Carthaginians. Observing that they had been lately much enfeebled
by pestilence and by mutiny of their African subjects, he thought
the opportunity favorable for trying to recover what the peace of
383 B. C., had obliged him to relinquish. A false pretence being
readily found, he invaded the Carthaginian possessions in the west of
Sicily with a large land force of thirty thousand foot, and three
thousand horse; together with a fleet of three hundred sail, and
store ships in proportion. After ravaging much of the open territory
of the Carthaginians, he succeeded in mastering Selinus, Entella, and
Eryx—and then laid siege to Lilybæum. This town, close to the western
cape of Sicily,[90] appears to have arisen as a substitute for the
neighboring town of Motyê (of which we hear little more since its
capture by Dionysius in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal
Carthaginian station. He began to attack it by active siege and
battering machines. But it was so numerously garrisoned, and so well
defended, that he was forced to raise the siege and confine himself
to blockade. His fleet kept the harbor guarded, so as to intercept
supplies from Africa. Not long afterwards, however, he received
intelligence that a fire had taken place in the port of Carthage
whereby all her ships had been burnt. Being thus led to conceive that
there was no longer any apprehension of naval attack from Carthage,
he withdrew his fleet from continuous watch off Lilybæum; keeping
one hundred and thirty men-of-war near at hand, in the harbor of
Eryx, and sending the remainder home to Syracuse. Of this incautious
proceeding the Carthaginians took speedy advantage. The conflagration
in their port had been much overstated. There still remained to them
two hundred ships of war, which, after being equipped in silence,
sailed across in the night to Eryx. Appearing suddenly in the
harbor, they attacked the Syracusan fleet completely by surprise;
and succeeded, without serious resistance, in capturing and towing
off nearly all of them. After so capital an advantage, Lilybæum
became open to reinforcement and supplies by sea, so that Dionysius
no longer thought it worth while to prosecute the blockade. On the
approach of winter, both parties resumed the position which they had
occupied before the recent movement.[91]
[90] Diodor. xxii. p. 304.
[91] Diodor. xv. 73; xvi. 5.
The despot had thus gained nothing by again taking up arms, nor were
the Sicilian dependencies of the Carthaginians at all cut down below
that which they acquired by the treaty of 383 B. C. But he received
(about January or February 367 B. C.) news of a different species of
success, which gave him hardly less satisfaction than a victory by
land or sea. In the Lenæan festival of Athens, one of his tragedies
had been rewarded with the first prize. A chorist who had been
employed in the performance—eager to convey the first intelligence
of this success to Syracuse and to obtain the recompense which would
naturally await the messenger—hastened from Athens to Corinth,
found a vessel just starting for Syracuse, and reached Syracuse by
a straight course with the advantage of favorable winds. He was the
first to communicate the news, and received the full reward of his
diligence. Dionysius was overjoyed at the distinction conferred upon
him; for though on former occasions he had obtained the second or
third place in the Athenian competitions, he had never before been
adjudged worthy of the first prize. Offering sacrifice to the gods
for the good news, he invited his friends to a splendid banquet,
wherein he indulged in an unusual measure of conviviality. But the
joyous excitement, coupled with the effects of the wine, brought on
an attack of fever, of which he shortly afterwards died, after a
reign of thirty-eight years.[92]
[92] Diodor. xv. 74.
Thirty-eight years, of a career so full of effort, adventure,
and danger, as that of Dionysius, must have left a constitution
sufficiently exhausted to give way easily before acute disease.
Throughout this long period he had never spared himself. He was
a man of restless energy and activity, bodily as well as mental;
always personally at the head of his troops in war—keeping a vigilant
eye and a decisive hand upon all the details of his government at
home—yet employing spare time (which Philip of Macedon was surprised
that he could find[93]) in composing tragedies of his own, to compete
for prizes fairly adjudged. His personal bravery was conspicuous, and
he was twice severely wounded in leading his soldiers to assault. His
effective skill as an ambitious politician—his military resource as a
commander—and the long-sighted care with which he provided implements
of offence as well as of defence before undertaking war,—are
remarkable features in his character. The Roman Scipio Africanus
was wont to single out Dionysius and Agathokles (the history of the
latter begins about fifty years after the death of the former), both
of them despots of Syracuse, as the two Greeks of greatest ability
for action known to him—men who combined, in the most memorable
degree, daring with sagacity.[94] This criticism, coming from an
excellent judge, is borne out by the biography of both, so far as
it comes to our knowledge. No other Greek can be pointed out, who,
starting from a position humble and unpromising, raised himself to so
lofty a pinnacle of dominion at home, achieved such striking military
exploits abroad, and preserved his grandeur unimpaired throughout
the whole of a long life. Dionysius boasted that he bequeathed to
his son an empire fastened by adamantine chains;[95] so powerful was
his mercenary force—so firm his position in Ortygia—so completely
had the Syracusans been broken into subjection. There cannot be a
better test of vigor and ability than the unexampled success with
which Dionysius and Agathokles played the game of the despot, and to
a certain extent that of the conqueror. Of the two, Dionysius was
the most favored by fortune. Both indeed profited by one auxiliary
accident, which distinguished Syracuse from other Grecian cities; the
local speciality of Ortygia. That islet seemed expressly made to be
garrisoned as a separate fortress,—apart from, as well as against,
the rest of Syracuse,—having full command of the harbor, docks,
naval force, and naval approach. But Dionysius had, besides, several
peculiar interventions of the gods in his favor, sometimes at the
most critical moments: such was the interpretation put by his enemies
(and doubtless by his friends also) upon those repeated pestilences
which smote the Carthaginian armies with a force far more deadly
than the spear of the Syracusan hoplite. On four or five distinct
occasions, during the life of Dionysius, we read of this unseen foe
as destroying the Carthaginians both in Sicily and in Africa, but
leaving the Syracusans untouched. Twice did it arrest the progress
of Imilkon, when in the full career of victory; once, after the
capture of Gela and Kamarina—a second time, when, after his great
naval victory off Katana, he had brought his numerous host under the
walls of Syracuse, and was actually master of the open suburb of
Achradina. On both these occasions the pestilence made a complete
revolution in the face of the war; exalting Dionysius from impending
ruin, to assured safety in the one, and to unmeasured triumph in the
other. We are bound to allow for this good fortune (the like of which
never befel Agathokles), when we contemplate the long prosperity
of Dionysius[96], and when we adopt, as in justice we must, the
panegyric of Scipio Africanus.
[93] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 15.
[94] Polyb. xv. 35. Διὸ καὶ Πόπλιον Σκιπίωνά φασι, τὸν πρῶτον
καταπολεμήσαντα Καρχηδονίους, ἐρωτηθέντα, τίνας ὑπολαμβάνει
πραγματικωτάτους ἄνδρας γεγονέναι καὶ σὺν νῷ τολμηροτάτους,
εἰπεῖν, τοὺς περὶ Ἀγαθοκλέα καὶ Διονύσιον τοὺς Σικελιώτας.
[95] Plutarch, Dion, c. 7.
[96] The example of Dionysius—his long career of success and
quiet death—is among those cited by Cotta in Cicero (De Nat.
Deor. iii. 33, 81, 85) to refute the doctrine of Balbus, as to
the providence of the gods and their moral government over human
affairs.
The preceding chapter has detailed the means whereby
Dionysius attained his prize, and kept it: those employed by
Agathokles—analogous in spirit but of still darker coloring in the
details—will appear hereafter. That Hermokrates—who had filled with
credit the highest offices in the state and whom men had acquired the
habit of following—should aspire to become despot, was no unusual
phenomenon in Grecian politics; but that Dionysius should aim at
mounting the same ladder, seemed absurd or even insane—to use the
phrase of Isokrates.[97] If, then, in spite of such disadvantage
he succeeded in fastening round his countrymen, accustomed to a
free constitution as their birth-right, those “adamantine chains”
which they were well known to abhor—we may be sure that his plan
of proceeding must have been dexterously chosen, and prosecuted
with consummate perseverance and audacity; but we may be also
sure that it was nefarious in the extreme. The machinery of fraud
whereby the people were to be cheated into a temporary submission,
as a prelude to the machinery of force whereby such submission was
to be perpetuated against their consent—was the stock in trade
of Grecian usurpers. But seldom does it appear prefaced by more
impudent calumnies, or worked out with a larger measure of violence
and spoliation, than in the case of Dionysius. He was indeed
powerfully seconded at the outset by the danger of Syracuse from the
Carthaginian arms. But his scheme of usurpation, far from diminishing
such danger, tended materially to increase it, by disuniting the
city at so critical a moment. Dionysius achieved nothing in his
first enterprise for the relief of Gela and Kamarina. He was forced
to retire with as much disgrace as those previous generals whom
he had so bitterly vituperated; and apparently even with greater
disgrace—since there are strong grounds for believing that he entered
into traitorous collusion with the Carthaginians. The salvation of
Syracuse, at that moment of peril, arose not from the energy or
ability of Dionysius, but from the opportune epidemic which disabled
Imilkon in the midst of a victorious career.
[97] Isokratês, Or. v. (Philipp.) s. 73. Διονύσιος ... ἐπιθυμήσας
μοναρχίας ~ἀλόγως καὶ μανικῶς~, καὶ τολμήσας ἅπαντα πράττειν τὰ
φέροντα πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην, etc.
Dionysius had not only talents to organize, and boldness to make
good, a despotism more formidable than anything known to contemporary
Greeks, but also systematic prudence to keep it unimpaired for
thirty-eight years. He maintained carefully those two precautions
which Thucydides specifies as the causes of permanence to the
Athenian Hippias, under similar circumstances—intimidation over
the citizens, and careful organization, with liberal pay among his
mercenaries.[98] He was temperate in indulgencies; never led by any
of his appetites into the commission of violence.[99] This abstinence
contributed materially to prolong his life, since many a Grecian
despot perished through desperate feelings of individual vengeance
provoked by his outrages. With Dionysius, all other appetites were
merged in the love of dominion, at home and abroad; and of money as
a means of dominion. To the service of this master-passion all his
energies were devoted, together with those vast military resources
which an unscrupulous ability served both to accumulate and to
recruit. How his treasury was supplied, with the large exigencies
continually pressing upon it, we are but little informed. We know
however that his exactions from the Syracusans were exorbitant;[100]
that he did not hesitate to strip the holiest temples; and that he
left behind him a great reputation for ingenious tricks in extracting
money from his subjects.[101] Besides the large garrison of foreign
mercenaries by whom his orders were enforced, he maintained a regular
body of spies, seemingly of both sexes, disseminated among the
body of the citizens.[102] The vast quarry-prison of Syracuse was
his work.[103] Both the vague general picture, and the fragmentary
details which come before us, of his conduct towards the Syracusans,
present to us nothing but an oppressive and extortionate tyrant,
by whose fiat numberless victims perished; more than ten thousand
according to the general language of Plutarch.[104] He enriched
largely his younger brothers and auxiliaries; among which latter,
Hipparinus stood prominent, thus recovering a fortune equal to or
larger than that which his profligacy had dissipated.[105] But we
hear also of acts of Dionysius, indicating a jealous and cruel
temper, even towards near relatives. And it appears certain that he
trusted no one, not even them;[106] that though in the field he
was a perfectly brave man, yet his suspicion and timorous anxiety
as to every one who approached his person, were carried to the most
tormenting excess, and extended even to his wives, his brothers, his
daughters. Afraid to admit any one with a razor near to his face,
he is said to have singed his own beard with a burning coal. Both
his brother and his son were searched for concealed weapons, and
even forced to change their clothes in the presence of his guards,
before they were permitted to see him. An officer of the guards
named Marsyas, having dreamt that he was assassinating Dionysius,
was put to death for this dream, as proving that his waking thoughts
must have been dwelling upon such a project. And it has already
been mentioned that Dionysius put to death the mother of one of his
wives, on suspicion that she had by incantations brought about the
barrenness of the other—as well as the sons of a Lokrian citizen
named Aristeides, who had refused, with indignant expressions, to
grant to him his daughter in marriage.[107]
[98] Thucyd. vi. 55. ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πρότερον ξύνηθες, τοῖς μὲν
πολίταις φοβερὸν, τοῖς δὲ ἐπικούροις ἀκριβὲς, πολλῷ τῷ περιόντι
τοῦ ἀσφαλοῦς ἐκράτησε (Hippias).
On the liberality of the elder Dionysius to his mercenaries, see
an allusion in Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 348 A.
The extension and improvement of engines for warlike purposes,
under Dionysius, was noticed as a sort of epoch (Athenæus, De
Machinis ap. Mathemat. Veteres, ed. Paris, p. 3).
[99] Cornelius Nepos, De Regibus, c. 2. “Dionysius prior, et
manu fortis, et belli peritus fuit, et, id quod in tyranno non
facile reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non avarus,
nullius rei denique cupidus, nisi singularis perpetuique imperii,
ob eamque rem crudelis. Nam dum id studuit munire, nullius
pepercit vitæ, quem ejus insidiatorem putaret.” To the same
purpose Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v. 20.
[100] Aristotel. Politic. v. 9, 5.
[101] Pseudo-Aristotel. Œconomic. ii. c. 21, 42; Cicero, De Nat.
Deorum, iii. 34, 83, 84; Valerius Maxim. i. 1.
[102] Plutarch, Dion, c. 28; Plutarch, De Curiositate, p.
523 A; Aristotel. Politic. v. 9, 3. The titles of these
spies—αἱ ποταγωγίδες καλούμεναι—as we read in Aristotle; or οἱ
ποταγωγεῖς—as we find in Plutarch—may perhaps both be correct.
[103] Cicero in Verrem, v. 55, 143.
