ABSTRACT
Dion is generally well regarded in ancient and modern coverage of Sicilian affairs in the fourth century BC. He was responsible for ending the rule of the younger Dionysius at Syracuse in 354/3 but was murdered soon afterwards, in the process, it is said, of introducing a system of government based along the lines advocated by Plato. The aim of the discussion that follows is not to retrace Dion’s career, but rather more specifically attempts to show just how misleading is the character portrayal of Dion in the narrative of Plutarch’s biography, and that, as a result of this false depiction, there is little or no historical basis in the claim that he was either a philosopher or a general. Why Plutarch, in other respects a cautious interpreter of his source material, should have been led astray by this ancient propaganda would be inexplicable, except that his admiration for Plato clouded his judgement. The result was that the foundation on which his narrative was constructed can be seen to be so unsound that this reveals once again the maxim: ancient biography should always be treated with considerable caution, even to the extent of disallowing its evidence in the reconstruction of events and personalities in the Greco-Roman world. Essentially this analysis becomes a source criticism, but by measuring the other historical evidence for Dion’s life and career, in particular from Diodorus, against the canon represented by Plutarch, an arguably fairer and more reliable picture emerges.
