there remains the possibility of their furnishing accurate data. A skilful forger may, after all, have had access to accurate evidence. Furthermore, if we assume that the Epistles are late sources, the likelihood that their content can derive from early accurate information need not be discounted.

More important, there are three closely related fundamental reasons to regard the data furnished by the Epistles with caution, and to perceive this material as legendary. In the first place, the Letters were obviously written in the middle of the fourth century BC by Plato or another or other Academics or, at the very least, by individuals sympathetic to the Platonic line.⁴ Such an authorship obviously is partisan in approach and partisanship by its very nature provokes distortion and legend.⁵ Secondly, following this argument, the seventh and other Epistles are, as is generally agreed, apologetic in thrust,⁶ notwithstanding avowed offers of advice contained therein – advice which certainly in the case of the seventh Epistle has a curiously unconvincing ring to it.⁷ Hence again, there is the likelihood of distortion. Finally, the fact that the works are essentially apologetic in thrust begs the question: against whom are the apologies, particularly the apology of the 7th Epistle, directed?

The nature of the criticism that inspired the apology of the seventh Platonic Epistle and subsequently the apologies of the other Epistles has proven somewhat difficult to ascertain. Certainly, as we shall see, we do possess evidence of a good deal of debate in both Sicily and the Greek mainland on the merits or lack thereof of the involvement of Dion, Plato and the Academy in Sicilian affairs. But this evidence is sketchy and therefore deficient as a source that might determine with precision the nature of the criticism that provoked the Platonic response. Hence, in order to gain a clearer view of this criticism, I suggest in this study that we must turn our attention to an alternate source, the contemporary and near contemporary historiographical material circulating in both Sicily and the Greek mainland, to determine the character of the critique of Dion, Plato and the Academy that necessitated the Platonic apologia of the seventh and subsequently that of the other Epistles. As we shall see, some of this material, that of Philistus and Timonides, which seems to have appeared before the first specimen of the genre to appear – the seventh Platonic Epistle – is likely to have directly provoked the Platonic apology. This was not the case with the rest of the evidence, that of Athanis, Ephorus and Theopompus, which probably appeared after the publication of that Epistle. But even if much of the content of the historiographical material did not exert a direct influence upon the Epistles’ apologetic stance, we can still utilize its evidence to determine the alternate and often critical view of Dion, Plato and the Academy that underlines the chief thrust of the Platonic apologia. The reason for this, we believe, is that, emerging a generation after the events that it describes, this historiographical material both encapsulates and is based upon the type of material likely to have been found in sources provoking the apologia of the seventh Platonic Epistle.

Of course, the fragments of these historians are few, and some have doubted, either openly⁸ or implicitly by their refusal to discuss the Platonic apology within the context of these historians,⁹ that the sentiments of the early historians can ever be recovered, and have cast doubts upon the validity of attempts to discover any of their texts in later sources. In the face of such arguments, I acknowledge the undoubted difficulties and perils facing the practitioners of Quellenforschung seeking to discover the lost data. However, I remain convinced that failure to examine these historical testimonies obliges us to accept the Platonic apology without considering the validity of its direct or indirect targets¹⁰ and I believe that enough evidence survives from the testimony of the later sources and from the Platonic Epistles themselves, at the very least, to determine the general thrust of the earlier or contemporary material with which the Epistles certainly disagreed.