[104] Plutarch, De Fortunâ Alexandr. Magni, p. 338 B. What were
the crimes of Dionysius which Pausanias had read and describes by
the general words Διονυσίου τὰ ἀνοσιώτατα—and which he accuses
Philistus of having intentionally omitted in his history—we
cannot now tell (Pausan. i. 13, 2: compare Plutarch, Dion, c.
36). An author named Amyntianus, contemporary with Pausanias, and
among those perused by Photius (Codex 131), had composed parallel
lives of Dionysius and the Emperor Domitian.
[105] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 A; Aristotel. Politic. v. 5, 6.
[106] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 D. Διονύσιος δὲ εἰς μίαν πόλιν
ἀθροίσας πᾶσαν Σικελίαν ὑπὸ σοφίας, ~πιστεύων οὐδενὶ, μόγις
ἐσώθη~, etc.
This brief, but significant expression of Plato, attests the
excessive mistrust which haunted Dionysius, as a general fact;
which is illustrated by the anecdotes of Cicero, Tuscul. Disput.
v. 20, 23; and De Officiis, ii. 7; Plutarch, Dion, c. 9; Diodor.
xiv. 2.
The well-known anecdote of Damoklês, and the sword which
Dionysius caused to be suspended over his head by a horsehair, in
the midst of the enjoyments of the banquet, as an illustration
how little was the value of grandeur in the midst of terror—is
recounted by Cicero.
[107] Plutarch, Dion, c. 3; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 6.
Such were the conditions of existence—perpetual mistrust, danger
even from the nearest kindred, enmity both to and from every
dignified freeman, and reliance only on armed barbarians or liberated
slaves—which beset almost every Grecian despot, and from which the
greatest despot of his age enjoyed no exemption. Though philosophers
emphatically insisted that such a man must be miserable,[108] yet
Dionysius himself, as well as the great mass of admiring spectators,
would probably feel that the necessities of his position were
more than compensated by its awe-striking grandeur, and by the
full satisfaction of ambitious dreams, subject indeed to poignant
suffering when wounded in the tender point, and when reaping insult
in place of admiration, at the memorable Olympic festival of 384
B. C., above-described. But the Syracusans, over whom he ruled,
enjoyed no such compensation for that which they suffered from his
tax-gatherers—from his garrison of Gauls, Iberians, and Campanians,
in Ortygia—from his spies—his prison—and his executioners.
[108] This sentiment, pronounced by Plato, Isokratês, Cicero,
Seneca, Plutarch, etc., is nowhere so forcibly laid out as in the
dialogue of Xenophon called _Hiero_—of which indeed it forms the
text and theme. Whoever reads this picture of the position of a
Grecian τύραννος, will see that it was scarcely possible for a
man so placed to be other than a cruel and oppressive ruler.
Nor did Syracuse suffer alone. The reign of the elder Dionysius was
desolating for the Hellenic population generally, both of Sicily and
Italy. Syracuse became a great fortress, with vast military power
in the hands of its governor, “whose policy[109] it was to pack all
Sicily into it;” while the remaining free Hellenic communities were
degraded, enslaved, and half depopulated. On this topic, the mournful
testimonies already cited from Lysias and Isokrates, are borne out
by the letters of the eye-witness Plato. In his advice, given to the
son and successor of Dionysius, Plato emphatically presses upon him
two points: first, as to the Syracusans, to transform his inherited
oppressive despotism into the rule of a king, governing gently
and by fixed laws; next, to reconstitute and repeople, under free
constitutions, the other Hellenic communities in Sicily, which at
his accession had become nearly barbarised and half deserted.[110]
The elder Dionysius had imported into Sicily large bodies of
mercenaries, by means of whom he had gained his conquests, and for
whom he had provided settlements at the cost of the subdued Hellenic
cities. In Naxos, Katana, Leontini, and Messênê, the previous
residents had been dispossessed and others substituted, out of Gallic
and Iberian mercenaries. Communities thus transformed, with their
former free citizens degraded into dependence or exile, not only
ceased to be purely Hellenic, but also became far less populous and
flourishing. In like manner Dionysius had suppressed, and absorbed
into Syracuse and Lokri, the once autonomous Grecian communities of
Rhegium, Hipponium, and Kaulonia, on the Italian side of the strait.
In the inland regions of Italy, he had allied himself with the
barbarous Lucanians; who, even without his aid, were gaining ground
and pressing hard upon the Italiot Greeks on the coast.
[109] See the citation from Plato, in a note immediately
preceding.
[110] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 315 E. (to the younger Dionysius).
Φασὶ δ᾽ οὐκ ὀλίγοι λέγειν σε πρός τινας τῶν παρά σε πρεσβευόντων,
ὡς ἄρα σοῦ ποτὲ λέγοντος ἀκούσας ἐγὼ μέλλοντος ~τάς τε Ἑλληνίδας
πόλεις ἐν Σικελίᾳ οἰκίζειν, καὶ Συρακουσίους ἐπικουφίσαι~, τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἀντὶ τυραννίδος εἰς βασιλείαν μεταστήσαντα, ταῦτ᾽ ἄρα
σὲ μέν τοτε διεκώλυσα, σοῦ σφόδρα προθυμουμένου, νῦν δὲ Δίωνα
διδάσκοιμι δρᾷν αὐτὰ ταῦτα, καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῖς σοῖς τὴν σὴν
ἀρχὴν ἀφαιρούμεθά σε.
Ibid. p. 319 C. Μή με διάβαλλε λέγων, ὡς οὐκ εἴων σε πόλεις
Ἑλληνίδας ἐῤῥούσας ὑπὸ βαρβάρων οἰκίζειν, οὐδὲ Συρακουσίους
ἐπικουφίσαι ... ~ὡς ἐγὼ μὲν ἐκέλευον, σὺ δ᾽ οὐκ ἤθελες πράττειν
αὐτά~.
Again, see Epistol. vii. p. 331 F. 332 B. 334 D. 336 A.-D.—and
the brief notice given by Photius (Codex, 93) of the lost
historical works of Arrian, respecting Dion and Timoleon.
Epistol. viii. p. 357 A. (What Dion intended to do, had he not
been prevented by death)—Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Σικελίαν ἂν τὴν ἄλλην
κατῴκισα, ~τοὺς μὲν βαρβάρους ἣν νῦν ἔχουσιν ἀφελόμενος, ὅσοι
μὴ ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερίας διεπολέμησαν πρὸς τὴν τυραννίδα,
τοὺς δ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν οἰκητὰς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν τόπων εἰς τὰς ἀρχαίας καὶ
πατρῴας οἰκήσεις κατοικίσας~. Compare Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2.
αἱ δὲ πλεῖσται πόλεις ὑπὸ βαρβάρων μιγάδων καὶ στρατιωτῶν ἀμίσθων
κατείχοντο.
The βάρβαροι to whom Plato alludes in this last passage, are not
the Carthaginians (none of whom could be expected to come in and
fight for the purpose of putting down the despotism at Syracuse),
but the Campanian and other mercenaries provided for by the elder
Dionysius on the lands of the extruded Greeks. These men would
have the strongest interest in upholding the despotism, if the
maintenance of their own properties was connected with it. Dion
thought it prudent to conciliate this powerful force by promising
confirmation of their properties to such of them as would act
upon the side of freedom.
If we examine the results of the warfare carried on by Dionysius
against the Carthaginians, from the commencement to the end of
his career, we shall observe, that he began by losing Gela and
Kamarina, and that the peace by which he was enabled to preserve
Syracuse itself, arose, not from any success of his own, but from the
pestilence which ruined his enemies; to say nothing about traitorous
collusion with them, which I have already remarked to have been the
probable price of their guarantee to his dominion. His war against
the Carthaginians in 397 B. C., was undertaken with much vigor,
recovered Gela, Kamarina, Agrigentum, and Selinus, and promised the
most decisive success. But presently again the tide of fortune turned
against him. He sustained capital defeats, and owed the safety of
Syracuse, a second time, to nothing but the terrific pestilence which
destroyed the army of Imilkon. A third time, in 383 B. C., Dionysius
gratuitously renewed the war against Carthage. After brilliant
success at first, he was again totally defeated, and forced to cede
to Carthage all the territory west of the river Halykus, besides
paying a tribute. So that the exact difference between the Sicilian
territory of Carthage—as it stood at the beginning of his command
and at the end of his reign—amounts to this: that at the earlier
period it reached to the river Himera—at the later period only to the
river Halykus. The intermediate space between the two comprehends
Agrigentum with the greater part of its territory; which represents
therefore the extent of Hellenic soil rescued by Dionysius from
Carthaginian dominion.
CHAPTER LXXXIV.
SICILIAN AFFAIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ELDER DIONYSIUS — DIONYSIUS
THE YOUNGER — AND DION.
The Elder Dionysius, at the moment of his death, boasted of having
left his dominion “fastened by chains of adamant;” that is, sustained
by a large body of mercenaries,[111] well trained and well paid—by
impregnable fortifications on the islet of Ortygia—by four hundred
ships of war—by immense magazines of arms and military stores—and
by established intimidation over the minds of the Syracusans. These
were really “chains of adamant”—so long as there was a man like
Dionysius to keep them in hand. But he left no successor competent
to the task; nor indeed an unobstructed succession. He had issue by
two wives, whom he had married both at the same time, as has been
already mentioned. By the Lokrian wife, Doris, he had his eldest son
named Dionysius, and two others; by the Syracusan wife Aristomachê,
daughter of Hipparinus, he had two sons, Hipparinus and Nysæus—and
two daughters, Sophrosynê and Aretê.[112] Dionysius the younger can
hardly have been less than twenty-five years old at the death of his
father and namesake. Hipparinus, the eldest son by the other wife,
was considerably younger. Aristomachê his mother had long remained
childless; a fact which the elder Dionysius ascribed to incantations
wrought by the mother of the Lokrian wife, and punished by putting to
death the supposed sorceress.[113]
[111] Both Diodorus (xvi. 9) and Cornelius Nepos (Dion, c. 5)
speak of one hundred thousand foot and ten thousand horse. The
former speaks of four hundred ships of war; the latter of five
hundred.
The numbers of foot and horse appear evidently exaggerated. Both
authors must have copied from the same original; possibly Ephorus.
[112] Plutarch, Dion, c. 6; Theopompus, Fr. 204, ed. Didot. ap.
Athenæum, x. p. 435; Diodor. xvi. 6; Cornel. Nepos (Dion, c. 1).
The Scholiast on Plato’s fourth Epistle gives information
respecting the personal relations and marriages of the elder
Dionysius, not wholly agreeing with what is stated in the sixth
chapter of Plutarch’s Life of Dion.
[113] Plutarch, Dion, c. 3. The age of the younger Dionysius is
nowhere positively specified. But in the year 356 B. C.—or 355 B.
C., at the latest—he had a son, Apollokratês, old enough to be
entrusted with the command of Ortygia, when he himself evacuated
it for the first time (Plutarch, Dion, c. 37). We cannot suppose
Apollokratês to have been less than sixteen years of age at
the moment when he was entrusted with such a function, having
his mother and sisters under his charge (c. 50). Apollokratês
therefore must have been born at least as early as 372 B. C.;
perhaps even earlier. Suppose Dionysius the younger to have
been twenty years of age when Apollokratês was born; he would
thus be in his twenty-fifth year in the beginning of 367 B. C.,
when Dionysius the elder died. The expressions of Plato, as to
the youth of Dionysius the younger at that juncture, are not
unsuitable to such an age.
The offspring of Aristomachê, though the younger brood of the two,
derived considerable advantage from the presence and countenance of
her brother Dion. Hipparinus, father of Dion and Aristomachê, had
been the principal abettor of the elder Dionysius in his original
usurpation, in order to retrieve his own fortune,[114] ruined
by profligate expenditure. So completely had that object been
accomplished, that his son Dion was now among the richest men in
Syracuse,[115] possessing property estimated at above one hundred
talents (about £23,000). Dion was, besides, son-in-law to the elder
Dionysius, who had given his daughter Sophrosynê in marriage to
his son (by a different mother) the younger Dionysius; and his
daughter Aretê, first to his brother Thearides—next, on the death
of Thearides, to Dion. As brother of Aristomachê, Dion was thus
brother-in-law to the elder Dionysius, and uncle both to Aretê
his own wife and to Sophrosynê the wife of the younger Dionysius;
as husband of Aretê, he was son-in-law to the elder Dionysius,
and brother-in-law (as well as uncle) to the wife of the younger.
Marriages between near relatives (excluding any such connection
between uterine brother and sister) were usual in Greek manners.
We cannot doubt that the despot accounted the harmony likely to be
produced by such ties between the members of his two families and
Dion, among the “adamantine chains” which held fast his dominion.
[114] Aristotel. Polit. v. 5, 6.
[115] Plato Epistol. vii. p. 347 A. Compare the offer of Dion to
maintain fifty triremes at his own expense (Plutarch, Dion, c. 6.)
Apart from wealth and high position, the personal character of Dion
was in itself marked and prominent. He was of an energetic temper,
great bravery, and very considerable mental capacities. Though his
nature was haughty and disdainful towards individuals, yet as to
political communion, his ambition was by no means purely self-seeking
and egoistic, like that of the elder Dionysius. Animated with
vehement love of power, he was at the same time penetrated with that
sense of regulated polity, and submission of individual will to fixed
laws, which floated in the atmosphere of Grecian talk and literature,
and stood so high in Grecian morality. He was moreover capable of
acting with enthusiasm, and braving every hazard in prosecution of
his own convictions.
