2. A Syracusan, son of Archonides or Archomenides (Suid. v. Dion, 35.) It seems also probable that he was considerably
older than Dionysius. The first occasion on which we hear of his appearance in public life was
after the capture of Agrigentum by the Carthaginians in de Exil. p. 605d. speaks of him as spending the period
of his exile in Epeirus.) But he always bore his exile with impatience, and is accused both of
indulging in abject lamentations over his hard fate and fallen fortunes, and of base and
unworthy flattery towards Dionysius, in hopes of conciliating the tyrant, and thus obtaining
his recal. (Dion, 3; Pseud. Plat. Ep. 3. p. 671.) From this
time the influence of Philistus became paramount at the court of Dionysius, but he was
unfortunately absent from Sicily, in the command of a fleet in the Adriatic, when Dion first
landed in the island, and made himself master of Syracuse, Chil 10.358 ; Suid.
s. v.
It is perhaps too much to represent Philistus, as has been done by some writers of
antiquity, as a man naturally disposed in favour of absolute power ("hominem amicum non magis
tyranno quam tyrannidi," says Cornelius Nepos, Dion, 3); but it is clear
that he was desirous to uphold by every means a despotism under the favour of which he enjoyed
wealth and power, and had the opportunity of indulging his natural taste for luxury and
magnificence. There seems no doubt that he possessed very considerable talents of a practical
as well as literary kind, but he wholly wanted the lofty and generous spirit which should
animate the citizen of a free republic : and this character was reflected in his writings,
which presented a marked contrast to those of Thucydides in their spirit and sentiments,
notwithstanding a close imitation in style. (de Vett. Script. p. 427, Ep. ad Pomp. p.
780, ed. Reiske.)
In regard to the writings of Philistus much confusion has been caused by a passage of
Suidas (v. PHILISCUS, the pupil of Isocrates, and has in
consequence attributed to him various rhetorical works, which may unquestionably be assigned
to the latter. The statement that the historian Philistus was also a pupil of Isocrates, is
derived solely from a passage in Cicero (Philiscus :
for Cicero himself has in another passage distinctly mentioned Philistus in opposition to
the pupils of Isocrates, Theopompus, and Ephorus. On chronological grounds also it seems
impossible to admit the assertion. Suidas, on the contrary, calls him a pupil of Evenus, an
elegiac poet, but this also seems to be a mistake (Goeller, de Situ
Syrac. pp. 108-118).
Suidas also enumerates several historical works, especially a history of Egypt, in 12
books, one of Phoenicia, and another of Libya and Syria; all which he expressly ascribes to
the author of the Sicilian history. But as no trace of any of these works is to be found in
any other authority, it has been reasonably doubted whether the whole statement is not
erroneous. (Wesseling, ad Diod. xiii. p. 615; Goeller, l.c. pp. 106, 124.) Some authors, however, have supposed that these writings are to
be attributed to a second Philistus, who was really a native of Naucratis in Egypt, which
would account also for the error of Suidas, who calls our historian Dict.
Crit. s. v. Plilist. not. C.) It is certain, however, that no mention is elsewhere
found of any other writer of the name of Philistus; nor does any ancient author except
Suidas allude to any work of his composition besides his celebrated Sicilian history.
Philistius' History of Sicily consisted of two portions, which might be regarded either as
two separate works, or as parts of one great whole, a circumstance which explains the
discrepancies in the statements of the number of books of which it was composed. The first
seven books comprised the general history of Sicily, commencing from the earliest times, and
ending with the capture of Agrigentum by the Carthaginians, Ant. Rom. 1.22; Progymn. p. 16.)
The second part, which formed a regular sequel to the first, contained the history of the
elder Dionysius in four books, and that of the younger in two : the latter was necessarily
imperfect, a circumstance which Dionysius of Halicarnassus absurdly ascribes to his desire
to imitate Thucydides. As it ended only five years after the accession of the younger
tyrant, it is probable that Philistus had not found time to continue it after his own return
from exile. (Ep. ad Pomp. p. 780, ed. Reiske; Suid. s.
v.
s. v.
de Situ Syrac.
pp. 125-132, who has carefully examined and reconciled the conflicting statements of ancient
authors, and given a clear idea of the arrangement and division of the work of
Philistus.)
In point of style Philistus is represented by the concurrent testimony of antiquity as
imitating and even closely resembling Thucydides, though still falling far short of his great
model. Cicero calls him "capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides." (ad Q. Fr. 2.13.) Quintilian also terms him (Inst. Or.
10.1.74) "imitator Thucydidis, et ut multo infirmior, ita aliquatenus lucidior." This
qualified praise is confirmed by the more elaborate judgment of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
who censures Philistus also for the unskilful arrangement of his subject, and the monotony
and want of art displayed in his ordinary narrative. (Ep. ad Pomp. 5, p.
779-782, de Vett. Script. p. 427.) Longinus, who cites him as
occasionally rising to sublimity, intimates at the same time that this was far from being the
general character of his composition. (De Subl. 40.) His conciseness
also led him not unfrequently into obscurity, though in a less degree than Thucydides; and
this defect led many persons to neglect his works even in the days of Cicero. (Ep. ad Pomp. p. 767); but his writings
seem to have been almost wholly neglected by the rhetoricians of a later period; and
Hermogenes (de Formis, p. 396) passes over his name in common with
Ephorus and Theopompus as wholly unworthy of attention. It is more remarkable that he does
not appear to have been included by the Alexandrian critics in their canon of historical
authors. (Creuzer, Historische Kunst d. Griechen, p. 225; Goeller, l.c. p. 134.) But the reputation that he enjoyed in Greece itself shortly
before that period is attested by the fact that his history was among the books selected by
Harpalus to send to Alexander in Upper Asia.
(
The gravest reproach to the character of Philistus as an historian is the charge brought
against him by many writers of antiquity that he had sought to palliate the tyrannical deeds
of Dionysius, and give a specious colour to his conduct in order to pave the way for his own
return from exile. Plutarch calls him a man eminently skilled in inventing specious pretences
and fair speeches to cloak unjust actions and evil dispositions. (Dion,
36.) He was severely reprehended on the same account by Timaeus. How far the history of
Dionysius transmitted to us by Diodorus is founded on the authority of Philistus it would be
interesting to ascertain ; but we have no means of doing so. It is probable, however, that
much of his narrative of the wars of Dionysius against the Carthaginians is derived from
Philistus, who was not only a contemporary but an eye-witness of the scenes which he
described, and sometimes an important actor in them. (Wesseling, ad
Diod. xiv. p. 675; Theon Progymn. p. 19 ; Arnold's Rome, vol. i. p. 466, not.)
The fragments of Philistus have been collected, and all the circumstances transmitted to us
concerning his life and writings fully examined and discussed by De Situ et Origine Syracusarum (8vo. Lips. 1818)Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, published by Didot at
Paris, 1841.