However, the creation of the Dion legend in antiquity is not solely a product of the Platonic or philo-Platonic testimonies of Timonides and the Platonic Epistles. The legend was subsequently developed and enlarged in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire from the early second century AD onwards, at a time when the issues, intrigues and conflicts associated with Syracusan revolution had been long forgotten. At that time, data pertaining to fourth century BC Sicily were adapted for a new and totally different context, with issues having little in common with the partisan politics of the earlier era. To the Greek speaking intelligentsia of the second century AD and beyond, the figure of Dion emerged as a prototype of the Roman princeps, ruling in accord with ethical-philosophical principles. He was also transformed into a Stoic martyr facing courageously the attacks of the hostile forces ranged against him. For this phenomenon, the most important evidence is the biography of Dion by Plutarch of Chaeronea. Nevertheless, the relative bulk of the Plutarchean testimony vis à vis other source material should not lead us to ignore other significant literary figures of the Roman imperial era, such as Arrian, Lucian or the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Julian. To sustain my thesis that it is only in the Roman Empire of the second century AD and beyond that the legend of Dion was developed from its earliest form in the mid-fourth century BC, I shall demonstrate that in the Hellenistic age, a more critical and realistic stance towards Dion prevailed, and that even in the Roman imperial era, the development of the Dion legend was by no means universal and that a more critical assessment was circulating. The evidence further shows that contradictory material in Plutarch in the biography and elsewhere in the Moralia suggests that Plutarch’s attempt to mythicize Dion was distinctly circumscribed, because the biographer had absorbed negative data contrary to other statements, but which he was unable or unwilling either to avoid or to eliminate from his assessment.