Born about the year 408 B. C.,[116] Dion was twenty-one years of age
in 378 B. C., when the elder Dionysius, having dismantled Rhegium
and subdued Kroton, attained the maximum of his dominion, as master
of the Sicilian and Italian Greeks. Standing high in the favor of
his brother-in-law Dionysius, Dion doubtless took part in the wars
whereby this large dominion had been acquired; as well as in the life
of indulgence and luxury which prevailed generally among wealthy
Greeks in Sicily and Italy, and which to the Athenian Plato appeared
alike surprising and repulsive.[117] That great philosopher visited
Italy and Sicily about 387 B. C., as has been already mentioned. He
was in acquaintance and fellowship with the school of philosophers
called Pythagoreans; the remnant of that Pythagorean brotherhood, who
had once exercised so powerful a political influence over the cities
of those regions—and who still enjoyed considerable reputation,
even after complete political downfall, through individual ability
and rank of the members, combined with habits of recluse study,
mysticism, and attachment among themselves. With these Pythagoreans
Dion also, a young man of open mind and ardent aspirations, was
naturally thrown into communication by the proceedings of the elder
Dionysius in Italy.[118] Through them he came into intercourse with
Plato, whose conversation made an epoch in his life.
[116] Dion was fifty-five years of age at the time of his
death, in the fourth year after his departure from Peloponnesus
(Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 10).
His death took place seemingly about 354 B. C. He would thus be
born about 408 B. C.
[117] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 326 D. ἐλθόντα δέ με ὁ ταύτῃ
λεγόμενος αὖ βίος εὐδαίμων, Ἰταλιωτικῶν τε καὶ Συρακουσίων
τραπεζῶν πλήρης, οὐδαμῆ οὐδαμῶς ἤρεσκε, δίς τε τῆς ἡμέρας
ἐμπιμπλάμενον ζῇν καὶ μηδέποτε κοιμώμενον μόνον νύκτωρ, etc.
[118] Cicero, De Finibus, v. 20; De Republic. i. 10. Jamblichus
(Vit. Pythagoræ, c. 199) calls Dion a member of the Pythagorean
brotherhood, which may be doubted; but his assertion that
Dion procured for Plato, though only by means of a large
price (one hundred minæ), the possession of a book composed
by the Pythagorean Philolaus, seems not improbable. The
ancient Pythagoreans wrote nothing. Philolaus (seemingly about
contemporary with Sokrates) was the first Pythagorean who left
any written memorial. That this book could only be obtained by
the intervention of an influential Syracusan—and even by him only
for a large price—is easy to believe.
See the instructive Dissertation of Gruppe, Ueber die Fragmente
des Archytas und der älteren Pythagoreer, p. 24, 26, 48, etc.
The mystic turn of imagination, the sententious brevity, and the
mathematical researches of the Pythagoreans, produced doubtless
an imposing effect upon Dion; just as Lysis, a member of that
brotherhood, had acquired the attachment and influenced the
sentiments of Epaminondas at Thebes. But Plato’s power of working
upon the minds of young men was far more impressive and irresistible.
He possessed a large range of practical experience, a mastery of
political and social topics, and a charm of eloquence, to which the
Pythagoreans were strangers. The stirring effect of the Sokratic
talk, as well as of the democratical atmosphere in which Plato
had been brought up, had developed all the communicative aptitude
of his mind; and great as that aptitude appears in his remaining
dialogues, there is ground for believing that it was far greater in
his conversation; greater perhaps in 387 B. C., when he was still
mainly the Sokratic Plato—than it became in later days, after he had
imbibed to a certain extent the mysticism of these Pythagoreans.[119]
Brought up as Dion had been at the court of Dionysius—accustomed to
see around him only slavish deference and luxurious enjoyment—unused
to open speech or large philosophical discussion—he found in Plato a
new man exhibited, and a new world opened before him.
[119] See a remarkable passage, Plato, Epist. vii p. 328 F.
The conception of a free community—with correlative rights and duties
belonging to every citizen, determined by laws and protected or
enforced by power emanating from the collective entity called the
City—stood in the foreground of ordinary Grecian morality—reigned
spontaneously in the bosoms of every Grecian festival crowd—and had
been partially imbibed by Dion, though not from his own personal
experience, yet from teachers, sophists, and poets. This conception,
essential and fundamental with philosophers as well as with the
vulgar, was not merely set forth by Plato with commanding powers
of speech, but also exalted with improvements and refinements into
an ideal perfection. Above all, it was based upon a strict, even
an abstemious and ascetic, canon, as to individual enjoyment; and
upon a careful training both of mind and body, qualifying each man
for the due performance of his duties as a citizen; a subject which
Plato (as we see by his dialogues) did not simply propound with the
direct enforcement of a preacher, but touched with the quickening
and pungent effect, and reinforced with the copious practical
illustrations, of Sokratic dialogue.
As the stimulus from the teacher was here put forth with consummate
efficacy, so the predisposition of the learner enabled it to take
full effect. Dion became an altered man both in public sentiment and
in individual behavior. He recollected that twenty years before, his
country Syracuse had been as free as Athens. He learnt to abhor the
iniquity of the despotism by which her liberty had been overthrown,
and by which subsequently the liberties of so many other Greeks in
Italy and Sicily had been trodden down also. He was made to remark,
that Sicily had been half-barbarized through the foreign mercenaries
imported as the despot’s instruments. He conceived the sublime idea
or dream of rectifying all this accumulation of wrong and suffering.
It was his wish first to cleanse Syracuse from the blot of slavery,
and to clothe her anew in the brightness and dignity of freedom;
yet not with the view of restoring the popular government as it
had stood prior to the usurpation, but of establishing an improved
constitutional policy, originated by himself, with laws which should
not only secure individual rights, but also educate and moralize the
citizens.[120] The function which he imagined to himself, and which
the conversation of Plato suggested, was not that of a despot like
Dionysius, but that of a despotic legislator like Lykurgus,[121]
taking advantage of a momentary omnipotence, conferred upon him by
grateful citizens in a state of public confusion, to originate a good
system; which, when once put in motion, would keep itself alive by
fashioning the minds of the citizens to its own intrinsic excellence.
After having thus both liberated and reformed Syracuse, Dion promised
to himself that he would employ Syracusan force, not in annihilating,
but in recreating, other free Hellenic communities throughout the
island; expelling from thence all the barbarians—both the imported
mercenaries and the Carthaginians.
[120] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 335 F. Δίωνα γὰρ ἐγὼ σαφῶς οἶδα, ὡς
οἷόν τε περὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπον διϊσχυρίζεσθαι, ὅτι τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰ
κατέσχεν, ὡς οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐπ᾽ ἄλλο γε σχῆμα τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐτράπετο,
ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ—Συρακούσας μὲν πρῶτον, τὴν πατρίδα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, ἐπεὶ
τὴν δουλείαν αὐτῆς ἀπήλλαξε καὶ φαιδρύνας ἐλευθερίῳ ἐν σχήματι
κατέστησε, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἂν πάσῃ μηχάνῃ ἐκόσμησε νόμοις τοῖς
προσήκουσί τε καὶ ἀρίστοις τοὺς πολίτας—τό τε ἐφεξῆς τούτοις
προυθυμεῖτ᾽ ἂν πρᾶξαι, πᾶσαν Σικελίαν κατοικίζειν καὶ ἐλευθέραν
ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων ποιεῖν, τοὺς μὲν ἐκβάλλων, τοὺς δὲ χειρούμενος
ῥᾷον Ἱέρωνος, etc.
Compare the beginning of the same epistle, p. 324 A.
[121] Plato, Epist. iv. p. 320 F. (addressed to Dion). ... ὡς οὖν
ὑπὸ πάντων ὁρώμενος παρασκευάζου τόν τε Λυκοῦργον ἐκεῖνον ἀρχαῖον
ἀποδείξων, καὶ τὸν Κῦρον καὶ εἴτις ἄλλος πώποτε ἔδοξεν ἤθει καὶ
πολιτείᾳ διενεγκεῖν, etc.
Such were the hopes and projects which arose in the mind of the
youthful Dion as he listened to Plato; hopes pregnant with future
results which neither of them contemplated—and not unworthy of being
compared with those enthusiastic aspirations which the young Spartan
kings Agis and Kleomenes imbibed, a century afterwards, in part from
the conversation of the philosopher Sphærus.[122] Never before had
Plato met with a pupil who so quickly apprehended, so profoundly
meditated, or so passionately laid to heart, his lessons.[123]
Inflamed with his newly communicated impulse towards philosophy, as
the supreme guide and directress of virtuous conduct, Dion altered
his habits of life; exchanging the splendor and luxury of a Sicilian
rich man for the simple fare and regulated application becoming a
votary of the Academy. In this course he persisted without faltering
throughout all his residence at the court of Dionysius, in spite
of the unpopularity contracted among his immediate companions.
His enthusiasm even led him to believe, that the despot himself,
unable to resist that persuasive tongue by which he had been himself
converted, might be gently brought round into an employment of his
mighty force for beneficent and reformatory purposes. Accordingly
Dion, inviting Plato to Syracuse, procured for him an interview
with Dionysius. How miserably the speculation failed, has been
recounted in my last chapter. Instead of acquiring a new convert, the
philosopher was fortunate in rescuing his own person, and in making
good his returning footsteps out of that lion’s den, into which the
improvident enthusiasm of his young friend had inveigled him.
[122] Plutarch, Kleomenes, c. 2-11.
[123] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 327 A. Δίων μὲν γὰρ δὴ μάλ᾽
εὐμαθὴς ὢν πρός τε τἄλλα, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τότε ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ λεγομένους
λόγους, οὕτως ὀξέως ὑπήκουσε καὶ σφόδρα, ὡς οὐδεὶς πώποτε ὧν ἐγὼ
προσέτυχον νέων, καὶ τὸν ἐπίλοιπον βίον ζῇν ἠθέλησε διαφερόντως
τῶν πολλῶν Ἰταλιωτῶν καὶ Σικελιωτῶν, ἀρετὴν περὶ πλείονος ἡδονῆς
τῆς τε ἄλλης τρυφῆς ποιούμενος· ὅθεν ἐπαχθέστερον τοῖς περὶ τὰ
τυραννικὰ νόμιμα ζῶσιν ἐβίω, μέχρι τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ περὶ Διονύσιον
γενομένου.
Plutarch, Dion, c. 4. ὡς πρῶτον ἐγεύσατο λόγου καὶ φιλοσοφίας
ἡγεμονικῆς πρὸς ἀρετήν, ἀνεφλέχθη τὴν ψυχὴν, etc.
The harsh treatment of Plato by Dionysius was a painful, though
salutary, warning to Dion. Without sacrificing either his own
convictions, or the philosophical regularity of life which he had
thought fit to adopt—he saw that patience was imperatively necessary,
and he so conducted himself as to maintain unabated the favor and
confidence of Dionysius. Such a policy would probably be recommended
to him even by Plato, in prospect of a better future. But it would
be strenuously urged by the Pythagoreans of Southern Italy; among
whom was Archytas, distinguished not only as a mathematician and
friend of Plato, but also as the chief political magistrate of
Tarentum. To these men, who dwelt all within the reach,[124] if not
under the dominion, of this formidable Syracusan despot, it would
be an unspeakable advantage to have a friend like Dion near him,
possessing his confidence, and serving as a shield to them against
his displeasure or interference. Dion so far surmounted his own
unbending nature as to conduct himself towards Dionysius with skill
and prudence. He was employed by the despot in several important
affairs, especially in embassies to Carthage, which he fulfilled
well, especially with conspicuous credit for eloquence; and also in
the execution of various cruel orders, which his humanity secretly
mitigated.[125] After the death of Thearides, Dionysius gave to Dion
in marriage the widow Aretê (his daughter), and continued until the
last to treat him with favor, accepting from him a freedom of censure
such as he would tolerate from no other adviser.
[124] See the story in Jamblichus (Vit. Pythagoræ, c. 189) of a
company of Syracusan troops under Eurymenes the brother of Dion,
sent to lay in ambuscade for some Pythagoreans between Tarentum
and Metapontum. The story has not the air of truth; but the state
of circumstances, which it supposes, illustrates the relation
between Dionysius and the cities in the Tarentine Gulf.
[125] Plutarch, Dion, c. 5, 6; Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 1, 2.
During the many years which elapsed before the despot died, we
cannot doubt that Dion found opportunities of visiting Peloponnesus
and Athens, for the great festivals and other purposes. He would
thus keep up his friendship and philosophical communication with
Plato. Being as he was minister and relative, and perhaps successor
presumptive, of the most powerful prince in Greece, he would
enjoy everywhere great importance, which would be enhanced by his
philosophy and eloquence. The Spartans, at that time the allies
of Dionysius, conferred upon Dion the rare honor of a vote of
citizenship;[126] and he received testimonies of respect from other
cities also. Such honors tended to exalt his reputation at Syracuse;
while the visits to Athens and the cities of Central Greece enlarged
his knowledge both of politicians and philosophers.
[126] Plutarch, Dion, c. 17, 49. Respecting the rarity of
the vote of Spartan citizenship, see a remarkable passage of
Herodotus, ix. 33-35.
Plutarch states that the Spartans voted their citizenship to
Dion during his exile, while he was in Peloponnesus after the
year 367 B. C., at enmity with the younger Dionysius then despot
of Syracuse; whom (according to Plutarch) the Spartans took the
risk of offending, in order that they might testify their extreme
admiration for Dion.
I cannot but think that Plutarch is mistaken as to the time
of this grant. In and after 367 B. C. the Spartans were under
great depression, playing the losing game against Thebes. It is
scarcely conceivable that they should be imprudent enough to
alienate a valuable ally for the sake of gratuitously honoring
an exile whom he hated and had banished. Whereas if we suppose
the vote to have been passed during the lifetime of the elder
Dionysius, it would count as a compliment to him as well as to
Dion, and would thus be an act of political prudence as well as
of genuine respect. Plutarch speaks as if he supposed that Dion
was never in Peloponnesus until the time of his exile, which is,
in my judgment, highly improbable.