1. The most important exceptions to the conclusions that these Epistles are authentic are A. Maddalena, Platone lettere (Bari, 1948), pp. 77-346 and L. Edelstein, Plato’s Seventh Letter (Leiden, 1966). Among earlier studies still pertinent are W. Biedenweg, Plutarchs Quellen in den Lebenschreibungen des Dion und Timoleon (Leipzig, 1884), p. 9; K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte² (Berlin-Leipzig, 1927), 3.2. pp. 45-46; A. Holm, Geschichte Siziliens im Alterum (Leipzig, 1874), 2. p. 375. More recent advocates of inauthenticity include P. Shorey, What Plato Said (Chicago, 1933), pp. 40-41; H. Cherniss, The Riddle of the Early Academy (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1945), p. 13; G. Boas, Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato PR 57(1948), p. 440, 9; G. Ryle, Plato’s Progress (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 221-22; N. Gulley, "The Authenticity of the Platonic Epistles" Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique: Pseudepigrapha I (Geneva, 1971), pp. 103-30; A. Levinson, A.Q. Marton and A.D. Winspear, "The Seventh Letter of Plato," Mind 77 (1968), pp. 309-25 (Reprinted in It’s Greek to the Computer (Montreal, 1971), p. 67-90); G. Caskey, Again Plato’s Seventh Letter, CP 69 (1974), pp. 220-27; M. Zahrnt, Der Demos von Syrakus im Zeitalter der Dionysioi, Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischer Griechenland. Beitrag auf dem Symposium zum Ehren von Karl Willhelm Welvei in Brochum 1-2 März 1996 (Stuttgart, 1997), p. 166; G. Vlastos, Platonic Studies (Princeton, 1981), p. 202; T. Irwin, Plato: The intellectual Background, in R. Kraut, The Cambridge Companion to Plato (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 78-79, n. 4; M. Schofield, Plato and Practical Politics, in C.S. Rowe and M. Schofield, The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 299-300. By contrast, the pro-authenticity literature is voluminous. Thus U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Platon² 1 (Berlin, 1914), p. 647; O. Apelt, Platon Briefe² (Leipzig, 1921), p. 15, inclining towards this view; cf. p. 125; E. Barker, Greek Political Theory: Plato and his Predecessors, (London, 1917), p. 130. n. 1; J. Burnet, Greek Philosophy 1 (London, 1920), pp. 299-300; L.A. Post, A Psychological Test of the Genuineness of the Platonic Epistles, TAPA 55 (1924), pp. xxx-xxxii; L.A. Post, The Thirteen Epistles of Plato (Oxford, 1925), p.2; J. Souilhé, Platon: Lettres (Paris, 1926), pp. xl, xlvii; R von Scheliha, Dion. Die platonische Staatsgründung in Sizilien (Leipzig, 1928), pp. 86-87; A. Tenca, Dione e Platone, A&R 13 (1932), p. 44; J. Harward, The Platonic Epistles (Cambridge, 1932), p. 188; G.R. Morrow, Plato: Epistles (Urbana, 1935; reprint Indianapolis/New York, 1962), pp. 3-16; G. Pasquali, Le lettere di Platone² (Florence, 1967), pp. 15-16, 42; J.H. Thiel, "Rond het Syrakusaansche Experiment, MKAW 4 (1941), p. 136, n. 5 (English translation by A.M. de Bruin-Cousins in: H.T. Wallinga, J. H. Thiel, eds.. Studies in Ancient History (Amsterdam, 1944), p. 73, n.5; B. Pace, Arte e civiltà della Sicilia antica (Geneva/ Rome/ Naples, 1945), 3, p. 36; R.S. Bluck, Plato’s Seventh and Eighth Epistles (Cambridge, 1947), p. 1; G.C. Field, Plato and his Predecessors² ( London, 1948), p. 25; W. di Fede, Dionigi il giovane (Catanzaro, 1949) pp. 10-11; R.S. Bluck, Plato’s biography: The Seventh Letter, PR 58 (1949), p. 508; L. Wickert, Platon und Syrakus RhM 93 (1950), p. 41; B. Stenzel, "Is Plato’s Seventh Epistle spurious?," AJP 74 (1953), pp. 383-97 M. Isnardi Parente, L’academia e le lettere platonische, PP 10 (1955), pp. 249-60; H. Berve, Dion. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Geistes und wissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1956, Nr. 10, p. 747; H. Berve, Dion, HZ 174 (1957), p. 2; P. Pedech, Review of Berve’s Dion, REA 60 (1958), p. 216; V. Ehrenberg, review of Berve’s Dion, Gnomon 4.30 (1958), p. 467; F.W. Walbank, Review of Berve’s Dion, CR ns 8. 3-4 (1958), p. 269; H. Breitenbach, Platon und Dion. Skizze eines ideal-politischen Reformversuches im Altertum (Stuttgart-Zurich, 1960), pp. 80-81; A. Leskey, A History of Greek Literature, translated by James Willis and Cornelis de Heer (London, 1966), p. 511; J.E Raven, Plato’s Thought in the Making (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 25-26; K.von Fritz, Platon in Sizilien (Berlin, 1968), eg. p. 13 but throughout the book, following the Platonic line; F. Wasserman, review of von Fritz, Platon in Sizilien, CJ 66 (1970), pp. 188-9; L. Brandwood, Plato’s Seventh Letter, RELO, 4 (1969), pp. 1-25; G. Morrow, Review of von Fritz, Platon in Sizilien, Phoenix 24 (1970), p. 79; A.D. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 61-62; W.K.C. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy 4 (Cambridge, 1975), p. 18; P. White, Platonic Knowledge and Reality (Indianapolis, 1976), p. 200; E.N. Tigerstedt, Interpreting Plato (Stockholm, 1977), p. 44; L. de Blois, Dionysius n, Dion and Timoleon, MN 1978, p. 120; G. Klosko, The Development of Plato’s Political Theory (London, 1986), p. 185; L. Brisson, Platon, Lettres (Paris, 1987), p. 20; H. Sandbach, Plato and the Socratic Writings of Xenophon, The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, edited by P.E. Easterling and B.M.W. Knox (Cambridge, 1989), 1.3, pp. 69, 167, maintaining that Epistles 7 and 8 have the best chances to be genuine; T. Penner, Socrates and the Early Dialogues of Plato in Kraut (above), Cambridge Companion to Plato, p. 130; D.P. Orsi. La lotta politica a Siracusa alia metà del IV secolo a.C: le trattive fra Dione e Dionisio II, (Bari, 1994), p. 14; K.M. Sayre, Plato’s Literary Garden (Notre Dame and London, 1995), pp. xviii-xxiii; C.Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue (Cambridge, 1996), p. 48; F. Muccioli, Dionisio II. Storia e tradizione letteraria (Bologna, 1999), p. 40; L. de Blois, Plutarch’s Perception of Plato’s Political Activities in "Plutarco, Platon Y Aristotele. Actas del V Congresso Internacional de la IPS. Madrid/Cuenco 4-7 de Mayo, 1999 (Chancas-Madrid), p. 229, n. 1; V. B. Lewis, "The Seventh Letter and the Unity of Plato’s Political Philosophy," SJP 38 (2000), p. 231; V.B. Lewis, "The Rhetoric of Philosophical Politics in Plato’s Seventh Letter," P&R 33.1 (2000), p. 23; L. Canfora, Platone e i tiranni, Progetto Acragas: La Sicilia dei due Dionisi. Atti della settimana di studio, Agrigento, 24-25 Febraio, 1999 a cura di N. Bonacasa, E. Braccesi, E. de Miro, (Rome, 2002), p. 13; C. Mossé, Plutarch and the Sicilian Tyrants in S. Lewis, Ancient Tyranny, (Edinburgh: University Press, 2006), p. 189. For the authenticity of Epistle 8, see G. Grote, History of Greece (London, 1869), 10, p. 410; Burnet, op.cit. pp. 299-300; Pace, op.cit. 3, p. 36; Barker, op.cit. p. 130, n.l; Von Scheliha, op.cit. p. 89; Post, Thirteen Platonic Epistles, p. 3; Thiel, op.cit. p. 136, n. 5 (Studies, pp. 73-74, n. 5); Field, op.cit, p.25; Di Fede, op.cit. pp. 10-11; Pasquali, op.cit. pp. 15-16; Bluck, Plato’s Seventh and Eighth Epistles, p. 1; Berve, Dion, p. 747; Berve, HZ 174 (1957), p. 2; Pedech, op.cit. p. 216; Walbank, CR ns 8 (1958). 3-4. p. 269; Breitenbach, op.cit. pp. 80-81; Guthrie, op.cit. 4. p. 31; Souilhé, op.cit. pp. lxvi, lviii; G.J.D. Aalders, "Political Thought and Political Programmes in the Platonic Epistles," Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique: Pseudepigrapha (Geneva, 1971), p. 173; G.J.D. Aalders, "The Authenticity of the Eighth Platonic Epistle Reconsidered, "Mnemosyne 22 (1969), pp. 233-57; Klosco, op.cit. p. 185 De Blois MN (1978), p. 120; H.D. Westlake, Friends and Successors of Dion, Historia 32 (1983), p. 163, n. 9; Canfora, La Sicilia dei due Dionisi, p. 16. Against authenticity, see Brisson, op.cit, pp. 20, 235-6 and Zahrnt, Volk und Verfassung, pp. 159, 162. Indecisiveness on this issue encountered in M.I. Finley, Plato and Practical Politics, in Aspects of Antiquity: Discussions and Controversies (Harmondsworth, Victoria, Markham, Auckland, 1977), p. 80; G.R. Lloyd, "Plato and Archytas in the Seventh Letter," Phronesis 35 (1990), p. 159; P.A. Brunt, Plato’s Academy and Politics, Studies in Greek History and Politics (Oxford, 1993), p. 324.

2. Acceptance of the truth of the data of the seventh and eighth Epistles, based upon the premise that the Epistles are authentic, is particularly central to Pasquali’s work (especially op.cit. pp. 1-16, 42-54). Against this, see the powerful critique of Maddalena, op.cit. pp. 85-88. We note also how belief such as Pasquali’s avoids the issue of the precise date of the Epistles. Thus Maddalena, op.cit. p. 87, following G. Hell, Zur Datierung des siebenten und achten platonischen Briefes, Hermes 67 (1932), p. 295. Note also Raven, op.cit. p. 26 to Epistle 7 as an ingenious defence of Plato’s intentions in Sicilian affairs. To this we respond that an ingenious defence is not necessarily an accurate one. Similarly, K. Trampedach, Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgennossische Politik (Stuttgart, 1994), p. 103 writes: Weil die Briefe zumindest aus der Tradition der Platonschule stammen und nicht lange nach Platons Tod entstanden sein können, sind sie abhängig von ihrer Autorschaft als wichtige historische Quellen zu behandeln. Other authorities maintaining this stance include A. Holm, op.cit. 2. P. 374; Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, op.cit. 1. pp. 537-52; Pace, op.cit. pp. 35-40; Wickert, op.cit. pp. 42-43; Leskey op.cit. p. 510; P. Schuhl, Platon et l’activité politique de l’académie, REG 59-60 (1946-7), pp. 46-53; A.H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy³ (London, 1953), p. 57; Walbank, CR ns. 8. 3-4. p. 269; A. Swift Reginos, Platonica. The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Leiden, 1976), p. 70; S. Monoson, Plato’s Democratic Entanglements. Athenian Politics and the Practice of Philosophy, Princeton, 2000), pp. 149, 153; A. Wörle, Die politische Tätigkeit der Schule Platons (Darmstadt, 1981), p. 69; Klosko, op.cit. p. 186; R. Barrow, Plato’s Politics, Didaskalos 5 (1977), p. 417; Orsi, La lotta politica, p. 14; Muccioli, Dionisio II pp. 39, 190, 196-7, 204, 227, 269, 451; Lewis, SJP 38 (2000), pp. 232-50; Lewis, P&R 33.1 (2000), pp. 23-33; Mossé, op.cit. pp. 188-189.