At length occurred the death of the elder Dionysius, occasioned by
an unexpected attack of fever, after a few days’ illness. He had
made no special announcement about his succession. Accordingly, as
soon as the physicians pronounced him to be in imminent danger, a
competition arose between his two families: on the one hand Dionysius
the younger, his son by the Lokrian wife Doris; on the other, his
wife Aristomachê and her brother Dion, representing her children
Hipparinus and Nysæus, then very young. Dion, wishing to obtain
for these two youths either a partnership in the future power, or
some other beneficial provision, solicited leave to approach the
bedside of the sick man. But the physicians refused to grant his
request without apprising the younger Dionysius; who, being resolved
to prevent it, directed a soporific portion to be administered to
his father, from the effects of which the latter never awoke so as
to be able to see any one.[127] The interview with Dion being thus
frustrated, and the father dying without giving any directions,
Dionysius the younger succeeded as eldest son, without opposition. He
was presented to that which was called an assembly of the Syracusan
people,[128] and delivered some conciliatory phrases, requesting them
to continue to him that good-will which they had so long shown to his
father. Consent and acclamation were of course not wanting, to the
new master of the troops, treasures, magazines, and fortifications in
Ortygia; those “adamantine chains” which were well known to dispense
with the necessity of any real popular good-will.
[127] Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 2; Plutarch, Dion, c. 6.
[128] Diodor. xv. 74.
Dionysius II. (or the younger), then about twenty-five years of age,
was a young man of considerable natural capacity, and of quick and
lively impulses;[129] but weak and vain in his character, given to
transitory caprices, and eager in his appetite for praise without
being capable of any industrious or resolute efforts to earn it.
As yet he was wholly unpractised in serious business of any kind.
He had neither seen military service nor mingled in the discussion
of political measures; having been studiously kept back from both,
by the extreme jealousy of his father. His life had been passed in
the palace or acropolis of Ortygia, amidst all the indulgences and
luxuries belonging to a princely station, diversified with amateur
carpenter’s work and turnery. However, the tastes of the father
introduced among the guests at the palace a certain number of
poets, reciters, musicians, etc., so that the younger Dionysius had
contracted a relish for poetical literature, which opened his mind
to generous sentiments, and large conceptions of excellence, more
than any portion of his very confined experience. To philosophy,
to instructive conversation, to the exercise of reason, he was
a stranger.[130] But the very feebleness and indecision of his
character presented him as impressible, perhaps improvable, by a
strong will and influence brought to bear upon him from that quarter,
at least as well as from any other.
[129] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 338 E. Ὁ δὲ οὔτε ἄλλως ἐστὶν ἀφυὴς
πρὸς τὴν τοῦ μανθάνειν δύναμιν, φιλότιμος δὲ θαυμαστῶς, etc.
Compare p. 330 A. p. 328 B.; also Epist. iii. p. 316 C. p. 317 E.
Plutarch, Dion, c. 7-9.
[130] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 E. ἐπειδὴ τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς
αὐτῷ συνεβεβήκει οὕτως ἀνομιλήτῳ μὲν παιδείας, ἀνομιλήτῳ δὲ
συνουσιῶν τῶν προσηκουσῶν γεγονέναι, etc.
Such was the novice who suddenly stept into the place of the most
energetic and powerful despot of the Grecian world. Dion—being
as he was of mature age, known service and experience, and full
enjoyment of the confidence of the elder Dionysius,—might have
probably raised material opposition to the younger. But he attempted
no such thing. He acknowledged and supported the young prince with
cordial sincerity, dropping altogether those views, whatever they
were, on behalf of the children of Aristomachê, which had induced
him to solicit the last interview with the sick man. While exerting
himself to strengthen and facilitate the march of the government, he
tried to gain influence and ascendency over the mind of the young
Dionysius. At the first meeting of council which took place after
the accession, Dion stood conspicuous not less for his earnest
adhesion than for his dignified language and intelligent advice.
The remaining councillors—accustomed, under the self-determining
despot who had just quitted the scene, to the simple function
of hearing, applauding, and obeying, his directions—exhausted
themselves in phrases and compliments, waiting to catch the tone
of the young prince before they ventured to pronounce any decided
opinion. But Dion, to whose freedom of speech even the elder
Dionysius had partially submitted, disdained all such tampering,
entered at once into a full review of the actual situation, and
suggested the positive measures proper to be adopted. We cannot
doubt that, in the transmission of an authority which had rested so
much on the individual spirit of the former possessor, there were
many precautions to be taken, especially in regard to the mercenary
troops both at Syracuse and in the outlying dependencies. All these
necessities of the moment Dion set forth, together with suitable
advice. But the most serious of all the difficulties arose out of
the war with Carthage still subsisting, which it was foreseen that
the Carthaginians were likely to press more vigorously, calculating
on the ill-assured tenure and inexperienced management of the new
prince. This difficulty Dion took upon himself. If the council
should think it wise to make peace, he engaged to go to Carthage and
negotiate peace—a task in which he had been more than once employed
under the elder Dionysius. If, on the other hand, it were resolved
to prosecute the war, he advised that imposing forces should be at
once put in equipment, promising to furnish, out of his own large
property, a sum sufficient for the outfit of fifty triremes.[131]
[131] Plutarch Dion, c. 6.
The young Dionysius was not only profoundly impressed with the
superior wisdom and suggestive resource of Dion, but also grateful
for his generous offer of pecuniary as well as personal support.[132]
In all probability Dion actually carried the offer into effect, for
to a man of his disposition, money had little value except as a
means of extending influence and acquiring reputation. The war with
Carthage seems to have lasted at least throughout the next year,[133]
and to have been terminated not long afterwards. But it never assumed
those perilous proportions which had been contemplated by the council
as probable. As a mere contingency, however, it was sufficient to
inspire Dionysius with alarm, combined with the other exigencies of
his new situation. At first he was painfully conscious of his own
inexperience; anxious about hazards which he now saw for the first
time, and not merely open to advice, but eager and thankful for
suggestions, from any quarter where he could place confidence. Dion,
identified by ancient connection as well as by marriage with the
Dionysian family—trusted, more than any one else, by the old despot,
and surrounded with that accessory dignity which ascetic strictness
of life usually confers in excess—presented every title to such
confidence. And when he was found not only the most trustworthy, but
the most frank and fearless, of councillors, Dionysius gladly yielded
both to the measures which he advised and to the impulses which he
inspired.
[132] Plutarch, Dion, c. 7. Ὁ μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος ὑπερφυῶς τὴν
μεγαλοψυχίαν ἐθαύμασε καὶ τὴν προθυμίαν ἠγάπησεν.
[133] Dionysius II. was engaged at war at the time when Plato
first visited him at Syracuse, within the year immediately after
his accession (Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 317 A). We may reasonably
presume that this was the war with Carthage.
Compare Diodorus (xvi. 5), who mentions that the younger
Dionysius also carried on war for some little time, in a languid
manner, against the Lucanians; and that he founded two cities on
the coast of Apulia in the Adriatic. I think it probable that
these two last-mentioned foundations were acts of Dionysius I.,
not of Dionysius II. They were not likely to be undertaken by a
young prince of backward disposition, at his first accession.
Such was the political atmosphere of Syracuse during the period
immediately succeeding the new accession, while the splendid
obsequies in honor of the departed Dionysius were being solemnized;
coupled with a funeral pile so elaborate as to confer celebrity on
Timæus the constructor—and commemorated by architectural monuments,
too grand to be permanent,[134] immediately outside of Ortygia, near
the Regal Gates leading to that citadel. Among the popular measures,
natural at the commencement of a new reign, the historian Philistus
was recalled from exile.[135] He had been one of the oldest and most
attached partisans of the elder Dionysius; by whom, however, he had
at last been banished, and never afterwards forgiven. His recall
now seemed to promise a new and valuable assistant to the younger,
whom it also presented as softening the rigorous proceedings of his
father. In this respect, it would harmonize with the views of Dion,
though Philistus afterwards became his great opponent.
[134] Tacitus, Histor. ii. 49. “Othoni sepulcrum exstructum est,
modicum, et mansurum.”
A person named Timæus was immortalized as the constructor of the
funeral pile: see Athenæus, v. p. 206. Both Göller (Timæi Fragm.
95) and M. Didot (Timæi Fr. 126) have referred this passage to
Timæus the historian, and have supposed it to relate to the
description given by Timæus of the funeral-pile. But the passage
in Athenæus seems to me to indicate Timæus as the _builder_, not
the _describer_, of this famous πυρά.
It is he who is meant, probably, in the passage of Cicero (De
Naturâ Deor. iii. 35)—(Dionysius) “in suo lectulo mortuus in
_Tympanidis rogum illatus est_, eamque potestatem quam ipse per
scelus erat nactus, quasi justam et legitimam hereditatis loco
filio tradidit.” This seems at least the best way of explaining a
passage which perplexes the editors: see the note of Davis.
[135] Plutarch (De Exilio. p. 637) and Cornelius Nepos (Dion,
c. 3) represent that Philistus was recalled at the persuasion
of the enemies of Dion, as a counterpoise and corrective to the
ascendency of the latter over Dionysius the younger. Though
Philistus afterwards actually performed this part, I doubt
whether such was the motive which caused him to be recalled. He
seems to have come back _before_ the obsequies of Dionysius the
elder; that is, very early after the commencement of the new
reign. Philistus had described, in his history, these obsequies
in a manner so elaborate and copious, that this passage in his
work excited the special notice of the ancient critics (see
Philisti Fragment. 42, ed. Didot; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 34). I
venture to think that this proves him to have been _present_ at
the obsequies; which would of course be very impressive to him,
since they were among the first things which he saw after his
long exile.
Dion was now both the prime minister, and the confidential monitor,
of the young Dionysius. He upheld the march of the government with
undiminished energy, and was of greater political importance than
Dionysius himself. But success in this object was not the end for
which Dion labored. He neither wished to serve a despot, nor to
become a despot himself. The moment was favorable for resuming that
project which he had formerly imbibed from Plato, and which, in spite
of contemptuous disparagement by his former master, had ever since
clung to him as the dream of his heart and life. To make Syracuse a
free city, under a government, not of will, but of good laws, with
himself as lawgiver in substance, if not in name—to enfranchise and
replant the semi-barbarised Hellenic cities in Sicily—and to expel
the Carthaginians—were schemes to which he now again devoted himself
with unabated enthusiasm. But he did not look to any other means of
achieving them than the consent and initiative of Dionysius himself.
The man who had been sanguine enough to think of working upon the
iron soul of the father, was not likely to despair of shaping anew
the more malleable metal of which the son was composed. Accordingly,
while lending to Dionysius his best service as minister, he also
took up the Platonic profession, and tried to persuade him to reform
both himself and his government. He endeavored to awaken in him
a relish for a better and nobler private conduct than that which
prevailed among the luxurious companions around him. He dwelt with
enthusiasm on the scientific and soul-stirring conversation of Plato;
specimens[136] of which he either read aloud or repeated, exalting
the hearer not only to a higher intellectual range, but also to the
full majesty of mind requisite for ruling others with honor and
improvement. He pointed out the unrivalled glory which Dionysius
would acquire in the eyes of Greece, by consenting to employ his vast
power, not as a despot working on the fears of subjects, but as a
king enforcing temperance and justice, by his own paternal example
as well as by good laws. He tried to show that Dionysius, after
having liberated Syracuse, and enrolled himself as a king limited and
responsible amidst grateful citizens, would have far more real force
against the barbarians than at present.[137]
[136] Plutarch, Dion, c. 11. Ταῦτα πολλάκις τοῦ Δίωνος
παραινοῦντος, καὶ τῶν λόγων τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἔστιν οὕστινας
ὑποσπείροντος, etc.
[137] Plutarch, Dion, c. 10, 11; Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 C.
Such were the new convictions which Dion tried to work into the mind
of the young Dionysius, as a living faith and sentiment. Penetrated
as he was with the Platonic idea—that nothing could be done for the
improvement and happiness of mankind,[138] until philosophy and
ruling power came together in the same hands; but everything, if the
two did so come together—he thought that he saw before him a chance
of realizing the conjunction, in the case of the greatest among all
Hellenic potentates. He already beheld in fancy his native country
and fellow citizens liberated, moralized, ennobled, and conducted
to happiness, without murder or persecution,[139] simply by the
well-meaning and instructed employment of power already organized. If
accident had thrown the despotism into the hands of Dion himself, at
this period of his life, the Grecian world would probably have seen
an experiment tried, as memorable and generous as any event recorded
in its history: what would have been its result, we cannot say. But
it was enough to fire his inmost soul, to see himself separated from
the experiment only by the necessity of persuading an impressible
young man over whom he had much influence; and for himself he was
quite satisfied with the humbler position of nominal minister, but
real originator and chief, in so noble an enterprise.[140] His
persuasive powers, strengthened as they were by intense earnestness
as well as by his imposing station and practical capacity, actually
wrought a great effect upon Dionysius. The young man appeared
animated with a strong desire of self-improvement, and of qualifying
himself for such a use of the powers of government as Dion depicted.
He gave proof of the sincerity of his feeling by expressing eagerness
to see and converse with Plato, to whom he sent several personal
messages, warmly requesting him to visit Syracuse.[141]
[138] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 328 A. p. 335 E.; Plato, Republic,
vi. p. 499 C. D.
[139] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 E. ... Ὃ δὴ καὶ νῦν εἰ
διαπράξαιτο ἐν Διονυσίῳ ὡς ἐπεχείρησε, μεγάλας ἐλπίδας εἶχεν,
ἄνευ σφαγῶν καὶ θανάτων καὶ τῶν νῦν γεγονότων κακῶν, βίον ἂν
εὐδαίμονα καὶ ἀληθινὸν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ χώρᾳ κατασκευάσαι.
[140] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 B. Ταὐτὸν πρὸς Δίωνα Συρακόσιοι
τότε ἔπαθον, ὅπερ καὶ Διονύσιος, ὅτε αὐτὸν ἐπεχείρει παιδεύσας
καὶ θρέψας βασιλέα τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄξιον, οὕτω κοινωνεῖν αὐτῷ τοῦ βίου
παντός.