3. Thus Aalders, Entretiens 1971, p. 149.

4. Hence the issue of authenticity becomes somewhat academic as to whether Plato or another Platonist or Academic wrote the Epistle. The most important advocate of the view that the all-important seventh Epistle is post-Platonic, Edelstein (op.cit. pp. 60-62), dates the document to the time of Timoleon. Andrew Lintott, Violence, Civil Strife and Revolution in the Classical City (London, 1982), p. 207 regards all the Epistles as edited revisions of Plato’s correspondence or of works of his pupils. Aalders, Entretiens, p. 149, follows Edelstein in his belief that, even if the Letters were not written by Plato himself, the author is not too distant from the alleged period of composition. Hackforth, Authorship of the Platonic Epistles (Manchester, 1913), p. 84, views the author as either Plato or someone else using Plato’s memoranda. Harward, op.cit. p. 190 argues that the Letters were conceivably written by a pupil of Plato to answer charges against his master. Raven, op.cit. p. 25, refers to the author as Plato or another Academician. Trampedach, op.cit. p. 103, believes that Epistles 7 and 8 were written not by Plato, but just after Plato’s death. Similarly, Trampedach, op.cit. p. 109, n. 56, refers to the Verfasser of the Epistles. Others supporting such a viewpoint include H.D. Westlake, Dion and Timoleon, CAH² 6 (1994), pp. 693; Brunt, op.cit. p. 324; Finley, Aspects of Antiquity, p. 80; Shorey, op.cit. p. 41; Schofield, op.cit. p. 300. Against Edelstein’s dating, see Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography, pp. 61-62.

5. Thus Aalders, Mnemosyne 22 (1969), p. 255: "One should, in studying the Letters keep constantly in mind the cavalier fashion in which Plato makes use of historical data. Historical documentation is used by Plato in order to prove his pre-established opinion and he does not care very much about the verification of historical truth." This statement makes it all the more surprising that Aalders on pp. 242-3 does accept the Platonic advice on nationalism and colonization in the eighth Epistle. Cf. Aalders, Entretiens, pp. 143-75, accepting the validity of the evidence of the seventh Epistle. See also V. Ehrenberg, op.cit. p. 467, on Epistle 7 beginning the heroization of Dion. Similarly Richard Herbert, "The Platonic Letters," CR 14 (1900), p. 337, on Epistle 7 as a vain, egoistic, ineffective bit of autobiography. See also the pertinent comments of R. Hackforth, reviewing Von Scheliha’s Dion in CR 49.2 (1935), p. 77: "Much, of course, is made of the Platonic Letters, but it does not seem to occur to the writer that what they tell us is not necessarily what Plato was, but what Plato thought or persuaded himself he was." Most fascinating are F. Solmsen’s comments in reviewing Edelstein’s book in Gnomon 41 (1961), p. 33: "If we accept the Letter, we must also accept Plato, who recounts historical developments in a somewhat lopsided and, indeed, coloured, though not necessarily distorted, fashion." I have to confess to being at a loss to understand how Solmsen can argue that the Epistle’s lopsided and coloured interpretation does not involve distortion. Similarly, we note the weak justification of the Platonic Epistle’s data in Raven, op.cit. p. 26: Any major misrepresentation of the course of events would be so rapidly exposed as to do more harm than good. To this we respond: surely the need to salvage a reputation can lead to misrepresentation of fact. Equally weak is Bluck’s argument, PR 58 (1949), p. 505, that the seventh Letter has to be regarded as sound evidence since Plato could not have invented the account of the voyages to Sicily out of the blue. This is true, but this fact cannot gainsay our suspicion regarding the details and overall interpretation of the facts. At the same time, Bluck is correct to stress that the failure to refer to Sicilian affairs in the dialogues should not surprise us given the theoretical nature of the dialogues, and that some influence can be detected in Rep. 8. 565-569c on the rise of tyrants and in the early books of the Laws. Here, of course, he follows Post, TAPA 45 (1924), p. 13; Morrow, Plato: Epistles, pp. 181-85; Harward, op.cit. p. 13. On the Sicilian background of Rep. 8, 565ff, see L.J. Sanders, Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny (London/New York/Sydney, 1987), pp. 23-24; Field, op.cit. pp. 128-29; Barker, op.cit. 300; H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich, 1967), 1. 354; K.F. Stroheker, Platon und Dionysios von Syrakus, HZ 179 (1952), pp. 225-259; J. Luccioni, La pensée politique de Platon (Paris, 1958), pp. 78, 80-81.