[141] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 E.; Plutarch. Dion, c. 11.
ἔσχεν ἔρως τὸν Διονύσιον ὀξὺς καὶ περιμανὴς τῶν τε λόγων καὶ
τῆς συνουσίας τοῦ Πλάτωνος. Εὐθὺς οὖν Ἀθήναζε πολλὰ μὲν ἐφοίτα
γράμματα παρὰ τοῦ Διονυσίου, πολλαὶ δ᾽ ἐπισκήψεις τοῦ Δίωνος,
ἄλλαι δ᾽ ἐξ Ἰταλίας παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν, etc.
This was precisely the first step which Dion had been laboring to
bring about. He well knew, and had personally felt, the wonderful
magic of Plato’s conversation when addressed to young men. To
bring Plato to Syracuse, and to pour his eloquent language into
the predisposed ears of Dionysius, appeared like realizing the
conjunction of philosophy and power. Accordingly he sent to Athens,
along with the invitation from Dionysius, the most pressing and
emphatic entreaties from himself. He represented the immense prize
to be won—nothing less than the means of directing the action of
an organized power, extending over all the Greeks of Italy and
Sicily—provided only the mind of Dionysius could be thoroughly gained
over. This (he said) was already half done; not only Dionysius
himself, but also his youthful half brothers of the other line, had
been impressed with earnest mental aspirations, and longed to drink
at the pure fountain of true philosophy. Everything presaged complete
success, such as would render them hearty and active proselytes, if
Plato would only come forthwith—before hostile influences could have
time to corrupt them—and devote to the task his unrivalled art of
penetrating the youthful mind. These hostile influences were indeed
at work, and with great activity; if victorious, they would not only
defeat the project of Dion, but might even provoke his expulsion, or
threaten his life. Could Plato, by declining the invitation, leave
his devoted champion and apostle to fight so great a battle, alone
and unassisted? What could Plato say for himself afterwards, if by
declining to come, he not only let slip the greatest prospective
victory which had ever been opened to philosophy, but also permitted
the corruption of Dionysius and the ruin of Dion?[142]
[142] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 328.
Such appeals, in themselves emphatic and touching, reached Athens
reinforced by solicitations, hardly less strenuous, from Archytas
of Tarentum and the other Pythagorean philosophers in the south of
Italy; to whose personal well-being, over and above the interests of
philosophy, the character of the future Syracusan government was of
capital importance. Plato was deeply agitated and embarrassed. He
was now sixty-one years of age. He enjoyed preëminent estimation,
in the grove of Akadêmus near Athens, amidst admiring hearers from
all parts of Greece. The Athenian democracy, if it accorded to him
no influence on public affairs, neither molested him nor dimmed
his intellectual glory. The proposed voyage to Syracuse carried
him out of his enviable position into a new field of hazard and
speculation; brilliant indeed and flattering, beyond anything which
had ever been approached by philosophy, if it succeeded; but fraught
with disgrace, and even with danger to all concerned, if it failed.
Plato had already seen the elder Dionysius surrounded by his walls
and mercenaries in Ortygia, and had learnt by cruel experience the
painful consequences of propounding philosophy to an intractable
hearer, whose displeasure passed so readily into act. The sight
of contemporary despots nearer home, such as Euphron of Sikyon
and Alexander of Pheræ, was by no means reassuring; nor could he
reasonably stake his person and reputation on the chance, that the
younger Dionysius might prove a glorious exception to the general
rule. To outweigh such scruples, he had indeed the positive and
respectful invitation of Dionysius himself; which however would have
passed for a transitory, though vehement caprice on the part of a
young prince, had it not been backed by the strong assurances of a
mature man and valued friend like Dion. To these assurances, and to
the shame which would be incurred by leaving Dion to fight the battle
and incur the danger alone, Plato sacrificed his own grounds for
hesitation. He went to Syracuse, less with the hope of succeeding in
the intended conversion of Dionysius, than from the fear of hearing
both himself and his philosophy taunted with confessed impotence—as
fit only for the discussions of the school, shrinking from all
application to practice, betraying the interest of his Pythagorean
friends, and basely deserting that devoted champion who had half
opened the door to him for triumphant admission.[143]
[143] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 328. Ταύτῃ μὲν τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ
τόλμῃ ἀπῇρα ~οἴκοθεν, οὐχ ᾗ τινὲς ἐδόξαζον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰσχυνόμενος
μὲν ἐμαυτὸν τὸ μέγιστον~, μὴ δόξαιμί ποτε ἐμαυτῷ παντάπασι
λόγος μόνον ἀτεχνῶς εἶναί τις, ἔργου δὲ οὐδενὸς ἄν ποτε ἑκὼν
ἀνθάψασθαι, κινδυνεύσειν δὲ προδοῦναι πρῶτον μὲν τὴν Δίωνος
ξενίαν ἐν κινδύνοις ὄντως γεγονότος οὐ σμικροῖς· εἴτ᾽ οὖν πάθοι
τι, εἴτ᾽ ἐκπεσὼν ὑπὸ Διονυσίου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐχθρῶν ἔλθοι παρ᾽
ἡμᾶς φεύγων, καὶ ἀνέροιτο, εἰπών, etc.
Such is the account which the philosopher gives of his own state
of mind in going to Syracuse. At the same time, he intimates that
his motives were differently interpreted by others.[144] And as
the account which we possess was written fifteen years after the
event—when Dion had perished, when the Syracusan enterprise had
realized nothing like what was expected, and when Plato looked back
upon it with the utmost grief and aversion,[145] which must have
poisoned the last three or four years of his life—we may fairly
suspect that he partially transfers back to 367 B. C. the feelings
of 352 B. C.; and that at the earlier period, he went to Syracuse
not merely because he was ashamed to decline, but because he really
flattered himself with some hopes of success.
[144] This is contained in the words ~οὐχ ᾗ τινὲς
ἐδόξαζον~—before cited.
[145] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 E. ταῦτα εἶπον μεμισηκὼς τὴν
περὶ Σικελίαν πλάνην καὶ ἀτυχίαν, etc.
Xenokrates seems to have accompanied Plato to Sicily (Diogen.
Laert. iv. 2, 1).
However desponding he may have been before, he could hardly fail
to conceive hopes from the warmth of his first reception. One of
the royal carriages met him at his landing, and conveyed him to
his lodging. Dionysius offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the
gods for his safe arrival. The banquets at the acropolis became
distinguished for their plainness and sobriety. Never had Dionysius
been seen so gentle in answering suitors or transacting public
business. He began immediately to take lessons in geometry from
Plato. Every one around him, of course, was suddenly smitten with
a taste for geometry;[146] so that the floors were all spread
with sand, and nothing was to be seen except triangles and other
figures inscribed upon it, with expositors and a listening crowd
around them. To those who had been inmates of the acropolis, under
the reign of the former despot, this change was surprising enough.
But their surprise was converted into alarm, when, at a periodical
sacrifice just then offered, Dionysius himself arrested the herald
in pronouncing the customary prayer to the gods—“That the despotism
might long remain unshaken.” “Stop! (said Dionysius to the herald)
imprecate no such curse upon us!”[147] To the ears of Philistus,
and the old politicians, these words portended nothing less than
revolution to the dynasty, and ruin to Syracusan power. A single
Athenian sophist (they exclaimed), with no other force than his
tongue and his reputation, had achieved the conquest of Syracuse; an
attempt in which thousands of his countrymen had miserably perished
half a century before.[148] Ineffably were they disgusted to see
Dionysius abdicate in favor of Plato, and exchange the care of his
vast force and dominion for geometrical problems and discussions on
the _summum bonum_.
[146] Plutarch, De Adulator, et Amici Discrimine, p. 52 C.
[147] Plutarch, Dion, c. 13. Οὐ παύσῃ καταρώμενος ἡμῖν;
[148] Plutarch, Dion, c. 14. Ἔνιοι δὲ προσεποιοῦντο δυσχεραίνειν,
εἰ πρότερον μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι ναυτικαῖς καὶ πεζικαῖς δυνάμεσι δεῦρο
πλεύσαντες ἀπώλοντο καὶ διεφθάρησαν πρότερον ἢ λαβεῖν Συρακούσας,
νυνὶ δὲ δι᾽ ~ἑνὸς σοφιστοῦ~ καταλύουσι τὴν Διονυσίου τυραννίδα,
etc.
Plato is here described as a _Sophist_, in the language of those
who did not like him. Plato, the great authority who is always
quoted in disparagement of the persons called _Sophists_, is as
much entitled to the name as they, and is called so equally by
unfriendly commentators. I drew particular attention to this
fact in my sixty-eighth chapter (Vol. VIII.), where I endeavored
to show that there was no school, sect, or body of persons
distinguished by uniformity of doctrine or practice, properly
called _Sophists_, and that the name was common to all literary
men or teachers, when spoken of in an unfriendly spirit.
For a moment Plato seemed to be despot of Syracuse; so that the
noble objects for which Dion had labored were apparently within his
reach, either wholly or in part. And as far as we can judge, they
really were to a great degree within his reach—had this situation,
so interesting and so fraught with consequences to the people of
Sicily, been properly turned to account. With all reverence for the
greatest philosopher of antiquity, we are forced to confess that upon
his own showing, he not only failed to turn the situation to account,
but contributed even to spoil it by an unseasonable rigor. To admire
philosophy in its distinguished teachers, is one thing; to learn and
appropriate it, is another stage, rarer and more difficult, requiring
assiduous labor, and no common endowments; while that which Plato
calls “the philosophical life,”[149] or practical predominance of a
well-trained intellect and well-chosen ethical purposes, combined
with the minimum of personal appetite—is a third stage, higher and
rarer still. Now Dionysius had reached the first stage only. He had
contracted a warm and profound admiration for Plato. He had imbibed
this feeling from the exhortations of Dion; and we shall see by his
subsequent conduct that it was really a feeling both sincere and
durable. But he admired Plato without having either inclination or
talent to ascend higher, and to acquire what Plato called philosophy.
Now it was an unexpected good fortune, and highly creditable to the
persevering enthusiasm of Dion, that Dionysius should have been wound
up so far as to admire Plato, to invoke his presence, and to instal
him as a sort of spiritual power by the side of the temporal. Thus
much was more than could have been expected; but to demand more,
and to insist that Dionysius should go to school and work through
a course of mental regeneration—was a purpose hardly possible to
attain, and positively mischievous if it failed. Unfortunately, it
was exactly this error which Plato, and Dion in deference to Plato,
seem to have committed. Instead of taking advantage of the existing
ardor of Dionysius to instigate him at once into active political
measures beneficial to the people of Syracuse and Sicily, with the
full force of an authority which, at that moment, would have been
irresistible—instead of heartening him up against groundless fears
or difficulties of execution, and seeing that full honor was done
to him for all the good which he really accomplished, meditated, or
adopted—Plato postponed all these as matters for which his royal
pupil was not yet ripe. He and Dion began to deal with Dionysius as
a confessor treats his penitent; to probe the interior man[150]—to
expose him to his own unworthiness—to show that his life, his
training, his companions, had all been vicious—to insist upon
repentance and amendment upon these points, before he could receive
absolution, and be permitted to enter upon active political life—to
tell him that he must reform himself, and become a rational and
temperate man, before he was fit to enter seriously on the task of
governing others.
[149] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 330 B. Ἐγὼ δὲ πάντα ὑπέμενον, τὴν
πρώτην διάνοιαν φυλάττων ᾗπερ ἀφικόμην, εἴπως εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν ἔλθοι
~τῆς φιλοσόφου ζωῆς~ (Dionysius)—ὁ δ᾽ ἐνίκησεν ἀντιτείνων.
[150] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 E. Ἃ δὴ καὶ Διονυσίῳ
συνεβουλεύομεν ἐγὼ καὶ Δίων, ἐπειδὴ τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ
συνεβεβήκει, οὕτως ἀνομιλήτῳ μὲν παιδείας, ἀνομιλήτῳ δὲ συνουσιῶν
τῶν προσηκουσῶν γεγονέναι, ~πρῶτον~ ἐπὶ ταῦτα ὁρμήσαντα φίλους
ἄλλους αὑτῷ τῶν οἰκείων ἅμα καὶ ἡλικιωτῶν καὶ συμφώνους πρὸς
ἀρετὴν κτήσασθαι, ~μάλιστα δὲ αὐτὸν αὑτῷ, τούτου γὰρ αὐτὸν
θαυμαστῶς ἐνδεᾶ γεγονέναι· λέγοντες οὐκ ἐναργῶς οὕτως—οὐ γὰρ ἦν
ἀσφαλὲς~—ὡς οὕτω μὲν πᾶς ἀνὴρ αὑτόν τε καὶ ἐκείνους ὧν ἂν ἡγεμὼν
γένηται σώσει, μὴ ταύτῃ δὲ τραπόμενος τἀναντία πάντα ἀποτελεῖ·
πορευθεὶς δὲ ὡς λέγομεν, ~καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἔμφρονα καὶ σώφρονα
ποιησάμενος~, εἰ τὰς ἐξηρημωμένας Σικελίας πόλεις κατοικίσειε
νόμοις τε ξυνδήσειε καὶ πολιτείαις, etc.
Compare also p. 331 F.
Such was the language which Plato and Dion held to Dionysius. They
well knew indeed that they were treading on delicate ground—that
while irritating a spirited horse in the sensitive part, they had
no security against his kicks.[151] Accordingly, they resorted to
many circumlocutory and equivocal expressions, so as to soften
the offence given. But the effect was not the less produced, of
disgusting Dionysius with his velleities towards political good.