6. Thus Post, Thirteen Epistles, p. 56; Harward, op.cit. p. 191; Beloch, op.cit. 3.2 p. 45; Barker, op.cit. p. 130, n. 1; Thiel, op.cit. p. 137 (Studies, p. 78); Maddalena, op.cit. pp. 77f, 88, (against Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, op.cit. 1², p. 647); R.G. Bury, Plato’s Epistles (London/Cambridge, Mass., 1929), p. 473; Bluck, Plato’s Seventh and Eighth Epistles, pp. 13, 15, 18-19; Berve, Dion, p. 748; N.G.L. Hammond, History of Greece (Oxford, 1959), p. 517; Souilhé, op.cit. p. xli; Raven, op.cit. p. 22; Von Fritz, op.cit. p. 3; M.I. Finley, Aspects of Antiquity ² (London, 1977), pp. 79-80; Lintott, op.cit. p. 207; Tigerstedt, op.cit. p. 44; G.E.R. Lloyd, op.cit. p. 161 (especially for the view that the Letter’s philosophic digression refects discomfort with the view that Plato plagiarized from the Pythagoreans); Klosko, op.cit. p.187; Trampedach, op.cit. p. 103; Zahrnt, Volk und Verfassung, pp. 158-59; C.A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean Philosopher and Mathematic King (Cambridge, 2005), p. 42; Schofield, op.cit. pp. 298-99. The Eighth Letter might appear less of an apologia, but note the emphasis upon the democratic spirit in 352E, 353, 356D, 357A-C, to be compared with Ep. 7, 324B, 327, 331-332C, 334C, 335D, 336A, 351A; the backward-looking Dionian spirit of the Epistle’s recommendations in 355A; the reference to Dionysius I as colleague of Hipparinus in 353B, perhaps partly included to counteract suspicion of treachery on Dion’s part and to legitimize Dion’s intrigues for his sister Aristomache’s children (Plut. Dion 6.2; 7.1/ FGH 566, F. 109); and the reference to Dionysius I as well as to Hipparinus the Elder, as guarantors of Siceliot interests in 353B (

)- perhaps an answer to criticism of Dion for his association with the Dionysian house. For an extreme view, totally ignoring the apologetic aspect, See Hackforth, Authorship, p. 84: The general correctness of its historical information has, indeed, never, so far as I am concerned, been impugned.