Not only did Plato decline entering upon political recommendations
of his own, but he damped, instead of enforcing, the positive good
resolutions which Dion had already succeeded in infusing. Dionysius
announced freely, in the presence of Plato, his wish and intention to
transform his despotism at Syracuse into a limited kingship, and to
replant the dis-hellenised cities in Sicily. These were the two grand
points to which Dion had been laboring so generously to bring him,
and which he had invoked Plato for the express purpose of seconding.
Yet what does Plato say when this momentous announcement is made?
Instead of bestowing any praise or encouragement, he drily remarks to
Dionysius,—“First go through your schooling, and then do all these
things; otherwise leave them undone.”[152] Dionysius afterwards
complained, and with good show of reason (when Dion was in exile,
menacing attack upon Syracuse, under the favorable sympathies
of Plato), that the great philosopher had actually deterred him
(Dionysius) from executing the same capital improvements which he
was now encouraging Dion to accomplish by an armed invasion. Plato
was keenly sensitive to this reproach afterwards; but even his own
exculpation proves it to have been in the main not undeserved.
[151] Horat. Satir. ii. 1, 17.
“Haud mihi deero
Cum res ipsa feret. Nisi dextro tempore, Flacci
Verba per attentam non ibunt Cæsaris aurem.
Cui male si palpere, recalcitrat undique tutus.”
[152] Plato, Epist. iii. 315 E. Φάσι δὲ οὐκ ὀλίγοι λέγειν σε πρός
τινας τῶν παρά σε πρεσβευόντων, ὡς ἄρα σοῦ ποτὲ λέγοντος ἀκούσας
ἐγὼ μέλλοντος τάς τε Ἑλληνίδας πόλεις ἐν Σικελίᾳ οἰκίζειν, καὶ
Συρακουσίους ἐπικουφίσαι, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀντὶ τυραννίδος εἰς βασιλείαν
μεταστήσαντα, ~ταῦτ᾽ ἄρα σὲ μὲν τότε, ὡς σὺ φῇς, διεκώλυσα—νῦν δὲ
Δίωνα διδάσκοιμι δρᾷν αὐτὰ, καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῖς σοῖς τὴν σὴν
ἀρχὴν~ ἀφαιρούμεθά σε....
Ibid. p. 319 B. εἶπες δὲ καὶ μάλ᾽ ἀπλάστως γελῶν, εἰ μέμνημαι, ὡς
~Παιδευθέντα με ἐκέλευες ποιεῖν πάντα ταῦτα, ἢ μὴ ποιεῖν. Ἔφην
ἐγὼ Κάλλιστα μνημονεῦσαί σε~.
Cornelius Nepos (Dion, c. 3) gives to Plato the credit, which
belongs altogether to Dion, of having inspired Dionysius with
these ideas.
Plutarch observes that Plato felt a proud consciousness of
philosophical dignity in disdaining respect to persons, and in
refusing to the defects of Dionysius any greater measure of
indulgence than he would have shown to an ordinary pupil of the
Academy.[153] If we allow him credit for a sentiment in itself
honorable, it can only be at the expense of his fitness for dealing
with practical life; by admitting (to quote a remarkable phrase from
one of his own dialogues) that “he tried to deal with individual men
without knowing those rules of art or practice which bear on human
affairs.[154]” Dionysius was not a common pupil, nor could Plato
reasonably expect the like unmeasured docility from one for whose
ear so many hostile influences were competing. Nor were Plato and
Dionysius the only parties concerned. There was, besides, in the
first place, Dion, whose whole position was at stake—next, and of
yet greater moment, the relief of the people of Syracuse and Sicily.
For them, and on their behalf, Dion had been laboring with such
zeal, that he had inspired Dionysius with readiness to execute the
two best resolves which the situation admitted; resolves not only
pregnant with benefit to the people, but also insuring the position
of Dion—since if Dionysius had once entered upon this course of
policy, Dion would have been essential to him as an auxiliary and man
of execution.
[153] Plutarch, De Adulator, et Amici Discrimine, p. 52 E. We
may set against this, however, a passage in one of the other
treatises of Plutarch (Philosophand. cum Principibus, p. 779 _ad
finem_), in which he observes, that Plato, coming to Sicily with
the hope of converting his political doctrines into laws through
the agency of Dionysius, found the latter already corrupted by
power, unsusceptible of cure, and deaf to admonition.
[154] Plato, Phædon, c. 88. p. 89 D. Οὐκοῦν αἰσχρόν; καὶ δῆλον,
ὅτι ἄνευ τέχνης τῆς περὶ τἀνθρώπεια ὁ τοιοῦτος χρῆσθαι ἐπιχειρεῖ
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις;
He is expounding the causes and growth of misanthropic
dispositions; one of the most striking passages in his dialogues.
It is by no means certain, indeed, that such schemes could have
been successfully realized, even with full sincerity on the part of
Dionysius, and the energy of Dion besides. With all governments, to
do evil is easy—to effect beneficial change, difficult; and with
a Grecian despot, this was true in a peculiar manner. Those great
mercenary forces and other instruments, which had been strong as
adamant for the oppressive rule of the elder Dionysius would have
been found hardly manageable, perhaps even obstructive, if his son
had tried to employ them for more liberal purposes. But still the
experiment would have been tried, with a fair chance of success—if
only Plato, during his short-lived spiritual authority at Syracuse,
had measured more accurately the practical influence which a
philosopher might reasonably hope to exercise over Dionysius. I make
these remarks upon him with sincere regret; but I am much mistaken if
he did not afterwards hear them in more poignant language from the
banished Dion, upon whom the consequences of the mistake mainly fell.
Speedily did the atmosphere at Syracuse become overclouded. The
conservative party—friends of the old despotism, with the veteran
Philistus at their head—played their game far better than that of the
reformers was played by Plato, or by Dion since the arrival of Plato.
Philistus saw that Dion, as the man of strong patriotic impulses and
of energetic execution, was the real enemy to be aimed at. He left no
effort untried to calumniate Dion, and to set Dionysius against him.
Whispers and misrepresentations from a thousand different quarters
beset the ear of Dionysius, alarming him with the idea that Dion was
usurping to himself the real authority in Syracuse, with the view
of ultimately handing it over to the children of Aristomachê, and
of reigning in their name. Plato had been brought thither (it was
said) as an agent in the conspiracy, for the purpose of winning over
Dionysius into idle speculations, enervating his active vigor, and
ultimately setting him aside; in order that all serious political
agency might fall into the hands of Dion.[155] These hostile
intrigues were no secret to Plato himself, who, even shortly after
his arrival, began to see evidence of their poisonous activity. He
tried sincerely to counterwork them;[156] but unfortunately the
language which he himself addressed to Dionysius was exactly such as
to give them the best chance of success. When Dionysius recounted to
Philistus or other courtiers, how Plato and Dion had humiliated him
in his own eyes, and told him that he was unworthy to govern until he
had undergone a thorough purification—he would be exhorted to resent
it as presumption and insult; and would be assured that it could only
arise from a design to dispossess him of his authority, in favor of
Dion, or perhaps of the children of Aristomachê with Dion as regent.
[155] Plutarch, Dion, c. 14, Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 C.
Ὁ δὲ (Dionysius) τοῖς διαβάλλουσι (ἐπίστευε) καὶ λέγουσιν ὡς
ἐπιβουλεύων τῇ τυραννίδι Δίων πράττοι πάντα ὅσα ἔπραττεν ἐν τῷ
τότε χρόνῳ, ἵνα ὁ μὲν (Dionysius) παιδείᾳ δὴ τὸν νοῦν κηληθεὶς
ἀμελοῖ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπιτρέψας ἐκείνῳ, ὁ δὲ (Dion) σφετερίσαιτο, καὶ
Διονύσιον ἐκβάλοι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς δόλῳ.
[156] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 329 C. ἐλθὼν δὲ, οὐ γὰρ δεῖ
μηκύνειν, εὗρον στάσεως τὰ περὶ Διονύσιον μεστὰ ξύμπαντα καὶ
διαβολῶν πρὸς τὴν τυραννίδα Δίωνος πέρι· ἤμυνον μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ὅσον
ἠδυνάμην, σμικρὰ δ᾽ οἷός τε ἦ, etc.
It must not be forgotten that there was a real foundation for
jealousy on the part of Dionysius towards Dion; who was not merely
superior to him in age, in dignity, and in ability, but also
personally haughty in his bearing, and rigid in his habits, while
Dionysius relished conviviality and enjoyments. At first, this
jealousy was prevented from breaking out—partly by the consciousness
of Dionysius that he needed some one to lean upon—partly by what
seems to have been great self-command on the part of Dion, and great
care to carry with him the real mind and good will of Dionysius.
Even from the beginning, the enemies of Dion were doubtless not
sparing in their calumnies, to alienate Dionysius from him; and the
wonder only is, how, in spite of such intrigues and in spite of the
natural causes of jealousy, Dion could have implanted his political
aspirations, and maintained his friendly influence over Dionysius
until the arrival of Plato. After that event, the natural causes of
antipathy tended to manifest themselves more and more powerfully,
while the counteracting circumstances all disappeared.
Three important months thus passed away, during which those precious
public inclinations, which Plato found instilled by Dion into the
bosom of Dionysius, and which he might have fanned into life and
action—to liberalize the government of Syracuse, and to restore the
other free Grecian cities—disappeared never to return. In place
of them, Dionysius imbibed an antipathy, more and more rancorous,
against the friend and relative with whom these sentiments had
originated. The charges against Dion, of conspiracy and dangerous
designs, circulated by Philistus and his cabal, became more audacious
than ever. At length in the fourth month, Dionysius resolved to get
rid of him.
The proceedings of Dion being watched, a letter was detected which
he had written to the Carthaginian commanders in Sicily (with whom
the war still subsisted, though seemingly not in great activity),
inviting them, if they sent any proposition for peace to Syracuse, to
send it through him, as he would take care that it should be properly
discussed. I have already stated, that even in the reign of the
elder Dionysius, Dion had been the person to whom the negotiations
with Carthage were habitually intrusted. Such a letter from him, as
far as we make out from the general description, implied nothing
like a treasonable purpose. But Dionysius, after taking counsel with
Philistus, resolved to make use of it as a final pretext. Inviting
Dion into the acropolis, under color of seeking to heal their growing
differences,—and beginning to enter into an amicable conversation,—he
conducted him unsuspectingly down to the adjacent harbor, where lay
moored, close in shore, a boat with the rowers aboard, ready for
starting. Dionysius then produced the intercepted letter, handed it
to Dion, and accused him to his face of treason. The latter protested
against the imputation, and eagerly sought to reply. But Dionysius
stopped him from proceeding, insisted on his going aboard the boat,
and ordered the rowers to carry him off forthwith to Italy.[157]
[157] The story is found in Plutarch (Dion, c. 14), who refers
to Timæus as his authority. It is confirmed in the main by
Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 329 D. μηνὶ δὴ σχεδὸν ἴσως τετάρτῳ Δίωνα
Διονύσιος, αἰτιώμενος ἐπιβουλεύειν τῇ τυραννίδι, σμικρὸν εἰς
πλοῖον ἐμβιβάσας, ἐξέβαλεν ἀτίμως.
Diodorus (xvi. 6) states that Dionysius sought to put Dion to
death, and that he only escaped by flight. But the version of
Plato and Plutarch is to be preferred.
Justin (xxi. 1, 2) gives an account, different from all, of the
reign and proceedings of the younger Dionysius. I cannot imagine
what authority he followed. He does not even name Dion.
This abrupt and ignominious expulsion, of so great a person as Dion,
caused as much consternation among his numerous friends, as triumph
to Philistus and the partisans of the despotism. All consummation of
the liberal projects conceived by Dion was now out of the question;
not less from the incompetency of Dionysius to execute them alone,
than from his indisposition to any such attempt. Aristomachê the
sister, and Aretê the wife, of Dion (the latter half-sister of
Dionysius himself), gave vent to their sorrow and indignation;
while the political associates of Dion, and Plato beyond all
others, trembled for their own personal safety. Among the mercenary
soldiers, the name of Plato was particularly odious. Many persons
instigated Dionysius to kill him, and rumors even gained footing
that he had been killed, as the author of the whole confusion.[158]
But the despot, having sent away the person whom he most hated
and feared, was not disposed to do harm to any one else. While
he calmed the anxieties of Aretê by affirming that the departure
of her husband was not to be regarded as an exile, but only as a
temporary separation, to allow time for abating the animosity which
prevailed—he at the same time ordered two triremes to be fitted out,
for sending to Dion his slaves and valuable property, and everything
necessary to personal dignity as well as to his comfort. Towards
Plato—who was naturally agitated in the extreme, thinking only of
the readiest means to escape from so dangerous a situation—his
manifestations were yet more remarkable. He soothed the philosopher’s
apprehensions—entreated him to remain, in a manner gentle indeed but
admitting no denial—and conveyed him at once into his own residence
the acropolis, under color of doing him honor. From hence there
was no possibility of escaping, and Plato remained there for some
time. Dionysius treated him well, communicated with him freely and
intimately, and proclaimed everywhere that they were on the best
terms of friendship. What is yet more curious—he displayed the
greatest anxiety to obtain the esteem and approbation of the sage,
and to occupy a place in his mind higher than that accorded to Dion;
shrinking nevertheless from philosophy, or the Platonic treatment and
training, under the impression that there was a purpose to ensnare
and paralyze him, under the auspices of Dion.[159] This is a strange
account, given by Plato himself; but it reads like a real picture of
a vain and weak prince, admiring the philosopher—coquetting with him,
as it were—and anxious to captivate his approbation, so far as it
could be done without submitting to the genuine Platonic discipline.
[158] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 315 F.; Epist. vii. p. 329 D.; p.
340 A. Plutarch, Dion, c. 15.
[159] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 329, 330.
During this long and irksome detention, which probably made him fully
sensible of the comparative comforts of Athenian liberty, Plato
obtained from Dionysius one practical benefit. He prevailed upon
him to establish friendly and hospitable relations with Archytas
and the Tarentines, which to these latter was a real increase of
security and convenience.[160] But in the point which he strove
most earnestly to accomplish, he failed. Dionysius resisted all
entreaties for the recall of Dion. Finding himself at length occupied
with a war (whether the war with Carthage previously mentioned,
or some other, we do not know), he consented to let Plato depart;
agreeing to send for him again as soon as peace and leisure should
return, and promising to recall Dion at the same time; upon which
covenant, Plato, on his side, agreed to come back. After a certain
interval, peace arrived, and Dionysius re-invited Plato; yet without
recalling Dion—whom he required still to wait another year. But
Plato, appealing to the terms of the covenant, refused to go without
Dion. To himself personally, in spite of the celebrity which his
known influence with Dionysius tended to confer, the voyage was
nothing less than repugnant, for he had had sufficient experience of
Syracuse and its despotism. Nor would he even listen to the request
of Dion himself; who, partly in the view of promoting his own future
restoration, earnestly exhorted him to go. Dionysius besieged Plato
with solicitations to come,[161] promising that all which he might
insist upon in favor of Dion should be granted, and putting in motion
a second time Archytas and the Tarentines to prevail upon him. These
men, through their companion and friend Archedemus, who came to
Athens in a Syracusan trireme, assured Plato that Dionysius was now
ardent in the study of philosophy, and had even made considerable
progress in it. By their earnest entreaties, coupled with those of
Dion, Plato was at length induced to go to Syracuse. He was received,
as before, with signal tokens of honor. He was complimented with the
privilege, enjoyed by no one else, of approaching the despot without
having his person searched; and was affectionately welcomed by the
female relatives of Dion. Yet this visit, prolonged much beyond what
he himself wished, proved nothing but a second splendid captivity, as
the companion of Dionysius in the acropolis at Ortygia.[162]
[160] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 338 C.
[161] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 317 B. C.
[162] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 338-346; Plutarch, Dion, c. 19.
Æschines, the companion of Sokrates along with Plato, is said to
have passed a long time at Syracuse with Dionysius, until the
expulsion of that despot (Diogen. Laert. ii. 63).
Dionysius the philosopher obtained abundance of flatterers—as his
father Dionysius the poet had obtained before him—and was even
emboldened to proclaim himself as the son of Apollo.[163] It is
possible that even an impuissant embrace of philosophy, on the part
of so great a potentate, may have tended to exalt the reputation of
philosophers in the contemporary world. Otherwise the dabblings of
Dionysius would have merited no attention; though he seems to have
been really a man of some literary talent[164]—retaining to the end
a sincere admiration of Plato, and jealously pettish because he
could not prevail upon Plato to admire _him_. But the second visit
of Plato to him at Syracuse—very different from his first—presented
no chance of benefit to the people of Syracuse, and only deserves
notice as it bore upon the destiny of Dion. Here, unfortunately Plato
could accomplish nothing; though his zeal on behalf of his friend was
unwearied. Dionysius broke all his promises of kind dealing, became
more rancorous in his hatred, impatient of the respect which Dion
enjoyed even as an exile, and fearful of the revenge which he might
one day be able to exact.
[163] Plutarch, De Fortunâ Alex. Magn. p. 338 B. Δωρίδος ἐκ
μητρὸς Φοίβου κοινώμασι βλαστών.
[164] See a passage in Plato, Epistol. ii. p. 314 E.
When expelled from Syracuse, Dion had gone to Peloponnesus and
Athens, where he had continued for some years to receive regular
remittances of his property. But at length, even while Plato was
residing at Syracuse, Dionysius thought fit to withhold one half of
the property, on pretence of reserving it for Dion’s son. Presently
he took steps yet more violent, threw off all disguise, sold the
whole of Dion’s property, and appropriated or distributed among his
friends the large proceeds, not less than one hundred talents.[165]
Plato, who had the mortification to hear this intelligence while
in the palace of Dionysius, was full of grief and displeasure. He
implored permission to depart. But though the mind of Dionysius had
now been thoroughly set against him by the multiplied insinuations
of the calumniators,[166] it was not without difficulty and
tiresome solicitations that he obtained permission; chiefly through
the vehement remonstrances of Archytas and his companions, who
represented to the despot that they had brought him to Syracuse, and
that they were responsible for his safe return. The mercenaries of
Dionysius were indeed so ill-disposed to Plato, that considerable
precautions were required to bring him away in safety.[167]
[165] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318 A.; vii. p. 346, 347. Plutarch,
Dion, c. 15, 16.
[166] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 15—on the authority of Aristoxenus.
[167] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 A. B.
It was in the spring of 360 B. C. that the philosopher appears to
have returned to Peloponnesus from this, his second visit to the
younger Dionysius, and third visit to Syracuse. At the Olympic
festival of that year, he met Dion, to whom he recounted the recent
proceedings of Dionysius.[168] Incensed at the seizure of the
property, and hopeless of any permission to return, Dion was now
meditating enforcement of his restoration at the point of the sword.
But there occurred yet another insult on the part of Dionysius,
which infused a more deadly exasperation into the quarrel. Aretê,
wife of Dion and half-sister of Dionysius, had continued to reside
at Syracuse ever since the exile of her husband. She formed a
link between the two, the continuance of which Dionysius could no
longer tolerate, in his present hatred towards Dion. Accordingly
he took upon him to pronounce her divorced, and to remarry her,
in spite of her own decided repugnance, with one of his friends
named Timokrates.[169] To this he added another cruel injury, by
intentionally corrupting and brutalizing Dion’s eldest son, a youth
just reaching puberty.
[168] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 C. The return of Plato and his
first meeting with Dion is said to have excited considerable
sensation among the spectators at the festival (Diogenes Laert.
iii. 25).
The Olympic festival here alluded to, must be (I conceive) that
of 366 B. C.: the same also in Epistol. ii. p. 310 D.
[169] Plutarch, Dion, c. 21; Cornel. Nepos, Dion, c. 4.
Outraged thus in all the tenderest points, Dion took up with
passionate resolution the design of avenging himself on Dionysius,
and of emancipating Syracuse from despotism into liberty. During
the greater part of his exile he had resided at Athens, in the
house of his friend Kallippus, enjoying the society of Speusippus
and other philosophers of the Academy, and the teaching of Plato
himself when returned from Syracuse. Well supplied with money, and
strict as to his own personal wants, he was able largely to indulge
his liberal spirit towards many persons, and among the rest towards
Plato, whom he assisted towards the expense of a choric exhibition
at Athens.[170] Dion also visited Sparta and various other cities;
enjoying a high reputation, and doing himself credit everywhere; a
fact not unknown to Dionysius, and aggravating his displeasure. Yet
Dion was long not without hope that that displeasure would mitigate,
so as to allow of his return to Syracuse on friendly terms. Nor did
he cherish any purposes of hostility, until the last proceedings
with respect to his property and his wife at once cut off all hope
and awakened vindictive sentiments.[171] He began therefore to lay
a train for attacking Dionysius and enfranchising Syracuse by arms,
invoking the countenance of Plato; who gave his approbation, yet
not without mournful reserves; saying that he was now seventy years
of age—that though he admitted the just wrongs of Dion and the bad
conduct of Dionysius, armed conflict was nevertheless repugnant to
his feelings, and he could anticipate little good from it—that he
had labored long in vain to reconcile the two exasperated kinsmen,
and could not now labor for any opposite end.[172]
[170] Plutarch, Dion, c. 17; Athenæus, xi. p. 508. Plato appears
also to have received, when at Athens, pecuniary assistance
remitted by Dionysius from Syracuse, towards expenses of a
similar kind, as well as towards furnishing a dowry for certain
poor nieces. Dion and Dionysius had both aided him (Plato,
Epistol. xiii. p. 361).
An author named Onêtor affirmed that Dionysius had given to
Plato the prodigious sum of eighty talents; a story obviously
exaggerated (Diogenes Laert. iii. 9).
[171] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 F.
[172] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350. This is the account which
Plato gives _after_ the death of Dion, when affairs had taken
a disastrous turn, about the extent of his own interference in
the enterprise. But Dionysius supposed him to have been more
decided in his countenance of the expedition; and Plato’s letter
addressed to Dion himself, after the victory of the latter at
Syracuse, seems to bear out that supposition.
Compare Epistol. iii. p. 315 E.; iv. p. 320 A.
But though Plato was lukewarm, his friends and pupils at the
Academy cordially sympathized with Dion. Speusippus especially, the
intimate friend and relative, having accompanied Plato to Syracuse,
had communicated much with the population in the city, and gave
encouraging reports of their readiness to aid Dion, even if he came
with ever so small a force against Dionysius. Kallippus, with Eudemus
(the friend of Aristotle), Timonides, and Miltas—all three members
of the society at the Academy, and the last a prophet also—lent
him aid and embarked in his enterprise. There were a numerous body
of exiles from Syracuse, not less than one thousand altogether;
with most of whom Dion opened communication, inviting their
fellowship. He at the same time hired mercenary soldiers in small
bands, keeping his measures as secret as he could.[173] Alkimenes,
one of the leading Achæans in Peloponnesus, was warm in the cause
(probably from sympathy with the Achæan colony Kroton, then under
the dependence of Dionysius), conferring upon it additional dignity
by his name and presence. A considerable quantity of spare arms, of
every description, was got together, in order to supply new unarmed
partisans on reaching Sicily. With all these aids Dion found himself
in the island of Zakynthus, a little after Midsummer 357 B. C.;
mustering eight hundred soldiers of tried experience and bravery,
who had been directed to come thither silently and in small parties,
without being informed whither they were going. A little squadron was
prepared, of no more than five merchantmen, two of them vessels of
thirty oars, with victuals adequate to the direct passage across the
sea from Zakynthus to Syracuse; since the ordinary passage, across
from Korkyra and along the Tarentine Gulf was impracticable, in the
face of the maritime power of Dionysius.[174]
[173] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22. Eudemus was afterwards slain in one
of the combats at Syracuse (Aristotle apud Ciceron. Tusc. Disp.
i. 25, 53).
[174] Plutarch, Dion, c. 23-25.
Such was the contemptible force with which Dion ventured to attack
the greatest of all Grecian potentates in his own stronghold and
island. Dionysius had now reigned as despot at Syracuse between ten
and eleven years. Inferior as he personally was to his father, it
does not seem that the Syracusan power had yet materially declined
in his hands. We know little about the political facts of his reign;
but the veteran Philistus, his chief adviser and officer, appears
to have kept together the larger part of the great means bequeathed
by the elder Dionysius. The disparity of force, therefore, between
the assailant and the party assailed, was altogether extravagant.
To Dion, personally, indeed, such disparity was a matter of
indifference. To a man of his enthusiastic temperament, so great was
the heroism and sublimity of the enterprise,—combining liberation
of his country from a despot, with revenge for gross outrages to
himself,—that he was satisfied if he could only land in Sicily with
no matter how small a force, accounting it honor enough to perish in
such a cause.[175] Such was the emphatic language of Dion, reported
to us by Aristotle; who (being then among the pupils of Plato) may
probably have heard it with his own ears. To impartial contemporary
spectators, like Demosthenes, the attempt seemed hopeless.[176]
[175] Aristotel. Politic. v. 8, 17.
[176] See Orat. adv. Leptinem, s. 179. p. 506: an oration
delivered about two years afterwards; not long after the victory
of Dion.
Compare Diodor. xvi. 9; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2.
But the intelligent men of the Academy who accompanied Dion, would
not have thrown their lives away in contemplation of a glorious
martyrdom; nor were either they or he ignorant, that there existed
circumstances, not striking the eye of the ordinary spectator, which
materially weakened the great apparent security of Dionysius.
First, there was the pronounced and almost unanimous discontent
of the people of Syracuse. Though prohibited from all public
manifestations, they had been greatly agitated by the original
project of Dion to grant liberty to the city—by the inclinations
even of Dionysius himself towards the same end, so soon unhappily
extinguished—by the dissembling language of Dionysius, the great
position of Dion’s wife and sister, and the second coming of Plato,
all of which favored the hope that Dion might be amicably recalled.
At length such chance disappeared, when his property was confiscated
and his wife re-married to another. But as his energetic character
was well known, the Syracusans now both confidently expected, and
ardently wished, that he would return by force, and help them to
put down one who was alike his enemy and theirs. Speusippus, having
accompanied Plato to Syracuse and mingled much with the people,
brought back decisive testimonies of their disaffection towards
Dionysius, and of their eager longing for relief by the hands of
Dion. It would be sufficient (they said) if he even came alone;
they would flock around him, and arm him at once with an adequate
force.[177]
[177] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22. Speusippus, from Athens,
corresponded both with Dion and with Dionysius at Syracuse; at
least there was a correspondence between them, read as genuine by
Diogenes Laertius (iv. 1, 2, 5).
There were doubtless many other messages of similar tenor sent to
Peloponnesus; and one Syracusan exile, Herakleides, was in himself a
considerable force. Though a friend of Dion,[178] he had continued
high in the service of Dionysius, until the second visit of Plato. At
that time he was disgraced, and obliged to save his life by flight,
on account of a mutiny among the mercenary troops, or rather of the
veteran soldiers among them, whose pay Dionysius had cut down. The
men so curtailed rose in arms, demanding continuance of the old
pay; and when Dionysius shut the gates of the acropolis, refusing
attention to their requisitions, they raised the furious barbaric
pæan or war shout, and rushed up to scale the walls.[179] Terrible
were the voices of these Gauls, Iberians, and Campanians, in the ears
of Plato, who knew himself to be the object of their hatred, and who
happened to be then in the garden of the acropolis. But Dionysius,
no less terrified than Plato, appeased the mutiny, by conceding all
that was asked, and even more. The blame of this misadventure was
thrown upon Herakleides, towards whom Dionysius conducted himself
with mingled injustice and treachery—according to the judgment both
of Plato and of all around him.[180] As an exile, he brought word
that Dionysius could not even rely upon the mercenary troops, whom
he treated with a parsimony the more revolting as they contrasted it
with the munificence of his father.[181] Herakleides was eager to
coöperate in putting down the despotism at Syracuse. But he waited
to equip a squadron of triremes, and was not ready so soon as Dion;
perhaps intentionally, as the jealousy between the two soon broke
out.[182]
[178] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318 C.