7. The classic case of a scholar believing implicitly in the genuineness of the seventh Epistle is Wilamowitz, op.cit. 1², p. 647, who believes that Plato was literally answering an appeal of the Dionist faction which he could not betray and had to succour to the best of his ability. See contra, Maddalena, op.cit. pp. 90-92, 102, whose points remain relevant and deserve repetition. Thus we must initially ask the simple question. Why, if Plato refused to aid Dion before the departure of the expedition (Ep. 7, 350C-D), did he now agree to help the Dionists? Further, Wilamowitz’s view of the Dionists being willing to accept the recommendations based upon the Republic is patent nonsense, given that it is unlikely that the Dionists were acquainted with the Republic. Besides the seventh Letter does not deal with these principles. Also, the central apologia of the Letter does not make sense if Plato’s purpose is to make a solid recommendation. It is also difficult to envisage the Dionists and Hipparinus as paragons prepared to listen to Platonic wisdom. Finally, the very text contradicts this notion by suggesting that pacification of greedy types is the key (331C-332C). Other scholars who take the Platonic advice literally are Harward (op.cit. p. 13), who also tries to view both Epistles 7 and 8 within the context of Platonic thought of the Republic and Laws, and Pasquali (op.cit. pp. 1-16, 42-54) who views Epistle 7 as counsel against internal conflict and Epistle 8 as recommendations against foreign domination. The problem, as Maddalena observes, (op.cit. p. 85) is that Pasquali does not demonstrate but simply accepts – a somewhat questionable approach given that: a) we possess little evidence for the post Dionian period and b) he forgets the apologetic approach of the Letter which only tells a part of the story.

8. Thus J. Sprute, Dions syrakusanische Politik und die politischen Ideale Platons, Hermes 100 (1972), p. 295. Cf. Ehrenberg, op.cit. p. 467, who feels the anti-Dion viewpoint is too isolated to warrant consideration.

9. This is the position taken by most commentators on the Epistles. Thus Pasquali, op.cit. pp. 7, 16, 42-54; Aalders, Entretiens, p. 149, who simply assumes that the Epistles alone are the oldest documents concerning Dion which we possess; Raven, op.cit. p. 26; Hackforth, Authorship, p. 84; Harward, op.cit. pp. 13, 24, 29, 31.

10. This is put another way by Sandbach, op.cit. p. 69: "If a propaganda exercise, the Letters become a less trustworthy source for Plato’s biography." If this is indeed the case, the same caveat surely applies to the biography of Dion.

Chapter 1

The Partisan Tradition I: Philistus and Athanis

1

, a work in two books which covered the events of the first five years of the reign of Dionysius II from 367 to 362 BC (Diod. 20.S93/FGH 3b, 556, T. lib)¹¹ and which ended abruptly, probably because of the historian’s sudden demise in the naval battle against Dion’s admiral, Heracleides in 356 BC (Diod. 16.16.3; Plut. Dion 35.3; /FGH 3b, . But the fact that this work was a sequel to Philistus’ account of Dionysius I should not lead us to regard it simply as a mere Anhang.¹² The fact that two books were devoted to a five-year period, as opposed to four which covered the forty years of Dionysius I’s reign, immediately confirms that we are dealing here with a more substantial treatment of the period in question than was allotted to the earlier work.¹³ Given what we shall perceive of the work’s autobiographical character, the detailed presentation of events of these years is hardly surprising.

), is of little help in enabling us to determine the main thrust of the narrative and the nature of the depiction of Dion encountered therein. On the other hand, the character of the work and particularly of Philistus’ treatment of Dion can be determined both from consideration of Philistus’ personal dealings with Dion and from our understanding of the broader historical perspective of Philistus.¹⁴ According to Plutarch, Philistus was deliberately recalled to Syracuse in 367 BC¹⁵ upon the death of the Elder Dionysius¹⁶ after his long seventeen year exile, to combat the political and philosophical influence at Syracuse exerted by Plato and Dion (Plut. Dion MAI FGH 3b, No. 556, T. 5c. Cf. Nep. Dion 3.2/T. 5d). We also know that Philistus occupied a preeminent position under Dionysius II at Syracuse.¹⁷ These data justify the conclusion that Philistus’ account covered in graphic detail the initial stages of the conflict between Philistus and Dion as conducted at the Syracusan court, and even allowing for a degree of objectivity that one might expect from a Thucydidean historian like Philistus,¹⁸ he did so in a fairly partisan manner. Further, we can be certain that Philistus accorded himself a role of prominence in the narrative of events. Philistus’ swan song, however much it contained an account of the early part of the reign of Dionysius II, probably also to a great extent constituted an autobiographical justification of the role played by the historian in the proceedings of these