[179] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 348 B. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐφέροντο εὐθὺς πρὸς
τὰ τείχη, παιῶνά τινα ἀναβοήσαντες βάρβαρον καὶ πολεμικόν· οὗ δὴ
περιδεὴς Διονύσιος γενόμενος, etc.
[180] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318; vii. p. 348, 349.
[181] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 348 A. ... ἐπεχείρησεν
ὀλιγομισθοτέρους ποιεῖν ~παρὰ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔθη~, etc.
[182] Plutarch, Dion, c. 32; Diodor. xvi. 6-16.
The second source of weakness to Dionysius lay in his own character
and habits. The commanding energy of the father, far from being
of service to the son, had been combined with a jealousy which
intentionally kept him down, and cramped his growth. He had always
been weak, petty, destitute of courage or foresight, and unfit for
a position like that which his father had acquired and maintained.
His personal incompetency was recognized by all, and would probably
have manifested itself even more conspicuously, had he not found a
minister of so much ability, and so much devotion to the dynasty,
as Philistus. But in addition to such known incompetency, he had
contracted recently habits which inspired every one around him with
contempt. He was perpetually intoxicated and plunged in dissipation.
To put down such a chief, even though surrounded by walls, soldiers,
and armed ships, appeared to Dion and his confidential companions an
enterprise noway impracticable.[183]
[183] Aristotel. Politic. v. 8, 14; Plutarch, Dion, c. 7. These
habits must have probably grown upon him since the second
departure of Plato, who does not notice them in his letters.
Nevertheless, these causes of weakness were known only to close
observers; while the great military force of Syracuse was obvious
to the eyes of every one. When the soldiers, mustered by Dion at
Zakynthus, were first informed that they were destined to strike
straight across the sea against Syracuse, they shrank from the
proposition as an act of insanity. They complained of their leaders
for not having before told them what was projected; just as the
Ten Thousand Greeks in the army of Cyrus, on reaching Tarsus,
complained of Klearchus for having kept back the fact that they were
marching against the Great King. It required all the eloquence of
Dion, with his advanced age,[184] his dignified presence, and the
quantity of gold and silver plate in his possession, to remove their
apprehensions. How widely these apprehensions were felt, is shown by
the circumstance, that out of one thousand Syracusan exiles, only
twenty-five or thirty dared to join him.[185]
[184] Plutarch, Dion, c. 23. ἀνὴρ παρηκμακὼς ἤδη, etc.
[185] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22; Diodor. xvi. 10.
After a magnificent sacrifice to Apollo, and an ample banquet to
the soldiers in the stadium at Zakynthus, Dion gave orders for
embarkation in the ensuing morning. On that very night the moon was
eclipsed. We have already seen what disastrous consequences turned
upon the occurrence of this same phænomenon fifty-six years before,
when Nikias was about to conduct the defeated Athenian fleet away
from the harbor of Syracuse.[186] Under the existing apprehensions
of Dion’s band, the eclipse might well have induced them to renounce
the enterprise; and so it probably would, under a general like
Nikias. But Dion had learnt astronomy; and what was of not less
consequence, Miltas, the prophet of the expedition, besides his gift
of prophecy, had received instruction in the Academy also. When the
affrighted soldiers inquired what new resolution was to be adopted
in consequence of so grave a sign from the gods, Miltas arose and
assured them that they had mistaken the import of the sign, which
promised them good fortune and victory. By the eclipse of the moon,
the gods intimated that something very brilliant was about to be
darkened over: now there was nothing in Greece so brilliant as the
despotism of Dionysius at Syracuse; it was Dionysius who was about
to suffer eclipse, to be brought on by the victory of Dion.[187]
Reassured by such consoling words the soldiers got on board. They had
good reason at first to believe that the favor of the gods waited
upon them, for a gentle and steady Etesian breeze carried them across
midsea without accident or suffering, in twelve days, from Zakynthus
to Cape Pachynus, the south-eastern corner of Sicily and nearest to
Syracuse. The pilot Protus, who had steered the course so as exactly
to hit the cape, urgently recommended immediate disembarkation,
without going farther along the south-western coast of the island;
since stormy weather was commencing, which might hinder the fleet
from keeping near the shore. But Dion was afraid of landing so near
to the main force of the enemy. Accordingly, the squadron proceeded
onward, but were driven by a violent wind away from Sicily towards
the coast of Africa, narrowly escaping shipwreck. It was not without
considerable hardship and danger that they got back to Sicily,
after five days; touching the island at Herakleia Minoa westward
of Agrigentum, within the Carthaginian supremacy. The Carthaginian
governor of Minoa, Synalus (perhaps a Greek in the service of
Carthage), was a personal acquaintance of Dion, and received him
with all possible kindness; though knowing nothing beforehand of his
approach, and at first resisting his landing through ignorance.
[186] Thucyd. vii. 50. See Volume VII. of this History, Chap. lx.
p. 314.
[187] Plutarch, Dion, c. 24.
Thus was Dion, after ten years of exile, once more on Sicilian
ground. The favorable predictions of Miltas had been completely
realized. But even that prophet could hardly have been prepared for
the wonderful tidings now heard, which ensured the success of the
expedition. Dionysius had recently sailed from Syracuse to Italy,
with a fleet of eighty triremes.[188] What induced him to commit so
capital a mistake, we cannot make out; for Philistus was already
with a fleet in the Gulf of Tarentum, waiting to intercept Dion,
and supposing that the invading squadron would naturally sail along
the coast of Italy to Syracuse, according to the practice almost
universal in that day.[189] Philistus did not commit the same mistake
as Nikias had made in reference to Gylippus,[190]—that of despising
Dion because of the smallness of his force. He watched in the usual
waters, and was only disappointed because Dion, venturing on the bold
and unusual straight course, was greatly favored by wind and weather.
But while Philistus watched the coast of Italy, it was natural that
Dionysius himself should keep guard with his main force at Syracuse.
The despot was fully aware of the disaffection which reigned in the
town, and of the hopes excited by Dion’s project; which was generally
well known, though no one could tell how or at what moment the
deliverer might be expected. Suspicious now to a greater degree than
ever, Dionysius had caused a fresh search to be made in the city for
arms, and had taken away all that he could find.[191] We may be sure
too that his regiment of habitual spies were more on the alert than
ever, and that unusual rigor was the order of the day. Yet, at this
critical juncture, he thought proper to quit Syracuse with a very
large portion of his force, leaving the command to Timokrates, the
husband of Dion’s late wife; and at this same critical juncture Dion
arrived at Minoa.
[188] Plutarch, Dion, c. 26; Diodor. xvi. 10, 11.
[189] Plutarch, Dion, c. 25.
[190] Thucyd. vi. 104.
[191] Diodor. xvi. 10.
Nothing could exceed the joy of the Dionian soldiers on hearing of
the departure of Dionysius, which left Syracuse open and easy of
access. Eager to avail themselves of the favorable instant, they
called upon their leader to march thither without delay, repudiating
even that measure of rest which he recommended after the fatigues of
the voyage. Accordingly, Dion, after a short refreshment provided
by Synalus—with whom he deposited his spare arms, to be transmitted
to him when required—set forward on his march towards Syracuse. On
entering the Agrigentine territory, he was joined by two hundred
horsemen near Eknomon.[192] Farther on, while passing through Gela
and Kamarina, many inhabitants of these towns, together with some
neighboring Sikans and Sikels, swelled his band. Lastly, when he
approached the Syracusan border, a considerable proportion of the
rural population came to him also, though without arms; making the
reinforcements which joined him altogether about five thousand
men.[193] Having armed these volunteers in the best manner he could,
Dion continued his progress as far as Akræ, where he made a short
evening halt. From thence, receiving good news from Syracuse, he
recommenced his march during the latter half of the night, hastening
forward to the passage over the river Anapus; which he had the good
fortune to occupy without any opposition, before daybreak.
[192] Plutarch, Dion, c. 26, 27; Diodor. xvi. 9.
[193] Plutarch, (Dion, c. 27) gives the numbers who joined him at
about five thousand men, which is very credible. Diodorus gives
the number exaggerated, at twenty thousand (xvi. 9).
Dion was now within no more than a mile and a quarter of the walls
of Syracuse. The rising sun disclosed his army to the view of the
Syracusan population, who were doubtless impatiently watching for
him. He was seen offering sacrifice to the river Anapus, and putting
up a solemn prayer to the god Helios, then just showing himself
above the horizon. He wore the wreath habitual with those who
were thus employed; while his soldiers, animated by the confident
encouragement of the prophets, had taken wreaths also.[194] Elate and
enthusiastic, they passed the Anapus (seemingly at the bridge which
formed part of the Helorine way), advanced at a running pace across
the low plain which divided the southern cliff of Epipolæ from the
Great Harbor, and approached the gates of the quarter of Syracuse
called Neapolis—the Temenitid Gates, near the chapel of Apollo
Temenites.[195] Dion was at their head, in resplendent armor, with a
body-guard near him composed of one hundred of his Peloponnesians.
His brother Megaklês was on one side of him, his friend the Athenian
Kallippus on the other; all three, and a large proportion of the
soldiers also, still crowned with their sacrificial wreaths, as
if marching in a joyous festival procession, with victory already
assured.[196]
[194] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27. These picturesque details about the
march of Dion are the more worthy of notice, as Plutarch had
before him the narrative of Timonides, a companion of Dion, and
actually engaged in the expedition. Timonides wrote an account
of what passed to Speusippus at Athens, doubtless for the
information of Plato and their friends in the Academy (Plutarch,
Dion, c. 31-35).
Diogenes Laertius mentions also a person named _Simonides_ who
wrote to Speusippus, τὰς ἱστορίας ἐν αἷς κατατετάχει τὰς πράξεις
Δίωνός τε καὶ Βίωνος (iv. 1, 5). Probably _Simonides_ may be a
misnomer for _Timonides_.
Arrian, the author of the Anabasis of Alexander, had written
narratives of the exploits both of Dion and Timoleon.
Unfortunately these have not been preserved; indeed Photius
himself seems never to have seen them (Photius, Codex, 92).
[195] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29. Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Δίων κατὰ τὰς
Μενιτίδας πύλας, etc.
Most of the best critics here concur in thinking, that the
reading ought to be τὰς ~Τεμενιτίδας~ πύλας. The statue and
sacred ground of Apollo Temenites was the most remarkable feature
in this portion of Syracuse, and would naturally be selected to
furnish a name for the gates. No meaning can be assigned for the
phrase Μενιτίδας.
[196] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27, 28, 29. Diodorus (xvi. 10)
also mentions the striking fact of the wreaths worn by this
approaching army.
As yet Dion had not met with the smallest resistance. Timokrates
(left at Syracuse with the large mercenary force as vicegerent),
while he sent an express to apprise Dionysius, kept his chief hold
on the two military positions or horns of the city; the island of
Ortygia at one extremity, and Epipolæ with Euryalus on the other. It
has already been mentioned that Epipolæ was a triangle slope, with
walls bordering both the northern and southern cliffs, and forming an
angle on the western apex, where stood the strong fort of Euryalus.
Between Ortygia and Epipolæ lay the populous quarters of Syracuse,
wherein the great body of citizens resided. As the disaffection of
the Syracusans was well known, Timokrates thought it unsafe to go out
of the city, and meet Dion on the road, for fear of revolt within.
But he perhaps might have occupied the important bridge over the
Anapus, had not a report reached him that Dion was directing his
attack first against Leontini. Many of the Campanian mercenaries
under the command of Timokrates, having properties in Leontini,
immediately quitted Epipolæ to go thither and defend them.[197] This
rumor—false, and perhaps intentionally spread by the invaders—not
only carried off much of the garrison elsewhere, but also misled
Timokrates; insomuch that Dion was allowed to make his night march,
to reach the Anapus, and to find it unoccupied.
[197] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27.
It was too late for Timokrates to resist, when the rising sun had
once exhibited the army of Dion crossing the Anapus. The effect
produced upon the Syracusans in the populous quarters was electric.
They rose like one man to welcome their deliverer, and to put down
the dynasty which had hung about their necks for forty-eight years.
Such of the mercenaries of Dionysius as were in these central
portions of the city were forced to seek shelter in Epipolæ, while
his police and spies were pursued and seized, to undergo the full
terrors of a popular vengeance.[198] Far from being able to go
forth against Dion, Timokrates could not even curb the internal
insurrection. So thoroughly was he intimidated by the reports of his
terrified police, and by the violent and unanimous burst of wrath
among a people whom every Dionysian partisan had long been accustomed
to treat as disarmed slaves—that he did not think himself safe even
in Epipolæ. But he could not find means of getting to Ortygia, since
the intermediate city was in the hands of his enemies, while Dion
and his troops were crossing the low plain between Epipolæ and the
Great Harbor. It only remained for him therefore to evacuate Syracuse
altogether, and to escape from Epipolæ either by the northern or
the western side. To justify his hasty flight, he spread the most
terrific reports respecting the army of Dion, and thus contributed
still farther to paralyze the discouraged partisans of Dionysius.[199]
[198] Plutarch, De Curiositate, p. 523 A.
[199] Plutarch, Dion. c. 28; Diodor. xvi. 10.